|
|
#21 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
You seem to have missed the point of the thread. It wasn't a question of whether or not it should be legal to kill someone in self-defense or not, or where the line is betwen self-defense and not.
The question was "If it appears that I am actively -baiting- someone into committing a crime simply so that I could appeal to a legal defense to justify my actions, ought I actually be protected by that law" If a woman were to dress up in very revealing clothes, go into a very seedy bar, strut around, tell everyone how drunk she is, flirt with all the men, and then stagger out of the bar into a dark alley, all the while being actually completely sober, for the sole purpose of trying to tempt someone to come after her , intending to kill them and claim self-defense, should the claim of self-defense still stand. I guess it's more a question of "Where could/should/would you draw the line between self-defense, and conspiracy/entrapment" |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
__________________
To live is Christ, to die is gain Philippians 1:21 ♥ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 | |
|
FFR Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 38
|
Quote:
Regarding whether he should be guilty or not will depend of whether deadly force was reasonable in light of the situation. If there was proof that a "reasonable person" in light of the situation would have felt the need to use deadly force. If the deadly force was only in defense of his property then he will probably be charged with involuntary manslaughter (involuntary manslaughter involves a mistaken belief that deadly force was necessary). However if the deadly force was used under a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary and that, he or his family was PERSONALLY at risk of imminent bodily harm then the deadly force would be justified. Under the circumstances of this hypothetical and given the fact that dead men cant talk (hahah ) the one who did the killing will easily be able to argue (whether or not it actually happened) that he was justified in killing because there was a switch blade in his hand. This offers proof that he was in actually imminent serious bodily harm and thus was justified. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Right, but the question isn't about whether as written, his legal defense of 'self-defense- would stand up in court. The question is: If it could be proven that he went out of his way to encourage the attempted theft -so- he could defend himself with deadly force, should that not counter his claim of self-defense because he diliberately provoked the crime?
If I go up to someone and taunt and belabor him to try and goad him into hitting me, and then, since "he started it" I beat the everloving crap out of him "in self-defense because he attacked me" shoudln't the fact that I was the instigator count against me? |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
FFR Veteran
|
Yes. This is one of the things I have thought about from time to time. I saw it happen in high school all the time between teenagers. Bully comes up to some kid, harasses him until the kid can't take it anymore and takes a swing, then the bully beats him up, claiming that self-defense was his motive. Unfortunately for the bully, when the school's police officers come around, he is not able to claim self-defense since he provoked the action of the other kid. Admittedly, in most of these cases there were witnesses to the event, but even when there weren't, the outcome was still the same.
In the expensive gadget/open door situation, realistically, I think that a jury would look at how much the guy seemed to be baiting the burglar to come into his house, and wouldn't simply say, "Well the guy came in and trespassed, so the homeowner was justified in taking action." Having a switchblade in his (the burglar's) possession doesn't necessarily warrant deadly force on the part of the homeowner unless the switchblade was obviously brandished in a threatening manner or something, which can't be proved since the only testimony a jury will hear is that of the homeowner. This reminds me of all kinds of instances of frivolous lawsuits brought against large companies because of the lack of completely unnecessary warning labels. It's not exactly the same thing, I know, but the similarities between the type of people who will bring such frivolous lawsuits against companies and people who try to bait criminals into their homes are very interesting. It's like they're testing the court systems and the law, respectively, seeing what they can get away with by using their own interpretations of the law to their advantage.
__________________
fgsfds Last edited by Ground_Breaker; 01-22-2009 at 04:23 PM.. Reason: not coffee woman |
|
|
|
|
|
#26 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#27 | |
|
FFR Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 38
|
Quote:
In the case at hand however, simply placing all items near a window is not "implied consent" for them to take it. Thus, simply by intentionally making the crime more easily accomplished is no grounds for making one guilty of defending his personal property. Edit. Further i must add that self defense is only justified to the extent necessary to remove the danger. Beating the ever loving daylights out of a person out of self defense is clearly beyond the scope of removing the present danger. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
FFR Veteran
|
I thought the argument was that since the coffee cup didn't explicitly say "HOT" on it somewhere, she presented a case with which she sued McDonald's. Seems frivolous to me, since if you don't understand that coffee is hot and if you spill it on yourself, you'll probably get burned, then you shouldn't be drinking it. Her age really is irrelevant.
How was it McDonald's' fault that she was burned by the coffee? Is McDonald's at fault every single time someone spills one of their hot products on themselves? Should they make people sign a waiver of liability before consuming coffee? Should they only sell cold coffee?
__________________
fgsfds |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
More importantly, before ANY of that came up, they asked for 20,000 dollars to cover the medical expenses (I think the actual bill only ended up being about 12 grand, but still) and considering she suffered THIRD DEGREE BURNS from their coffee, and spent over a week in the hospital getting skin grafts, I think she had a perfectly legitimate case at that point. McDonalds countered with an offer of 800 bucks. That was when they got a lawyer involved, and when the numbers started getting crazy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
FFR Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 38
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 | |
|
FFR Veteran
|
I said this topic reminded me of those types of scenarios. If you'd actually read my first post in this thread, then you'd know I made a point about the topic at hand.
Quote:
__________________
fgsfds |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
FFR Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 38
|
Ahh. yes. My apologies for not reading fully.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|