Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
30. I didn't coin the term.
Sun Jun 10, 2012, 11:57 PM
Jun 2012
The prosecutor only files charges if there is a question as to whether the murder was justified.
Depends on the state. All murders are homicides, not all homicides are murder. You meant to say that the DA files charges if there is evidence of murder instead of self defense.

The difference is that with the Stand Your Ground laws, the prosecutor is under pressure to decide against a murder charge because the defendant who successfully defends with a Stand Your Ground defense has certain remedies if he is charged and it is later determined that he was killing in self-defense.
huh?

I think we are agreeing on the fundamentals. Prosecutors are not required to bring charges. They can choose not to if they think that the self-defense is a no-brainer. But usually they are cautious about that.
True, but there are asshole DAs that will.

But, prosecutors can't argue the defense of self-defense in the courtroom.
They don't.

I object to the language "Duty to Retreat." We have a duty not to kill. Then we have a duty to defend. But the first duty is not to kill. Goes back to the Ten Commandments and maybe further than that. The duty to protect life is ancillary to the duty not to kill.
That is the commonly accepted term, I did not coin it. The ten commandments says "do not murder" not "do not kill". Those English translations are incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_shall_not_murder

But I take it that you agree with me that the self-defense evidence and arguments have to presented by the defendant. The prosecutor may decide not to bring charges but can't argue against the charges he or she decided to bring.
That is how it works.

Maybe I misunderstood your original question and I do disagree with the expression "duty to retreat." It is a duty to avoid a fight if you can, a duty to protect life if you can. Self-defense is justified only rarely.
I didn't coin the term. Most of the time that is the better option tactically as well as ethically. At the same time, I agree with Oliver Wendall Holmes on the issue.

Remember, many people are completely defenseless. We don't want to encourage people to carry deadly weapons, whether knives or guns just in case -- and then out of unwarranted fear kill some innocent person.
I don't see it happening.

The language duty to retreat makes it sound like the duty to protect the lives of others is some subversive idea. It isn't.
again, I didn't coin the term. Read the Wiki articles on the two.
A link to additional article, below Tx4obama Jun 2012 #1
Long overdue. kestrel91316 Jun 2012 #2
Yes. nm rhett o rick Jun 2012 #3
Finally ~ why the delay on fighting goclark Jun 2012 #10
These Stand Your Groundlaws place the responsibility and privilege of making certain decisions about JDPriestly Jun 2012 #4
Exactly. n/t Hoyt Jun 2012 #5
Absolutely agree. nt chknltl Jun 2012 #7
you think duty to retreat was just? gejohnston Jun 2012 #13
The presumption is that you should not kill anyone, that murder is never justified. JDPriestly Jun 2012 #18
might want to take a second look gejohnston Jun 2012 #27
The prosecutor only files charges if there is a question as to whether the murder was justified. JDPriestly Jun 2012 #28
I didn't coin the term. gejohnston Jun 2012 #30
The correct translation from the Old Testament is "Thou Shalt not murder" ... spin Jun 2012 #33
Yes. I understand the Commandment in those terms and agree with you. JDPriestly Jun 2012 #37
That is your view ... spin Jun 2012 #42
Hogwash Major Nikon Jun 2012 #21
hogwash gejohnston Jun 2012 #24
Feel free to list when "presumption of innocence" was suspended in the US, because I can't find it Major Nikon Jun 2012 #31
why not look up the law? gejohnston Jun 2012 #32
You should have read it yourself before you commented Major Nikon Jun 2012 #35
Did you actually read the two situations where the aggressor hack89 Jun 2012 #38
Did you actually read this thread? Major Nikon Jun 2012 #41
I was just pointing out that the exceptions are very limited. That's all. nt hack89 Jun 2012 #43
The exception is big enough to drive a Mack truck through Major Nikon Jun 2012 #44
No - it says the other guy can't kill you for starting a fist fight or verbal confrontation. hack89 Jun 2012 #46
That's not what it says Major Nikon Jun 2012 #47
No - there is still the reasonable man standard hack89 Jun 2012 #50
So how do you account for the fact that the law doesn't say what you're claiming? Major Nikon Jun 2012 #52
That has been the standard for self defense for at least 15 years hack89 Jun 2012 #53
Did you read the actual law ? hack89 Jun 2012 #51
OK, I've had enough Major Nikon Jun 2012 #54
No problem - interpreting statutes can get complicated hack89 Jun 2012 #56
I did read it. gejohnston Jun 2012 #45
Right. For example, in the Zimmerman case, if the case went to trial, JDPriestly Jun 2012 #40
So rather than trust in the jury system, you'd rather leave it up to police csziggy Jun 2012 #22
actually not true gejohnston Jun 2012 #23
No they don't. AtheistCrusader Jun 2012 #17
You are quite incorrect as to the nature of SYG laws ProgressiveProfessor Jun 2012 #25
They never had unaccountable power. The DA, for one, is usually an elected official, not JDPriestly Jun 2012 #39
FL is unique in that regards ProgressiveProfessor Jun 2012 #48
As for example, when someone is robbing a convenience store at gunpoint. JDPriestly Jun 2012 #49
A possibility for something good to come from Trayvan Martin's ... etherealtruth Jun 2012 #6
From the beginning, it's the only positive outcome I've seen coming from this tragedy. . . Journeyman Jun 2012 #11
The way racism affects SYG, they MUST look at this case: chknltl Jun 2012 #8
From what I have read and heard about it asjr Jun 2012 #9
because you have been ill informed gejohnston Jun 2012 #14
Yup. Exactly what the media wants you to believe ... spin Jun 2012 #34
Finally. jwirr Jun 2012 #12
Maybe they should focus on Texas too ...ya think? L0oniX Jun 2012 #15
Thank Goodness! patrice Jun 2012 #16
K&R. Long overdue. Remember Marissa Alexander. Overseas Jun 2012 #19
No - she got 20 years for leaving the situation and then coming back with a gun. nt hack89 Jun 2012 #55
They need to look at WHO is advancing the passage of SYG. Ford_Prefect Jun 2012 #20
Wonder if they are ever going to look into the ongoing capricious use of hate crime enhancements ProgressiveProfessor Jun 2012 #26
The Unholy Trinity: Koch Brothers, ALEC, and the NRA crunch60 Jun 2012 #29
No bad thing in reviewing and reassessing any piece of legislation... LanternWaste Jun 2012 #36
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Trayvon Martin Case Promp...»Reply #30