Re: When is it justified to use deadly force in a defense?
- From: mike3 <mike4ty4@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:46:30 -0700
Looks like Nospam sent me a response on this one too. Got to reply by
Usenet as he has still not divulged his email address to me.
Anyway, to protect his privacy I will once again post my response
without quoting his email directly.
---
It seems once again I need to write up detailed papers for this
scenario,
and set up another webpage worth of details and history about all
the hypothetical/invented people involved in the scenario. I can
imagine
the hits on Google going through the roof talking about this website,
especially when everyone finds out what the purpose of it is!
At least though you also said it was somewhat less vague and
troublesome as the previous query about the mental hospital escape,
so maybe the papers and history wouldn't be so long...
One concern that you mention is how much the
legal process (trial, etc.) would actually *cost* for the shooter.
What
if the trial is too expensive for some reason (low income, lawyers
are charging insane amounts of cash, take your pick)? Also,
what would happen in the scenario where the trial could be
afforded (it seems all these questions actually give rise to
*different*
scenarios depending on their answer!)?
You next mention that what will happen to our hypothetical shooter
depends on the behavior of him relevant to the legal fiction of the
"reasonable person" "reasonably assessing" the use of deadly
force as compared to other options like getting away, non-lethal
or less-lethal things like tazers if they were available, etc. And
that this ultimately comes down to a judge/jury which means there
is no certain answer possible even with a really detailed history of
all
the people involved and hundreds or thousands of pages of
contrived papers.
Now, you also talked about how the defendant would prove the
facts in a trial if it *did* go to court. I would suppose he had
a surveillance camera or cameras in the house that
caught the shooting on tape.
You also asked about witnesses. If this happened in a sufficiently
isolated environment or perhaps at night (at least, until, people are
woken up by the sound of the gunshot), there might not be any
witnesses to the event. To me this would seem to not bode well
for our shooter here, now would it?
In addition you mentioned the possibility of alternatives to a trial
such as a plea offer for a lesser offense. What would a lesser
offense be, anyway?
---
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: When is it justified to use deadly force in a defense?
- Next by Date: Re: If you can wave some constitutional rights, can you wave them all?
- Previous by thread: Re: When is it justified to use deadly force in a defense?
- Next by thread: bar exam scores of judges compared to average?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
