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
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Trayvon Martin Case Prompts Civil Rights Commission Investigation On Stand Your Ground Laws [View all]gejohnston
(17,502 posts)30. I didn't coin the term.
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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
56 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Trayvon Martin Case Prompts Civil Rights Commission Investigation On Stand Your Ground Laws [View all]
Tx4obama
Jun 2012
OP
These Stand Your Groundlaws place the responsibility and privilege of making certain decisions about
JDPriestly
Jun 2012
#4
The presumption is that you should not kill anyone, that murder is never justified.
JDPriestly
Jun 2012
#18
The prosecutor only files charges if there is a question as to whether the murder was justified.
JDPriestly
Jun 2012
#28
Feel free to list when "presumption of innocence" was suspended in the US, because I can't find it
Major Nikon
Jun 2012
#31
No - it says the other guy can't kill you for starting a fist fight or verbal confrontation.
hack89
Jun 2012
#46
So how do you account for the fact that the law doesn't say what you're claiming?
Major Nikon
Jun 2012
#52
They never had unaccountable power. The DA, for one, is usually an elected official, not
JDPriestly
Jun 2012
#39
From the beginning, it's the only positive outcome I've seen coming from this tragedy. . .
Journeyman
Jun 2012
#11
No - she got 20 years for leaving the situation and then coming back with a gun. nt
hack89
Jun 2012
#55
Wonder if they are ever going to look into the ongoing capricious use of hate crime enhancements
ProgressiveProfessor
Jun 2012
#26