SYG looks to have worked for once

[Derec]

The "victim" here claimed to be armed.

The "I am armed" bluff is a dangerous gambit when so many people are armed for real.

 

[zorq]

The supposed idea behind SYG (as it was sold to the public) was that innocent people engaged in genuine self-defense should not be put through the emotional and financial burdens of lengthy court battles just for defending themselves against criminals.

Not defending any of the above - just noting that it is slightly different from standard "self-defense"

And, in practice, this is the main effect.

The number of cases where the removal of the duty to retreat is relevant are small. Mainly, it prevents the reflexive arrest of the shooter. Such shooters are usually low flight risk, what's the reason for a reflexive arrest?

I think that every time there is a dead body lying on the ground thanks to the violent actions of another human 1st degree murder is a real possibility. And because we don't expect police officers to have the precognitive ability to know all the evidence at the time of first contact with the prime suspect/self defender. I think it is fair to have police reflexively arrest anyone who apparently deliberately acted to end the life of another human. I know that for innocent self-defenders, spending the night in jail and answering a hundred questions from a detective or a DA is a pain in the ass, especially after a traumatic experience like having someone threaten your life and then killing that person. But ending another person's life is a significant event that deserves some scrutiny to make sure the act wasn't premeditated.

I thought you had a reputation for being hard on crime LP? Maybe just imagine if this happened in Israel and the dead guy was Israeli and the Self-Defender was Palestinian.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The supposed idea behind SYG (as it was sold to the public) was that innocent people engaged in genuine self-defense should not be put through the emotional and financial burdens of lengthy court battles just for defending themselves against criminals.

Not defending any of the above - just noting that it is slightly different from standard "self-defense"

And, in practice, this is the main effect.

The number of cases where the removal of the duty to retreat is relevant are small. Mainly, it prevents the reflexive arrest of the shooter. Such shooters are usually low flight risk, what's the reason for a reflexive arrest?

I think that every time there is a dead body lying on the ground thanks to the violent actions of another human 1st degree murder is a real possibility. And because we don't expect police officers to have the precognitive ability to know all the evidence at the time of first contact with the prime suspect/self defender. I think it is fair to have police reflexively arrest anyone who apparently deliberately acted to end the life of another human. I know that for innocent self-defenders, spending the night in jail and answering a hundred questions from a detective or a DA is a pain in the ass, especially after a traumatic experience like having someone threaten your life and then killing that person. But ending another person's life is a significant event that deserves some scrutiny to make sure the act wasn't premeditated.

I thought you had a reputation for being hard on crime LP? Maybe just imagine if this happened in Israel and the dead guy was Israeli and the Self-Defender was Palestinian.

I have no problem with them answering a hundred questions from the DA.

A night in jail, though, carries far more consequences. You forever have to answer "yes" to "have you ever been arrested?" and that has consequences.

The relevant statistic here is how many times do the cops decide to come back and arrest the shooter and not be able to find him? Without these there's no reason for an arrest at the scene.

 

[zorq]

I have no problem with them answering a hundred questions from the DA.

A night in jail, though, carries far more consequences. You forever have to answer "yes" to "have you ever been arrested?" and that has consequences.

The relevant statistic here is how many times do the cops decide to come back and arrest the shooter and not be able to find him? Without these there's no reason for an arrest at the scene.

Most states allow you to have some arrests (like these) to be fully expunged from your record. In which case the answer to the question "Have you ever been arrested?" is "No." The only harm then is the night in jail and the questions.

Actions have consequences. Personally, I don't think these consequences are too steep for the action of extinguishing another person's life, even in defense of your own.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have no problem with them answering a hundred questions from the DA.

A night in jail, though, carries far more consequences. You forever have to answer "yes" to "have you ever been arrested?" and that has consequences.

The relevant statistic here is how many times do the cops decide to come back and arrest the shooter and not be able to find him? Without these there's no reason for an arrest at the scene.

Most states allow you to have some arrests (like these) to be fully expunged from your record. In which case the answer to the question "Have you ever been arrested?" is "No." The only harm then is the night in jail and the questions.

There's no such thing as fully expunged. It's just hidden from non-government inquiries. And it's often more than one night in jail.

Actions have consequences. Personally, I don't think these consequences are too steep for the action of extinguishing another person's life, even in defense of your own.

In other words, punish those not guilty of any crime.

 

[zorq]

There's no such thing as fully expunged. It's just hidden from non-government inquiries. And it's often more than one night in jail.

In some states there IS such a thing as fully expunged. But even if there weren't, the fact that the state chooses to clear a suspect of all charges is usually good enough for any entity that might care about a person's arrest record.

Actions have consequences. Personally, I don't think these consequences are too steep for the action of extinguishing another person's life, even in defense of your own.

In other words, punish those not guilty of any crime.

It's not punishment. It's due process. Sometimes innocent people are going to be inconvenienced in an organized, orderly society.

You don't want to pay taxes, but if you want to live in a decent country with roads and firefighters, you pay taxes. You don't want to spend the night in jail, but if you want to live in a country where murderers don't just walk the street and skip down to Mexico because they shout, "It was self defense!" then you spend the night in jail every time you gun someone down.

...OR... if you can organize it so that your life threatening situations that require you to snuff out another person's life in self defence happen between the hours of oh, say 5:00 AM and 8:00 AM, there is a good chance the DA can get to you before the day's over and you DON'T have to spend the night in jail.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In some states there IS such a thing as fully expunged. But even if there weren't, the fact that the state chooses to clear a suspect of all charges is usually good enough for any entity that might care about a person's arrest record.

1) Records get lost. The burden of proof is on you.

2) The state doesn't always clear the charges, sometimes they just ignore them.

In other words, punish those not guilty of any crime.

It's not punishment. It's due process. Sometimes innocent people are going to be inconvenienced in an organized, orderly society.

You don't want to pay taxes, but if you want to live in a decent country with roads and firefighters, you pay taxes. You don't want to spend the night in jail, but if you want to live in a country where murderers don't just walk the street and skip down to Mexico because they shout, "It was self defense!" then you spend the night in jail every time you gun someone down.

...OR... if you can organize it so that your life threatening situations that require you to snuff out another person's life in self defence happen between the hours of oh, say 5:00 AM and 8:00 AM, there is a good chance the DA can get to you before the day's over and you DON'T have to spend the night in jail.

You specifically said it's acceptable consequences--that makes it punishment as it's being deliberately applied.

 

[zorq]

1) Records get lost. The burden of proof is on you.

2) The state doesn't always clear the charges, sometimes they just ignore them.

What? Well, it that case, it would be a good idea to petition the state to clear the charges then. Especially if it is important to you. Don't you think?

It's not punishment. It's due process. Sometimes innocent people are going to be inconvenienced in an organized, orderly society.

You don't want to pay taxes, but if you want to live in a decent country with roads and firefighters, you pay taxes. You don't want to spend the night in jail, but if you want to live in a country where murderers don't just walk the street and skip down to Mexico because they shout, "It was self defense!" then you spend the night in jail every time you gun someone down.

...OR... if you can organize it so that your life threatening situations that require you to snuff out another person's life in self defence happen between the hours of oh, say 5:00 AM and 8:00 AM, there is a good chance the DA can get to you before the day's over and you DON'T have to spend the night in jail.

You specifically said it's acceptable consequences--that makes it punishment as it's being deliberately applied.

What about the cause effect relationship is not a consequence? What about those consequences is not acceptable? I didn't say "punishment." You did. You don't have to put words in my mouth, you know.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What? Well, it that case, it would be a good idea to petition the state to clear the charges then. Especially if it is important to you. Don't you think?

I've read posts from multiple people who couldn't get Global Entry because of old charges that had been ignored, or because they couldn't prove the charges had been dismissed.

I've also read posts by a guy who is having job problems because of a dismissed domestic violence charge that is causing him problems entering the US.

You have an awful lot of faith that the system is going to work correctly. I've seen too many failures to have that degree of trust.

 

[zorq]

What? Well, it that case, it would be a good idea to petition the state to clear the charges then. Especially if it is important to you. Don't you think?

I've read posts from multiple people who couldn't get Global Entry because of old charges that had been ignored, or because they couldn't prove the charges had been dismissed.

I've also read posts by a guy who is having job problems because of a dismissed domestic violence charge that is causing him problems entering the US.

You have an awful lot of faith that the system is going to work correctly. I've seen too many failures to have that degree of trust.

So you would rather trust the guy who just gunned another guy down to tell the truth, and risk a murderer get away Scott-free, than risk a bureaucratic fumble and some tedious red tape?

Personally I'm more concerned with murderers on the lose than an innocent self defender having to jump through some legal hoops. One of those is a little bit worse than the other, IMO. Frankly I'm pretty sure there are more people out there who commit violent crime than people who manage to save themselves from violent crime with lethal force.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What? Well, it that case, it would be a good idea to petition the state to clear the charges then. Especially if it is important to you. Don't you think?

I've read posts from multiple people who couldn't get Global Entry because of old charges that had been ignored, or because they couldn't prove the charges had been dismissed.

I've also read posts by a guy who is having job problems because of a dismissed domestic violence charge that is causing him problems entering the US.

You have an awful lot of faith that the system is going to work correctly. I've seen too many failures to have that degree of trust.

So you would rather trust the guy who just gunned another guy down to tell the truth, and risk a murderer get away Scott-free, than risk a bureaucratic fumble and some tedious red tape?

Personally I'm more concerned with murderers on the lose than an innocent self defender having to jump through some legal hoops. One of those is a little bit worse than the other, IMO. Frankly I'm pretty sure there are more people out there who commit violent crime than people who manage to save themselves from violent crime with lethal force.

The SYG protections do not simply let the guilty walk free. There's nothing that says they can't be charged by a grand jury like usually happens with felonies. All SYG is prevent the reflexive arrest before investigation.