Is this where our gun-crazy society is going?

[Jerry442]

Picture this scenario: two people approach each other on the street. Suddenly one draws a gun and shoots the other, fatally. The shooter is arrested and charged with second-degree murder.

Now the case goes to trial. To convict the shooter, the prosecution has to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the shooter did not act as a "reasonable man" defending himself against a perceived threat. All the defense has to do to get an acquittal is to show reasonable doubt.

The problem here is, the action occurred in a fraction of a second, meaning that most, if not all, eyewitnesses wouldn't have been paying attention until after the fact. If the shooter claims the deceased made a threatening move, it's quite likely the prosecution can't get evidence to decisively refute that.

And, what if the deceased lived a life that was less than pure? Got into a fight in a bar? Had some DUIs? Or was carrying a weapon? And, of course, what if the deceased was one one of those people?

An acquittal is going to ramp up the level of violence. Got to shoot them before they shoot you.

I think I'll look for one of those places like in the old West where the sheriff made the cowboys surrender their guns before they came into town.

[justanaverageguy]

1. no

It's not good enough as a defendant in your scenario to just simply say "he made a threatening move so I shot him in self defense". A defendant must present some evidence to support a prima facie case for the self defense claim. He would have to show some evidence that the deceased actually did make a threatening move and that the defendants reaction was reasonable (for the jury to decide). If your scenario were the case there would never be a murder conviction anywhere. A self defense claim is similar to a not guilty by reason of insanity plea. It's not enough to claim that you were insane at the time of the murder, you have to show some evidence that you were in fact insane.

This is why Trevor Dooley in Florida was found guilty of manslaughter despite his claim of self defense. There was very little if any evidence or witnesses to back up his claim and there were a number of witnesses to refute his claim. In the Zimmerman case, although you (and the jury) may find that the evidence and the witnesses lack creditability and weigh it accordingly, at least it's there to support a prima facie case for self defense.

[Jerry442]

5. TY for the response. Makes me feel a little better about the case we're all watching. NT

[moondust]

2. Yup.

In some places murder is legal now as long as nobody is looking. I think shooting an unarmed person used to be some kind of crime.

These people are crazy.

Here's an idea: Since the victim is dead and cannot present his/her side of the story, you also disallow the defendent from presenting his/her side of the story. You decide the case based solely on the circumstantial evidence. None of this one-sided, fictional animation nonsense.

[aikoaiko]

3. No, the scenario you are describing is not happening.

There have been several cases where people try to use Stand Your Ground laws as a defense and they failed because the evidence didn't support the defense.

[hack89]

4. There are plenty of people in prison who claimed self defense

the problem with the Zimmerman case is the lack of eyewitnesses - no one saw who struck the first blow and no one saw the actual shooting.