Is a racial insult a valid defense for homicide?

[Momanohedhunter]

I wonder if the defense will go for an incitement defense (the idea being that there aer some words that are so inflammatory that they provoke an immediate emotional reaction that can lead to a breach of peace.

I doubt the guy knew when he punched Massie that Massie would die from a single punch.

Murder is murder. Dude go's to prison.[/QUOTE]

Wanna bet? Like Casey Anthony went.

 

[manifold]

Oh, I didn't realize the perp was from Florida.

In Florida, it is a valid defense that if you feel threatened you can kill the person threatening you. If this had happened in Florida the guy would probably not face jail time.

Unequal laws. Should be interesting.

It isnt that simple. In florida you dont have the requirement to retreat, it doesnt mean you can actively go and just shoot someone/punch someone down.

The person also has to be attempting to threaten bodily harm, not just insulting you.

The difference between the required retreat and not requiring retreat is given by this example.

Say you are in a dead end alley, and someone is charging at you. in all juristictions you are then permitted to fire on them, as you have no real escape options and there is a chance of bodily harm.

Change it to an open alley, where you have a method of escape. In this case if the law requires you to retreat you have to, exhausting all options before using deadly force.

That being said, if the other person is also armed with a firearm, then your requirement to retreat is not really enforceable, as any flight would leave you open to gunfire.

Florida's new "Stand your Ground" law goes into effect Saturday. The law says rather than run away, people who fear for their lives have the right to stand and shoot back when they feel threatened - no matter if they're at home, or on the street, or in their cars.

'Stand Your Ground' law goes into effect Saturday | HeraldTribune.com

If the guy can convince the court that he felt threatened he would walk in Florida.

And how does the court prove he didn't feel threatened?

I'm guessing the same way they'd prove it wasn't a hate crime.

 

[Ravi]

It isnt that simple. In florida you dont have the requirement to retreat, it doesnt mean you can actively go and just shoot someone/punch someone down.

The person also has to be attempting to threaten bodily harm, not just insulting you.

The difference between the required retreat and not requiring retreat is given by this example.

Say you are in a dead end alley, and someone is charging at you. in all juristictions you are then permitted to fire on them, as you have no real escape options and there is a chance of bodily harm.

Change it to an open alley, where you have a method of escape. In this case if the law requires you to retreat you have to, exhausting all options before using deadly force.

That being said, if the other person is also armed with a firearm, then your requirement to retreat is not really enforceable, as any flight would leave you open to gunfire.

Florida's new "Stand your Ground" law goes into effect Saturday. The law says rather than run away, people who fear for their lives have the right to stand and shoot back when they feel threatened - no matter if they're at home, or on the street, or in their cars.

'Stand Your Ground' law goes into effect Saturday | HeraldTribune.com

If the guy can convince the court that he felt threatened he would walk in Florida.

And how does the court prove he didn't feel threatened?

Its up to a jury of 12 to figure that out. It also requires the person, if not armed with a firearm to be advancing on you before you can fire.

You are incorrect. You only need to expect that if you do not go on the attack first they will attack you. No gun needed by either party.

 

[manifold]

It isnt murder thats for sure. The racial slur is not a defense, but it is a mitigating circumstance. The defendant did not intend the blow to be fatal. This has Manslaughter two (if its in the juristiction) written all over it. The intent was not death but harm, and it was instigated. You are still responsible, however for the outcome, which was a homicde.

I agree. But still, I have to wonder about a guy that could get so enraged over the comment being reported that'd he'd need to punch the guy at all.

True, but his intent was probably to open a can of whoop ass, and be done with it. I doubt he was intending on homicde.

There is a large gap for most people between wanting to slap someone around and wanting to kill them, he just had the bad luck of taking a guy out with 1 punch. It doesnt excuse the action and he should go to jail, but not for as long as intentional murder, or murder commited in the action of another crime.

Yeah, I'm sure he didn't intend to kill the guy. But I don't care who you are, if you're on vacation with the wife and kids and you allow yourself to be goaded into throwing the first punch in a fight, then you're a ******* asshat. Period.

 

[martybegan]

Sadly that is true. The act of murder can be degraded to Manslaughter or negligent homicide. It is disgusting, and one of the things I hate about our country.

So, you think that I should be tried for murder for killing someone in self defense? The reason that there is flexibility on these charges is that many homicides aren't black/white scenarios.

There was no self defense in this case. It was a drunk who did not like being referred to as "That Black guy in a yellow shirt".

Yeah, self defsnse looks out the window. At this point you have to look at Mens reas and see if he intended to kill the man. Murder requires intent to murder, either premeditated, (Murder 1), or in a moment of passion (Murder 2). There are also other items that can make it murder instead of manslaughter (killing a cop no matter what, depraved indifference, etc.) but these are codified. Once you remove the intent to kill, it usually goes down to manslaughter, which can still be up to 20 years in prision, but is usually less.

 

[manifold]

I find it hard to believe that 'feeling threatened' is the default assumption in cases invoking the stand your ground law. The presumption of innocence relates to the act itself. Once that is proven, I have to believe it's up to the defendent to prove that a feeling of threat was reasonable given the circumstances. If not, then that law is effectively carte blanche to shoot anyone who flips you off.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

So, you think that I should be tried for murder for killing someone in self defense? The reason that there is flexibility on these charges is that many homicides aren't black/white scenarios.

There was no self defense in this case. It was a drunk who did not like being referred to as "That Black guy in a yellow shirt".

Yeah, self defsnse looks out the window. At this point you have to look at Mens reas and see if he intended to kill the man. Murder requires intent to murder, either premeditated, (Murder 1), or in a moment of passion (Murder 2). There are also other items that can make it murder instead of manslaughter (killing a cop no matter what, depraved indifference, etc.) but these are codified. Once you remove the intent to kill, it usually goes down to manslaughter, which can still be up to 20 years in prision, but is usually less.

Yeah, I dont think he will get the chair but the cowardly "racial remark" defense is disgusting. This was nothing more then two drunks having a pissing contest, and some one getting killed. The guy (Hawkins) is not a thug, or Gansta, so he will most likely do ok.

 

[Ravi]

I find it hard to believe that 'feeling threatened' is the default assumption in cases invoking the stand your ground law. The presumption of innocence relates to the act itself. Once that is proven, I have to believe it's up to the defendent to prove that a feeling of threat was reasonable given the circumstances. If not, then that law is effectively carte blanche to shoot anyone who flips you off.

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?

 

[martybegan]

I find it hard to believe that 'feeling threatened' is the default assumption in cases invoking the stand your ground law. The presumption of innocence relates to the act itself. Once that is proven, I have to believe it's up to the defendent to prove that a feeling of threat was reasonable given the circumstances. If not, then that law is effectively carte blanche to shoot anyone who flips you off.

I always thought it was being "physcially threatened" was the limit.

The opposite, forcing a person to flee is just as problematic. Requring a person flee if the opprotunity is there basically forces them to assume more risk in a risky situation in order to use thier right to self defense. So instead of pulling out a weapon and using it either to tell the person to **** off, or use it, you then have to consider if you have the ability to flee first, where to flee, and how much faster you are than your assailant, if they chose to follow you.

What is the cliche? "Better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6"

 

[Ravi]

Here's an interesting article about the Florida law, if anyone is interested.

FindLaw's Writ -- Sebok: Florida's New "Stand Your Ground" Law Why It's More Extreme than Other States' Self-Defense Measures, And How It Got that Way

 

[catzmeow]

Florida's new "Stand your Ground" law goes into effect Saturday. The law says rather than run away, people who fear for their lives have the right to stand and shoot back when they feel threatened - no matter if they're at home, or on the street, or in their cars.

'Stand Your Ground' law goes into effect Saturday | HeraldTribune.com

If the guy can convince the court that he felt threatened he would walk in Florida.

And how does the court prove he didn't feel threatened?

Wow, I didn't even know about this, thanks Ravi. I don't think that this law would be relevant in this case, it occurred in Nevada, not Florida.

 

[Ravi]

Florida's new "Stand your Ground" law goes into effect Saturday. The law says rather than run away, people who fear for their lives have the right to stand and shoot back when they feel threatened - no matter if they're at home, or on the street, or in their cars.

'Stand Your Ground' law goes into effect Saturday | HeraldTribune.com

If the guy can convince the court that he felt threatened he would walk in Florida.

And how does the court prove he didn't feel threatened?

Wow, I didn't even know about this, thanks Ravi. I don't think that this law would be relevant in this case, it occurred in Nevada, not Florida.

I realize that which is why I said, if this had happened in Florida.

Still though it seems wrong that murder can be defined differently in different states.

 

[martybegan]

Here's an interesting article about the Florida law, if anyone is interested.

FindLaw's Writ -- Sebok: Florida's New "Stand Your Ground" Law Why It's More Extreme than Other States' Self-Defense Measures, And How It Got that Way

The law may be a bit overkill, but it is in response to stupidity such as a burglar being able to sue the victim if the victim decides to fight back.

I also found the "shoot my drugged up brother to keep the inheritance to myself" example as a bit of stretch.

The burden of proof in a house should favor the homeowner. Either that or allow them to use non-deadly force to stun the asshole in the house if only property is in danger.

 

[catzmeow]

I realize that which is why I said, if this had happened in Florida.

apparently i missed that, also. Appears another dose of caffeine is in order.

Still though it seems wrong that murder can be defined differently in different states.

It's defined fairly similarly in a lot of contexts, but self defense has become politicized and Florida, to my dismay, has become an increasingly conservative state.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in the concept of self defense and I have no problem with weapons ownership, but this stand your ground law seems to come with an attached political agenda that does a disservice in the courtroom.

 

[catzmeow]

The burden of proof in a house should favor the homeowner. Either that or allow them to use non-deadly force to stun the asshole in the house if only property is in danger.

I don't have any problems, at all, with our castle doctrine. If I think that someone means me harm, and they're on my property, I'm not going to stop and conduct an interview before defending my home. But, the stand your grown is almost an aggressive form of self defense that goes beyond my comfort zone. Of course, the person who uses it will probably have to prove, in court, that they were reasonably threatened, before being found not guilty of homicide.

We have a neighbor who had a mental breakdown a few years ago and ended up on the neighbor's door step nekkid as a jaybird at 2 a.m. ranting and raving. He's damn lucky he didn't get shot, to be honest. Everyone on my street is armed. You don't really want to do a home invasion in the deep south (I live in North Florida where we think we're southern, not South Florida, where everyone is a yankee). We shoot back.

 

[Ravi]

The burden of proof in a house should favor the homeowner. Either that or allow them to use non-deadly force to stun the asshole in the house if only property is in danger.

I don't have any problems, at all, with our castle doctrine. If I think that someone means me harm, and they're on my property, I'm not going to stop and conduct an interview before defending my home. But, the stand your grown is almost an aggressive form of self defense that goes beyond my comfort zone. Of course, the person who uses it will probably have to prove, in court, that they were reasonably threatened, before being found not guilty of homicide.

We have a neighbor who had a mental breakdown a few years ago and ended up on the neighbor's door step nekkid as a jaybird at 2 a.m. ranting and raving. He's damn lucky he didn't get shot, to be honest. Everyone on my street is armed. You don't really want to do a home invasion in the deep south (I live in North Florida where we think we're southern, not South Florida, where everyone is a yankee). We shoot back.

Not true.

 

[Ravi]

Here's an interesting article about the Florida law, if anyone is interested.

FindLaw's Writ -- Sebok: Florida's New "Stand Your Ground" Law Why It's More Extreme than Other States' Self-Defense Measures, And How It Got that Way

The law may be a bit overkill, but it is in response to stupidity such as a burglar being able to sue the victim if the victim decides to fight back.

I also found the "shoot my drugged up brother to keep the inheritance to myself" example as a bit of stretch.

The burden of proof in a house should favor the homeowner. Either that or allow them to use non-deadly force to stun the asshole in the house if only property is in danger.

A response to stupidity with an even stupider law?

Welcome to Floriduh!

 

[manifold]

I find it hard to believe that 'feeling threatened' is the default assumption in cases invoking the stand your ground law. The presumption of innocence relates to the act itself. Once that is proven, I have to believe it's up to the defendent to prove that a feeling of threat was reasonable given the circumstances. If not, then that law is effectively carte blanche to shoot anyone who flips you off.

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.

 

[catzmeow]

We have a neighbor who had a mental breakdown a few years ago and ended up on the neighbor's door step nekkid as a jaybird at 2 a.m. ranting and raving. He's damn lucky he didn't get shot, to be honest. Everyone on my street is armed. You don't really want to do a home invasion in the deep south (I live in North Florida where we think we're southern, not South Florida, where everyone is a yankee). We shoot back.

Not true.

Okay, fine. Correction. Most everyone is a yankee down there. Except Janet Reno, who is an original cracker.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I work as a bouncer on saturdays for a Mexican night club. I get insults, hit with bottles, spit at etc., I don't loose my cool.

[youtube]ojPVOhHhwnk[/youtube]