Is a racial insult a valid defense for homicide?

[catzmeow]

You have no idea if the guy has a history of being beaten up for being black.

Don't they all claim that?

Don't all what claim this? It's your opinion that all blacks claim to have been the victim of a racial hate crime?

 

[Si modo]

Yes, you would have to convince the jury that you felt threatened.

And the jury is free not to believe you.

But how do you prove a feeling?

You don't.

You convince them that given the circumstance, it was reasonable to feel threatened.

I don't think a racial insult qualifies.

You can't know that, though. You have no idea if the guy has a history of being beaten up for being black.

But the law is not subjective in this; rather it uses the objective standard of the 'reasonable person'. ETA: Correction, "the more objective standard".

 

[manifold]

Yes, you would have to convince the jury that you felt threatened.

And the jury is free not to believe you.

But how do you prove a feeling?

You don't.

You convince them that given the circumstance, it was reasonable to feel threatened.

I don't think a racial insult qualifies.

You can't know that, though. You have no idea if the guy has a history of being beaten up for being black.

It's a judgement call. I know those don't sit well with you Ravi, but there is no way around it. In this case I'll reserve final judgement until all the facts are in, but given what's been made available so far I'm skeptical that he really felt threatened enough to punch the guy.

 

[manifold]

You can't know that, though. You have no idea if the guy has a history of being beaten up for being black.

Apparently, the victim was reaching in his pockets. I don't know how large or commodious his pants were, but for me, that would immediately make me think he was armed.

What I read said he already had his hands in his pockets and was chastising the black guy.

But regardless, the black guy already told police he was afraid of turning around because he thought the guy would punch him in the back of the head. Changing his story around now to say he thought the guy was packing isn't going to help his defense.

 

[Ravi]

You don't.

You convince them that given the circumstance, it was reasonable to feel threatened.

I don't think a racial insult qualifies.

You can't know that, though. You have no idea if the guy has a history of being beaten up for being black.

But the law is not subjective in this; rather it uses the objective standard of the 'reasonable person'. ETA: Correction, "the more objective standard".

In this case, speaking about the law in Florida, the law is subjective.

Feeling threatened can totally be subjective.

 

[catzmeow]

What I read said he already had his hands in his pockets and was chastising the black guy.

But regardless, the black guy already told police he was afraid of turning around because he thought the guy would punch him in the back of the head. Changing his story around now to say he thought the guy was packing isn't going to help his defense.

Of course, we're all just speculating, but I think that the person who said bar fight is the most accurate. I don't think the incident was racial, and I'm not sure that the suspect really felt threatened. If he was able to kill the victim with a single punch to the jaw, my guess is that the suspect was probably significantly larger/stronger than the victim. In which case, his claim of feeling threatened is suspect at the least.

 

[catzmeow]

In this case, speaking about the law in Florida, the law is subjective.

Feeling threatened can totally be subjective.

Very true...feeling threatened is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Ravi]

You don't.

You convince them that given the circumstance, it was reasonable to feel threatened.

I don't think a racial insult qualifies.

You can't know that, though. You have no idea if the guy has a history of being beaten up for being black.

It's a judgement call. I know those don't sit well with you Ravi, but there is no way around it. In this case I'll reserve final judgement until all the facts are in, but given what's been made available so far I'm skeptical that he really felt threatened enough to punch the guy.

It would be nice if you could keep your imagination from forming "facts."

 

[Si modo]

You can't know that, though. You have no idea if the guy has a history of being beaten up for being black.

But the law is not subjective in this; rather it uses the objective standard of the 'reasonable person'. ETA: Correction, "the more objective standard".

In this case, speaking about the law in Florida, the law is subjective.

Feeling threatened can totally be subjective.

Actually, it's in the eye of the judge and/or jury with the standard of the reasonable person being used.

 

[Ravi]

But the law is not subjective in this; rather it uses the objective standard of the 'reasonable person'. ETA: Correction, "the more objective standard".

In this case, speaking about the law in Florida, the law is subjective.

Feeling threatened can totally be subjective.

Actually, it's in the eye of the judge and/or jury with the standard of the reasonable person being used.

Yeah....in other words, subjective.

 

[Tank]

Maybe the black guy had a slavery flashback?

 

[Si modo]

In this case, speaking about the law in Florida, the law is subjective.

Feeling threatened can totally be subjective.

Actually, it's in the eye of the judge and/or jury with the standard of the reasonable person being used.

Yeah....in other words, subjective.

But not on the subject being tried. If the law considers each person as unique rather than considering the reasonable person standard, no one would be convicted of much of anything. Based on the subject's point of view, they always have a good reason for doing the crime, (unless 'the voices' told them to do it). Otherwise they wouldn't have done the crime.

That's why I said "more objective".

 

[catzmeow]

Maybe the black guy had a slavery flashback?

Appears more likely that the white guy had a poorly conceived bad ass moment. This is what happens when big talkers encounter the large fist of reality.

 

[Flagwavrusa]

You can't know that, though. You have no idea if the guy has a history of being beaten up for being black.

Apparently, the victim was reaching in his pockets. I don't know how large or commodious his pants were, but for me, that would immediately make me think he was armed.

What I read said he already had his hands in his pockets and was chastising the black guy.

But regardless, the black guy already told police he was afraid of turning around because he thought the guy would punch him in the back of the head. Changing his story around now to say he thought the guy was packing isn't going to help his defense.

It's a cockamamy excuse to use lethal force. If you are afraid of someone you take a step back, you don't have to turn around. I hope the police read him his Miranda rights first so they can use it against him at trial.

 

[manifold]

You can't know that, though. You have no idea if the guy has a history of being beaten up for being black.

It's a judgement call. I know those don't sit well with you Ravi, but there is no way around it. In this case I'll reserve final judgement until all the facts are in, but given what's been made available so far I'm skeptical that he really felt threatened enough to punch the guy.

It would be nice if you could keep your imagination from forming "facts."

That 'fact' was formed not by my imagination but rather your posting history.

 

[Ravi]

Actually, it's in the eye of the judge and/or jury with the standard of the reasonable person being used.

Yeah....in other words, subjective.

But not on the subject being tried. If the law considers each person as unique rather than considering the reasonable person standard, no one would be convicted of much of anything. Based on the subject's point of view, they always have a good reason for doing the crime, (unless 'the voices' told them to do it). Otherwise they wouldn't have done the crime.

That's why I said "more objective".

This law, however, makes it more subjective.

If Florida didn't want to consider the feelings of the perp then why did Jeb Bush sign this law?

 

[Tank]

Maybe the black guy had a slavery flashback?

Appears more likely that the white guy had a poorly conceived bad ass moment. This is what happens when big talkers encounter the large fist of reality.

Reality is right, blacks are not the funny, friendly cool people you see on TV.

Unfortunately this guy found out the hard way, like so many other white folks have.

 

[catzmeow]

Reality is right, blacks are not the funny, friendly cool people you see on TV.

Unfortunately this guy found out the hard way, like so many other white folks have.

I hate to break your heart, sunshine, since you seem like such a cheery optimist and all, but NO ONE is the funny friendly cool people you see on TV. Even reality television isn't reality.

I'm the exception, of course. I'm just as funny, friendly, and cool in real life as I appear on here. Take that as you will.

 

[Si modo]

Yeah....in other words, subjective.

But not on the subject being tried. If the law considers each person as unique rather than considering the reasonable person standard, no one would be convicted of much of anything. Based on the subject's point of view, they always have a good reason for doing the crime, (unless 'the voices' told them to do it). Otherwise they wouldn't have done the crime.

That's why I said "more objective".

This law, however, makes it more subjective.

If Florida didn't want to consider the feelings of the perp then why did Jeb Bush sign this law?

Ummm, because the law is based on the standard of the reasonable person, as it is in most areas I know?

 

[Flagwavrusa]

Maybe the black guy had a slavery flashback?

Appears more likely that the white guy had a poorly conceived bad ass moment. This is what happens when big talkers encounter the large fist of reality.

This is unexpected, I had thought of the OP as more of a rhetorical question, yet for some people the answer to the OP appears to be yes. We are heading in the wrong direction in America when we lower our standards for civility to form a tolerant attitude towards violent criminal behavior. With such a permissive attitude towards crime, it's no wonder we have the worlds largest criminal population.