Chicago hits the 1,000 homicide mark in a year

No, you're not getting it. When a murder defendant claims self defense, the jury has to figure out if that actually is true. The jury need to determine if the defendant was in imminent danger, whether they needed to use deadly force to protect themselves and whether or not they were the aggressor.

So, how does a jury figure that out? Obviously the defendant claims he was acting in self defense. Most the time, the only other person who was there is dead. Often times, all the jury really has to go on is the physical evidence. One of the main pieces of physical evidence is evidence about which party could have just walked away safely, which party chose to stay and fight or chose to pursue the other. In a non-SYG state, if the evidence shows that they could have just walked away, but instead they chose to stay and kill, then the jury concludes, logically, that they were not actually in imminent danger, didn't have to kill anybody to protect themselves, and most likely, that they were the aggressor. That logical conclusion is called the "duty to retreat."

Now, in practice, in a SYG state, the jury still actually tends to handle evidence that they could have just walked away the same way. How could you not? If somebody stands before you and claims that they were acting in self defense and it turns out that actually they were just choosing to kill somebody, then you aren't going to let them walk on a theory that you know is a lie, right?

But, in theory, what SYG aims to do is to negate the "duty to retreat", meaning that in theory juries are supposed to pretend they don't know that the person could have just walked away safely and instead chose to stay and kill somebody. So, when they can't consider that evidence- often the only evidence there is- what would they be left with? Just random guess?

Maybe what you're missing is that you're picturing it assuming that the murder defendant is the victim. The vast majority of murderers claim self defense. If you put together a list of 100 cases where the defendant claimed self defense, like 99 of those, you and I would both agree that the defendant was actually the aggressor. If you just killed somebody at random right now in cold blood and got arrested, as soon as you were with a lawyer, the lawyer would ask you if there were any witnesses, and if there were not, he would start working with you to get a story together for how you could pretend it was self defense. Juries can't just take people at their word that they acted in self defense because then anybody could just murder anybody they wanted and have no risk of prison. They have to be able to verify the claim of self defense, and figuring out if the shooter could have just walked away safely is one of the only ways they have to do that.

A lot of people perceive the SYG question as if it is a question of what should a person who is attacked be allowed to do to defend themselves. What self defense trials are really about is figuring out which one of the people was the one that got attacked and which one was the attacker. By the time a person is in court, the cops already concluded that he was the aggressor and the prosecutor agreed and the grand jury agreed. Just the fact that the defendant is alive and the other guy is dead pretty much proves that the defendant was in fact the aggressor. The scenario where somebody pulls a gun to murder somebody and somehow the murderer is the one who ends up dead before they pull the trigger- that's something that happens a lot in movies, but not so much in reality. The question isn't "what rights should innocent victims have to defend themselves?", the question is "how hard should it be to prove that the shooter was the aggressor?"

 

Thank god Texas is not a "duty to retreat" state.

 

Yeah, Texas pretty much is just trying to legalize murder outright. Luckily, the courts are basically ignoring the legislature on that and they do still lock up murderers there.

 

BS. I live in rural America, at least 20 minutes from help. I have no duty to retreat and can defend my property with deadly force should I so choose. Some of us don't carry a sign on our backs that says food. We don't see self defense as murder and never have. Stay in NYC counselor. The place suits you.
BTW Chiraq recorded its 34th confirmed kill of the month, most likely not a Republican. In the hood, I guess it makes Father's Day a little less complicated.

 

See, you're just missing the issue entirely. The question you're trying to answer is "what should the innocent victim of violence be allowed to do to the attacker?" If that really were the question, pretty much everybody would agree that the answer would be "whatever they want." And, in fact, in reality, when the cops show up and it is obvious that the shooter was acting in self defense, that's the end of the matter.

The policy question is not about what rights the innocent victim should have, it is about how courts can figure out whether the shooter was actually acting in self defense. The police show up, they find one person dead on the ground, shot, and the other person is holding a smoking gun. The shooter pretty much always claims they were acting in self defense. So, the real question is "what should the shooter need to be able to demonstrate to prove that he was in fact acting in self defense?" The same law will apply when the shooter was the attacker and when the shooter was in fact acting defensively. If you set that bar too low, then straight-up murderers will be allowed to walk. If you set that bar too high, then people actually acting in self defense will go to jail. SYG basically aims to push that bar as low as possible in order to prevent people acting in self defense from going to jail, but the side-effect of that is letting a lot of actual murderers go free.

Keep in mind that like 99% of people who assert self defense were actually the aggressor. By the time something goes to court, that means that the police are convinced that they were the aggressor, the prosecutor was convinced that they were the aggressor and the grand jury was convinced that they were the aggressor. Do all those people get it wrong sometimes? Yes, definitely. But far more often, the person asserting self defense is just doing it as a legal strategy to try to get away with murder or at least to delay the process by putting obstacles in the prosecutor's way.

 

The lack of prosecutions against CCW holders would set that theory on its head. The bottom line is this and really this. A prosecutor where you live is more likely to want the good actor ( defender ) dead than the bad actor. It's better for him/her in just about every way. There's no lawsuit only a simple prosecution without much fanfare. If its interracial, that even better because the media won't mention it. On the other hand, if the good actor survives and bad actor dies then he knows the city will have a lawsuit against the PD at the very least. If its interracial then that's very very bad. As an elected official in Democratically run city, he will pander to his voters and is more likely to prosecute you than not. It's in his best interest to do so. The good actors survival is a real problem to his career. I'll even give you an example. In a town just over the Detroit city limits, a White homeowner was convicted of murder after shooting and killing a drunken, drugged out Black woman, who had left the scene of an accident and was attempting to beat his door down. However, in Houston, a drunken Brit who was doing the same thing was shot and killed. There was a no-bill in that one. Also in Pasadena Tx, a man shot and killed two burglars during the day while looking after his neighbor's property. Again, a no-bill. We know what would have happened in NYC. Pitiful.

 

Doesn't sound like you followed what I posted. Give it another read.

 

Please, every thug who shoots another one is going to claim self defense. We're not talking about thug life here and you know it.

 

Right- every thug who shoots another thug claims self defense. Also, every thug who shoots a law abiding person claims self defense. SYG (if courts really followed it) would make it way easier for those thugs to get away with murder.

 

C'mon counselor you know what we're talking about here. I knew common sense was in short supply in NYC, but I didn't know it was extinct.

 

No, I do not know what you're talking about. I'm trying to explain this stuff to you and it doesn't seem like it is taking.

 

We could go back and forth here all day. I'll just put it this way. As a law abiding citizen who is in a place I have a right to be, I don't believe I should ever have to prove as part of my use of force that I didn't commit murder because I didn't walk away. If I ended up using deadly force in a situation it won't be because I chose to, it will be because the bad actor put me under imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.

As a law abiding citizen I don't believe I should have to explain why I didn't just leave. The bad actor should have to explain why the didn't just leave if they survive the encounter.

That being said, I also understand that TACTICALLY it is sometime smart to retreat if possible. Those who disagree with SYG laws tend to want potential victims to defend their actions, I don't agree with that.

 

Ok, so you're proposing one standard for "law abiding citizens" and another for "bad actors." How does the court know which one of those types it has before it, so it can know which standard to apply?

 

No counselor, I get it. Your food and I'm not. It's really that simple and luckily my state recognizes this fact.

 

I propose the standard for the bad actor is to not commit crimes against people or property, then this discussion becomes a moot point.
I propose that it isn't 2 standards especially since in states where SYG laws exist there isn't any problems, law abiding citizens generally speaking are readily identifiable by their actions and lack of criminal records and bad actors tend to lack both of those common traits.
I propose that the court would have no problems applying the proper application of the law to someone based on the proof or lack of proof that someone was put under imminent threat of death or great bodily harm and not have to concern themselves with "why didn't you just leave".

 

Those are market failures.

 

Geez, If I remember right market adjustments only last a few years at most, not generations. You're obviously insane or from another planet. But it really just sounds like another excuse for a welfare mom to get into my pocket for decades along with her progeny.

 

Pretty much anyone under 18 or goes to school is a market failure. If anything, a mother taking care of her child is a market failure because the child isn't paying for his fair share.

 

Wow, you certainly prove that liberalism is a mental illness. And I thought that Democrats say the kids are investment. Strange. BTW your statement is just Bat Schizer Crazy.

 

I'm not a liberal. I'm a moderate with collective Anarchist leanings who's just bored. So I'm making up a fun little argument saying that generational welfare is a good thing. It's not my actual opinion, I'm just bored right now.

 

If you're that bored, it's probably why they make porn. For guys like you. Have fun.

 

So you're proposing that we set one standard of self defense for people with criminal records and a different one for people with criminal records? That would obviously be profoundly unconstitutional, but even putting that aside, would that really make sense? So, for example, if an old guy has a drug charge from 20 years ago and hasn't been involved in anything like that for decades gets attacked by a hardened thug who just hasn't been caught yet, we assume that it is OK for the thug to kill the old guy if he sees fit? For example, if the old guy refuses to give the thug his wallet?

Remember, we don't know what happened between the two people. The only witness alive is usually the shooter, so he's free to say whatever he wants.

 

Lets see, T-bone, with a history of B&E's, assault and various drug offenses, gets his ticket punched by a load of 00 buck climbing into the window of a law abiding citizen. Yeah, I'd say that makes perfect sense. There's something called a track record.

 

You just aren't thinking in a way that makes sense in a court. This is a nation of laws, not a nation where a judge just like guesses that somebody seems like they're a bad apple and then applies different standards... You need a clear cut, objective, standard before something can be written into law.

Anyways, obviously lots of people without records commit murder, and lots of people with criminal records get murdered by others, so your standard doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

And, again, the approach you propose- basically just assuming guilt or innocence based on criminal record- is profoundly unconstitutional. It isn't even constitutional to mention that a defendant has a criminal record to a jury except in some unusual circumstances. Given how much the right talks about how much they love the Constitution, it always boggles my mind how willing they are to just totally discard its provisions when they feel like it.

 

And just what would that ratio be? There was a study about those who do commit murder. Most has a prior criminal record. It's like racial profiling, you're playing a % and it works. The guy who committed the murders in SC is another point. He fits the bill as a classic spree killer, we just don't have the means to identify them accurately or quickly. Not so much with the thug rats. BTW this guy was not a conservative, he was just bat shizer crazy. I don't see this guy walking into a 1% gang and filling out an application to be prospect. Even those guys have standards.