|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Fucking Guns
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Failing that, I'll go with the Merriam-Webster full definition which refers to " one that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent". Emphasis on acted on. A couple of other definitions also emphasised the passivity element of being a victim. It's something that happens to you, not something that you cause.
Yes. Someone who is choked to death is acted on. I can't see how you can define it otherwise. Whether or not they brought on that action through their own previous action matters not a jot. Choking is an action.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
2 instances! Wow, real proof of your statement.
Learnt to spell yet?
I considered explaining why this post has naught to do with the other, but you quite obviously do not have the mental faculty to process the explanation. I wish I believed in the power of prayer, because it is quite clear your clients need all they can get. I fervently hope your current mental state is a recent development, otherwise it is a harsh indictment of the ABA and the Australian legal system entire.
What explanation? You haven't given any so far of your making a general assertion, then attempting to support it with 2 instances.
Don't get me wrong. I'm very sorry for you. You've obviously had a shit-house education - witness your spelling. You agree that you have no idea of political theory, but still you're trying to push an argument which requires some understanding of law and government.
What ABA? The American Bar Association?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Give it a rest, Gee D. That's twice you've mentioned LilBuddha's spelling while having a glaring mistake in your own post. You don't start sentences with "2" rather than two. If we start getting pedantic about spelling and grammar I'll have to leave.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
What explanation? You haven't given any so far of your making a general assertion, then attempting to support it with 2 instances.
Actually, only one. But that you say two shows that you are too lazy to read and/or not able to comprehend.
quote:
Don't get me wrong. I'm very sorry for you. You've obviously had a shit-house education - witness your spelling.
Though there can be a link between spelling and education, it is not a strict link. What you are probably referring to are spelling variants or typos. Oh, typos. Have the grandchild who is typing your quill pen responses into the computer explain what typos are.
quote:
You agree that you have no idea of political theory, but still you're trying to push an argument which requires some understanding of law and government.
Actually, it does not. The argument I am making, the inequity of application of justice,* merely requires observation.
The lack of challenge makes trading insults with you incredibly boring, so continuing that is a waste. And since you make assertions without even reading entire posts, much less the links therein, summoning an effort to demonstrate my points is not worth even a minimal effort.
*A specific flavour of, in this instance.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Gee D, any idiot could see LIlB was introducing the " Holy Hell" story as a separate subject, so you are only giving cause for idiots to feel sorry for you.
Heere hav a fiw typos
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
lilBuddha, they are not typos, they are simple mis-spellings. Obviously your education was severely lacking - as was Kelly Alves (a surprise there, one I'd never have suspected).
My education was also lacking. I had not learned that if a white man kills a black man, the white man is automatically guilty of murder - getting the death penalty for his crime in those jurisdictions still barbaric enough to retain that.
[ 16. May 2016, 08:01: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wesley J
Silly Shipmate
# 6075
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
lilBuddha, they are not typos, they are simple mis-spellings. Obviously your education was severely lacking - as was Kelly Alves (a surprise there, one I'd never have suspected). [...]
Gee, honestly. You might find that there's an apostrophe missing after Kelly Alves, like so: Kelly Alves'.
--------------------
Be it as it may: Wesley J will stay. --- Euthanasia, that sounds good. An alpine neutral neighbourhood. Then back to Britain, all dressed in wood. Things were gonna get worse. (John Cooper Clarke)
Posts: 7354 | From: The Isles of Silly | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I find it rather redundant to refer to a surprise as something one hadn't suspected. Duh.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Gee D, get the fuck over yourself. You are so clearly and overwhelmingly lacking in almost - no, probably every - faculty that is required for public discourse that a box of angry wasps would be a better gift than seeing your gurning avatar on this thread.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Wesley J is correct - but the rest of you????
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
And why is an apostrophe being grafted onto Kelly's last name?
ETA: Never mind, I just figured it out.
[ 16. May 2016, 12:13: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Wesley J is correct - but the rest of you????
You should spell out two. You were incorrect twice, once in the body of your post and once while beginning a sentence, which is worse.
Two or 2?
Everyone but you knew that LilBuddha's "Holy Hell" post was separate from the Zimmerman argument. You would have been clued in about that if you had read my post where I suggested we put aside our Zimmerman fight to join together hating the "Holy Hell" man.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
My education was also lacking. I had not learned that if a white man kills a black man, the white man is automatically guilty of murder
Well, given that no one has proposed this in any way shape or form on this thread or any other thread relating to the Zimmerman case on this forum, it appears that you are reading what you wish into this. Not at all surprising given your interaction on this thread thus far.
If it will assuage your precious little feelings, I will allow that the the entire legal system is not completely fucked. Though your behaviour here is making that a difficult proposition to defend.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
lilBuddha still has not admitted the errors to which I referred; that bespeaks either ignorance or dishonesty. Use of a numeral instead of spelling out words is required here under the Uniform Procedure Rules and is therefore a common practice amongst lawyers.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
lilBuddha still has not admitted the errors to which I referred; that bespeaks either ignorance or dishonesty.
Spoken like an ignorant, incompetent or dishonest lawyer.
There are other explanations than those two(2,II,dhà,dos,deux,اثنان)*, but will it help pry your head out of your arse if I say Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa! I typed principal instead of principle! Oh, the horror!
quote:
Use of a numeral instead of spelling out words is required here under the Uniform Procedure Rules and is therefore a common practice amongst lawyers.
They are not required here which is where this discussion is taking place.
*All meaning two.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Well done at last! You could have saved everyone the boredom of reading your posts for the last few days. Now what you have to do is realise that while you may have reached a different conclusion, a properly constituted court, having heard all the evidence, decided that Zimmerman was not guilty.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Gee D: Now what you have to do is realise that while you may have reached a different conclusion, a properly constituted court, having heard all the evidence, decided that Zimmerman was not guilty.
What this tells me is how stupid and sickening the laws in this jurisdiction are.
[ 16. May 2016, 21:59: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
It is also the law here in Australia, as witness this decision from the High Court:
The question to be asked in the end is quite simple. It is whether the accused believed upon reasonable grounds that it was necessary in self-defence to do what he did. If he had that belief and there were reasonable grounds for it, or if the jury is left in reasonable doubt about the matter, then he is entitled to an acquittal. Stated in this form, the question is one of general application and is not limited to cases of homicide.
It used be the law in England (but may have since been changed, strange things have happened in the development of the law there over the last 50 years) and I'd imagine also in Canada and NZ. If someone is trying to strangle you and in defence you hit that person over the head with a bottle, why are you guilty of murder?
If an accused in NSW uses excessive force in self-defence, the old common law rule that that reduces the finding of guilty of murder to guilty of manslaughter has now been re-instated in the Crimes Act.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Gee D: It is also the law here in Australia, as witness this decision from the High Court:
Well, that's stupid also. A civilised law for self-defence also includes that the person claiming it must have done anything reasonable within his power to prevent a situation where self-defence was necessary.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The logic of the self-defence claim, especially when coupled with a stand your ground law, is that it would be relatively easy to set out to kill someone and get away with it. If (hypothetically) you wanted to kill someone, then go to Florida (or somewhere else with a stand your ground law) and find someone walking home on their own and approach them with a load of insults (maybe "hey! you moron! You can't even get the difference between 'principal' and 'principle' right!") and provoke them into attacking you, let them land the first punch so you have good physical evidence that you were being attacked and then draw your gun and blow them away.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Well done at last! You could have saved everyone the boredom of reading your posts for the last few days. Now what you have to do is realise that while you may have reached a different conclusion, a properly constituted court, having heard all the evidence, decided that Zimmerman was not guilty.
I've not said they didn't. If you read any of the thread, instead of getting your pedantic knickers in a wad about spelling, you would know this.
There can be more than one interpretation of the same evidence. Both can meet rational and legal requirement.
Also, laws & legal verdicts can be unjust. These are mainly what is under discussion here.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Gee D: It is also the law here in Australia, as witness this decision from the High Court:
Well, that's stupid also. A civilised law for self-defence also includes that the person claiming it must have done anything reasonable within his power to prevent a situation where self-defence was necessary.
The insistence on hindsight involved in your proposed rule is incredibly stupid.
Do you think that women ought to have done "reasonable" things to prevent themselves being raped, like not wearing "provocative" clothing? I bet you don't, but you're using the exact same logic.
[ 17. May 2016, 02:35: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
No, I don't think it needs hindsight. It just goes back to what a "reasonable person" may be expected to do.
So, X kills Y and claims self-defence, is a jury going to accept that claim?
The jury should (IMO, which is possibly different from what the law says) consider whether X deliberately and knowingly put himself into a situation where there was risk to his life, and whether he had any alternative. Which is a case of "would a reasonable person be a) expected to know that that situation was dangerous and b) be expected to know of other courses of action". As an extreme example, I doubt any jury would consider a self defence claim if a man dressed in a white sheet with conical hat walked into an all black neighbourhood and found himself assaulted.
The jury should (again IMO as above) also consider once a confrontation has begun whether a reasonable person might be expected to find a way to de-escalate the situation before reaching the point where X can reasonably be considered in fear of his life. That should include backing away, which is where a right to "stand your ground" is very unhelpful, because it's effectively saying that one needn't take the option of backing away from the confrontation.
It doesn't take hindsight. It does take the jury putting themselves in the position of X and asking whether based on what he knew or could reasonably be expected to know his actions were those of a reasonable person. And, of course, where the evidence is inconclusive then the jury should err on the side of caution and presume innocence.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Do you think that women ought to have done "reasonable" things to prevent themselves being raped, like not wearing "provocative" clothing? I bet you don't, but you're using the exact same logic.
You edited this in while I was responding to the first part of your post. And, it presents a powerful counter to what I just posted. Take my previous post as a work in progress while I try and determine whether I need to scrap or significantly modify it.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Gee D: It is also the law here in Australia, as witness this decision from the High Court:
Well, that's stupid also. A civilised law for self-defence also includes that the person claiming it must have done anything reasonable within his power to prevent a situation where self-defence was necessary.
The insistence on hindsight involved in your proposed rule is incredibly stupid.
Do you think that women ought to have done "reasonable" things to prevent themselves being raped, like not wearing "provocative" clothing? I bet you don't, but you're using the exact same logic.
I think LeRoc's phrasing might be less than ideal, but I agree with his general principle.
It is easy to describe scenarios where the person invoking self-defence could easily be participant in the escalation of violence to the point where deadly force felt necessary. The same cannot be said for rape.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Gee D: It is also the law here in Australia, as witness this decision from the High Court:
Well, that's stupid also. A civilised law for self-defence also includes that the person claiming it must have done anything reasonable within his power to prevent a situation where self-defence was necessary.
Does your opinion change in reading the last sentence of my post - that if resistance is necessary but excessive or disproportionate force is used, the finding should be guilty of manslaughter and not of murder?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
@orfeo: We've already been over this rather extensively a couple of months/years ago; I'm caught up in a couple of things at the moment and am not very inclined to do it again. I'm also at an obvious disadvantage since I'm not a lawyer. Suffice to say that I disagree with Florida's laws on self-defence, and I don't accept Gee D saying "the court cleared Zimmerman" as proof that he did nothing wrong according to my moral standards.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Do you think that women ought to have done "reasonable" things to prevent themselves being raped, like not wearing "provocative" clothing? I bet you don't, but you're using the exact same logic.
You edited this in while I was responding to the first part of your post. And, it presents a powerful counter to what I just posted. Take my previous post as a work in progress while I try and determine whether I need to scrap or significantly modify it.
OK, still a work in progress.
1. I think there needs to be a wider ranging discussion of reasonableness. I don't consider any "reasonable man" would be 'provoked' by what a woman wears to the extent of committing rape. He may find her attractive, may be aroused, may spend the evening trying to chat her up, may get home and jerk off in the shower ... but to force himself on her is an unreasonable response. No reasonable man would condone such a response.
In different circumstances, would a confrontational response be considered reasonable in a way that rape isn't reasonable? In my extreme example of a man in Klan get-up walking into a black neighbourhood, would anyone consider an aggressive, even violent, response from the young, black men who live there unreasonable? And, if that would be the actions of a reasonable person, at what point between there and the clearly unreasonable act of rape is the line between reasonable and unreasonable?
2. There is a question of intent. A woman dressing to go out to a party is not dressing with the intent of being raped. She may be dressing to be attractive to men, she may simply be dressing because she likes the way she looks in that dress. If she is raped then that was the result of some jerk responding unreasonably in response to her attire, that was not the intent of the way she dressed.
Going back to my Klan guy. That could not be interpreted as anything other than a deliberate act with the intent to provoke an aggressive response (whether we consider that response to be a reasonable or unreasonable action).
In the context of self-defence, it must be a lot harder to convince a jury that an action was self-defence if the assault being defended against was the result of a deliberate intent to provoke than when the assault is the result of unintended provokation. And, much easier if the response was unreasonable rather than reasonable.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Gee D: It is also the law here in Australia, as witness this decision from the High Court:
Well, that's stupid also. A civilised law for self-defence also includes that the person claiming it must have done anything reasonable within his power to prevent a situation where self-defence was necessary.
The insistence on hindsight involved in your proposed rule is incredibly stupid.
Do you think that women ought to have done "reasonable" things to prevent themselves being raped, like not wearing "provocative" clothing? I bet you don't, but you're using the exact same logic.
I think LeRoc's phrasing might be less than ideal, but I agree with his general principle.
It is easy to describe scenarios where the person invoking self-defence could easily be participant in the escalation of violence to the point where deadly force felt necessary. The same cannot be said for rape.
You can bet your bottom dollar that someone has argued a woman participated in the escalation of sexual tension.
Fundamentally, it's an argument that runs along the lines of "it's your own fault you were attacked". In both cases.
Self-defence can only come up if there is some kind of evidence that you WERE attacked (which immediately gets rid of some the hypotheticals people fling around where someone merely says it was self-defence and there is no physical evidence to support that claim). So that's the territory we are in here: saying to people "okay, we accept that you were attacked, but somehow it is your own fault".
[ 17. May 2016, 05:09: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Self-defence ≠ rape.
For one thing, the roles of perpetrator and victim are reversed in the analogy you propose. That's a biggie.
In the earlier discussions we had about this, I cited examples from self-defence laws of various European countries which include the clause that the claimant should have taken reasonable measures to prevent the situation. There are no such clauses in these countries' laws about rape. I don't see why if there is a clause in a law about one thing, the clause also needs to be in a law about another subject.
Your analogy with rape is going nowhere.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
The law in England and Wales on self defence and the prevention of crime refers to reasonable force and good faith in deciding whether an action is self defence
quote:
However, it is important to ensure that all those acting reasonably and in good faith to defend themselves, their family, their property or in the prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders are not prosecuted for such action.
<snip>
When reviewing cases involving assertions of self-defence or action in the prevention of crime/preservation of property, prosecutors should be aware of the balance to be struck:
- the public interest in promoting a responsible contribution on the part of citizens in preserving law and order; and
- in discouraging vigilantism and the use of violence generally.
There is always the case of Tony Martin, a Norfolk farmer, who was jailed and served three years of an eight year sentence for shooting and killing a teenage burglar on his property.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Do you think that women ought to have done "reasonable" things to prevent themselves being raped, like not wearing "provocative" clothing? I bet you don't, but you're using the exact same logic.
You edited this in while I was responding to the first part of your post. And, it presents a powerful counter to what I just posted. Take my previous post as a work in progress while I try and determine whether I need to scrap or significantly modify it.
OK, still a work in progress.
1. I think there needs to be a wider ranging discussion of reasonableness. I don't consider any "reasonable man" would be 'provoked' by what a woman wears to the extent of committing rape. He may find her attractive, may be aroused, may spend the evening trying to chat her up, may get home and jerk off in the shower ... but to force himself on her is an unreasonable response. No reasonable man would condone such a response.
In different circumstances, would a confrontational response be considered reasonable in a way that rape isn't reasonable? In my extreme example of a man in Klan get-up walking into a black neighbourhood, would anyone consider an aggressive, even violent, response from the young, black men who live there unreasonable? And, if that would be the actions of a reasonable person, at what point between there and the clearly unreasonable act of rape is the line between reasonable and unreasonable?
2. There is a question of intent. A woman dressing to go out to a party is not dressing with the intent of being raped. She may be dressing to be attractive to men, she may simply be dressing because she likes the way she looks in that dress. If she is raped then that was the result of some jerk responding unreasonably in response to her attire, that was not the intent of the way she dressed.
Going back to my Klan guy. That could not be interpreted as anything other than a deliberate act with the intent to provoke an aggressive response (whether we consider that response to be a reasonable or unreasonable action).
In the context of self-defence, it must be a lot harder to convince a jury that an action was self-defence if the assault being defended against was the result of a deliberate intent to provoke than when the assault is the result of unintended provokation. And, much easier if the response was unreasonable rather than reasonable.
I think you need to tease out the difference between an attack being understandable and it being justified.
But more importantly, I think that you're heading down a direction that is focusing on whether the attacker would have a defence of provocation, and I'm not sure why that would be relevant to the case of the person who was attacked. It's a different person on trial.
Okay, so let's just take it as a given that there are situations where an attack IS "justified", whatever that means. Do you therefore lose your right to fight back? Because that's what self-defence is about as the law stands. Not about whether or not the person had reason to attack you, but about whether you fought back in an acceptable way.
A trial is between the person on trial and the State. Not between the two people involved in the fight. And I think you, like some other people, have fallen into the trap of thinking there has to be some zero sum game balancing which of the two people was in the right. If the attacker was sufficiently provoked, they'd have a defence of provocation if prosecuted by the State. I don't see why that should negate the ability of the other person to claim self-defence when prosecuted by the State.
There's no rule that one or the other of the two people ought to be jailed because they were in the wrong compared to the other person. That would work when one sues the other. It doesn't work in criminal law.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
In the earlier discussions we had about this, I cited examples from self-defence laws of various European countries which include the clause that the claimant should have taken reasonable measures to prevent the situation.
Sorry, but I don't recall you citing any such laws. I recall you citing your own moral code frequently. Maybe you did cite laws, but I don't recall it. So you'll have to cite them again.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
orfeo: Sorry, but I don't recall you citing any such laws. I recall you citing your own moral code frequently. Maybe you did cite laws, but I don't recall it. So you'll have to cite them again.
I don't have to do anything. In earlier discussions, I made the effort to look up the laws of at least three European countries, translating them into English for you. That you forgot about this tells more about you than about me.
The only thing you are doing is pulling a stupid analogy with rape out of your arse, which you can't make work.
[ 17. May 2016, 05:45: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Actually it's your claim that the roles of victim and perpetrator are reversed which is stupid. Really?
That's a damn wild generalisation, fuelled no doubt by a determination to have Zimmerman on the guilty side of the ledger. But have a think about every other person who has pleaded self-defence and who falls into your "did everything reasonable" category. Do you want to label them as perpetrators?
No? Well, come back to me when you've come up with something not so black and white. All credit to Alan, he is at least trying to develop something more coherent.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
orfeo, I just cited such a law, the law in England and Wales just above your last posts - we cross posted.
That is not such a law. It says you must act reasonably. It does not say you must do everything reasonable.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
@orfeo: We've already been over this rather extensively a couple of months/years ago; I'm caught up in a couple of things at the moment and am not very inclined to do it again. I'm also at an obvious disadvantage since I'm not a lawyer. Suffice to say that I disagree with Florida's laws on self-defence, and I don't accept Gee D saying "the court cleared Zimmerman" as proof that he did nothing wrong according to my moral standards.
I did not say that "the court cleared" Zimmerman. That is not the role of a court. I did say that the court found Zimmerman not guilty, which is the court's function. The jury found that the prosecution had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed a crime.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There is always the case of Tony Martin, a Norfolk farmer, who was jailed and served three years of an eight year sentence for shooting and killing a teenage burglar on his property.
I would consider Tony Martin to be poor example. He was convicted of murder, because he shot the two intruders in the back as they were fleeing. You can't claim self defence if the lad you kill is running away. Plus, his shot gun license had been revoked after opening fire on the vehicle of people he thought were scrumping, and the pump action gun he had would have been illegal anyway.
His conviction for murder was reduced to manslaughter on grounds of deminished responsibility, and nothing to do with any form of justification for his actions.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But more importantly, I think that you're heading down a direction that is focusing on whether the attacker would have a defence of provocation, and I'm not sure why that would be relevant to the case of the person who was attacked. It's a different person on trial.
Okay, so let's just take it as a given that there are situations where an attack IS "justified", whatever that means. Do you therefore lose your right to fight back? Because that's what self-defence is about as the law stands. Not about whether or not the person had reason to attack you, but about whether you fought back in an acceptable way.
I think a trial is usually a lot less clear cut. And, sometimes there might be an element of putting everyone involved on trial. I would think that anything that involves a fight between two people almost certainly has both people partly in the wrong. And, hence provocation can be an issue.
To go back to my extreme example of Klansman in black neighbourhood. Would you honestly consider any jury to acquit him of murder because they accept his plea of self-defence: "I was walking down the street when this nigger starting hollering and swearing, then grabbed a tire iron and rushed towards me. I had no choice but to pull my gun and blow him away, he was out to kill me." I can't imagine how any jury would not convict him of murder, since he clearly set out to engineer a situation where someone was going to get killed.
At the other extreme there are clear cases of self-defence. And in the middle there is a massive area of different shades of grey.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
To go back to my extreme example of Klansman in black neighbourhood. Would you honestly consider any jury to acquit him of murder because they accept his plea of self-defence: "I was walking down the street when this nigger starting hollering and swearing, then grabbed a tire iron and rushed towards me. I had no choice but to pull my gun and blow him away, he was out to kill me." I can't imagine how any jury would not convict him of murder, since he clearly set out to engineer a situation where someone was going to get killed.
The most extreme thing about your example is the total lack of physical evidence. Again.
But let's just say that the story is 100% true, and there's evidence that it's true. I don't know how a jury would behave because frankly juries can be stupid. But any judge worth their salt would throw the conviction out.
Walking down the street in racially provocative clothing doesn't justify being assaulted with a tire iron any more than walking down the street in sexually provocative clothing justifies a rape. And it sure as hell does not mean that you have to stand there and not fight back on the grounds you were "asking for it".
You simply cannot have rules of law that are only available for people you think are nice people, or sympathetic people. If a person is in fear of their life they are entitled to defend themselves, and that goes for people you disapprove of just as much as for people you sympathise with. The assault with a tire iron might be provoked but it isn't involuntary.
I don't know what you mean by "engineer a situation where someone was going to get killed". But murder requires intent to kill someone, and from what you're saying it doesn't sound like the same thing.
[ 17. May 2016, 10:08: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
orfeo, I just cited such a law, the law in England and Wales just above your last posts - we cross posted.
That is not such a law. It says you must act reasonably. It does not say you must do everything reasonable.
I want to expand on this because it's incredibly important.
The law on self-defence, including in England and Wales, says that your response to the threat that you face must be reasonable. There is at least one case in Australia right now where the issue is a lack of proportion between the threat and the response to it, and there've been others in the past. Self-defence doesn't justify any kind of response, only a reasonable one.
But what LeRoc proposes is an entirely different duty. Instead of having to respond reasonably to a threat, he wants to require people to behave reasonably to prevent the threat even arising.
Which is very different. It goes very much down the road of examining the victim of the threat to see whether they are to blame somehow for what happened to them. And however much people want to throw up examples of nasty people deliberately provoking an attack, such a rule wouldn't just be used to criticise nasty people. Lawyers would have a field day grilling all kinds of people about what they did to make themselves a target. It would greatly widen the scope of the enquiry, with various ways of suggesting that a person could have done X or Y to avoid the attack ever occurring.
It will expand from "what did you do when the attack occurred" to "what did you do before the attack occurred", and will open up the door to all sorts of suggestions about how someone should have known they would've been attacked. Again, I doubt this would stay confined to examples such as Alan's Klan member. Any time a person cites self-defence, it'll be suggested that they ought to have foreseen the attack and avoided it altogether, negating the need for self-defence.
And that's why I say it involves hindsight. Self-defence as it is currently formulated focuses on what you did in the actual situation of an attack. Self-defence as formulated by LeRoc starts suggesting you really ought to have foreseen the attack, which is all very well for a lawyer in a courtroom when everyone knows that an attack did in fact happen.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Gee D: I did not say that "the court cleared" Zimmerman. That is not the role of a court. I did say that the court found Zimmerman not guilty, which is the court's function.
Fuck it, we're not in a court house here, we're on an internet bulletin board. I'm not a legal expert, I'm not familiar with the legal system of any of your countries, English isn't my first language. Heck, I fall asleep watching Law & Order.
If all you're going to do is pick out the wrong legal term in my argument, then you know where to stick it.
All I'm saying is that there are better legal ways to handle self-defence than the fuck-up that is stand your ground. This isn't just my moral standing talking here, there are actually countries that make it work.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
orfeo: Sorry, but I don't recall you citing any such laws. I recall you citing your own moral code frequently. Maybe you did cite laws, but I don't recall it. So you'll have to cite them again.
I don't have to do anything. In earlier discussions, I made the effort to look up the laws of at least three European countries, translating them into English for you. That you forgot about this tells more about you than about me.
Yes, what it tells is that I don't have a perfect memory and that I'm skeptical about your claims, for two reasons. One, your repeated reliance on "I'm not a lawyer" to admit you often get these things a bit wrong. Two, my memory that in at least one lengthy conversation about the law you backed down completely after I got you understand what I was saying about the law. Which topic that conversation was on, I don't recall because my memory isn't perfect.
What your refusal to assist in jogging my memory tells, on the other hand, is very much about you. Which is that you're more interested in winning the argument than in being correct. If you can in fact point me (gasp! AGAIN! the horror of me not learning it the first time!) to these countries, then you will at least have your facts right, which I would think is a fairly important part of a genuinely meaningful argument about what is the right policy. It doesn't necessarily mean I will agree with you that it's the best policy, but I will at least agree with you that it is the chosen policy of some countries.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Gee D: I did not say that "the court cleared" Zimmerman. That is not the role of a court. I did say that the court found Zimmerman not guilty, which is the court's function.
Fuck it, we're not in a court house here, we're on an internet bulletin board. I'm not a legal expert, I'm not familiar with the legal system of any of your countries, English isn't my first language. Heck, I fall asleep watching Law & Order.
If all you're going to do is pick out the wrong legal term in my argument, then you know where to stick it.
All I'm saying is that there are better legal ways to handle self-defence than the fuck-up that is stand your ground. This isn't just my moral standing talking here, there are actually countries that make it work.
I was picking up your misquoting of what I said, and the manner in which you did it.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The most extreme thing about your example is the total lack of physical evidence. Again.
But, many crimes are prosecuted with minimal physical evidence. In this scenario there would be a tire iron in the dead mans fist, or very close by if he lost his grip as he died.
quote:
But let's just say that the story is 100% true, and there's evidence that it's true. I don't know how a jury would behave because frankly juries can be stupid. But any judge worth their salt would throw the conviction out.
So, you would consider that no crime has been committed? That there's a man lying dead in the road but legally no one is responsible for killing him?
quote:
I don't know what you mean by "engineer a situation where someone was going to get killed". But murder requires intent to kill someone, and from what you're saying it doesn't sound like the same thing.
Still sticking with my example, because my work in progress gets messed up in my head if I try to create another one. Klan-man thinks "I want to kill some nigger", gets his sheet out and tucks his gun in it's holster and sets out to nearby black neighbourhood knowing that it won't take long before he's noticed and gets an aggressive reaction. He might think he's odds-on for someone coming up to swear at him in his face, if not with a weapon. A little goading, and a fist gets thrown ... out comes the gun, bang and he's got what he wanted. With a get out of jail free card in being able to claim self defence. If lucky, several people with cell phones recording the whole thing (to make up for lack of physical evidence). If unlucky there's a black man with a gun who gets the shot in first.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, you would consider that no crime has been committed? That there's a man lying dead in the road but legally no one is responsible for killing him?
A large part of the motivation for this discussion, for me, is to kill off the notion that if someone dies someone has to be guilty of a crime. It is simplistic, and it is positively dangerous.
Is wearing a Klan outfit enough for some kind of crime of incitement or racial hatred? If so, convict him of that. And recall that your "victim" was probably guilty of assault.
EDIT: As for your elaboration of the example, it is indeed perfectly possible to create a version of the scenario where an intent to get a black person killed can be made out. Some additional facts such as those can get you there. But you cannot make it out from the bare fact of walking down the street in provocative clothing that you started with, any more than you can make out from a woman walking down the street in certain clothing that she wants to have sex with someone.
[ 17. May 2016, 11:45: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Whaddaya know?
(You made me go and search through Limbo. I'll never forgive you for this.)
quote:
Gee D: I was picking up your misquoting of what I said, and the manner in which you did it.
Yeah, I could have looked up your post again and properly quoted it. It was so stupid that I didn't bother.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Gee D: I was picking up your misquoting of what I said, and the manner in which you did it.
Yeah, I could have looked up your post again and properly quoted it. It was so stupid that I didn't bother.
If you can't understand the difference, then what's the use? I had thought that you were falling into error because you came from a background of a a completely different legal system. I now know that your method of argument is to be totally dishonest.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Whaddaya know?
(You made me go and search through Limbo. I'll never forgive you for this.)
That'd be the paragraph starting with the acronym for "I am not a lawyer". ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
For the record nothing I've said in this conversation should be seen as support for "Stand Your Ground" laws. But neither do I see much in favour of "Duty to Retreat" requirements in the opposite direction.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
