[RD] George Floyd and protesting while black

[gay_Aleks]

Like I'll keep saying until I go blue in the face, at this very point, even from a liberal perspective, you need to put the police in control. Defund the Police is, in fact, the moderate demand, because it is either actually abolishing the police, or destroying whatever vestiges of liberal democracy. We can see this happen in L.A, Columbus, NYC, etc - outright threats to the mayors about what would happen if they cross the cops. The alternative is, of course, to live quite literally in an actual police state, where the civil authorities are completely defanged. I don't know about you, but I think that the demand for that not to happen isn't exactly communistic, or whatever.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I’m sure if you’ve been paying attention, our arguments are that police standards are unacceptably low and should be raised.

Yes I'm sure you have at some point. Right now though you seem to be vehemently arguing with someone defending the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", on the grounds that it's just easier to get the result you want if you instead assume guilt.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Burden of proof is not on me to prove that a murderer’s act to murder someone else was an unjustifiable act.

No it's not on you, but it is on the state, who are the ones who would be imprisoning/executing him.

material circumstance is clear. Somebody acted in a harmful way to cause the death of another. We can tell from forensics and witness testimony that a specific someone is guilty of this crime.

So this satisfies the burden of proof then yes? You seem to be saying that when a whole load of apparent and obvious evidence exists, that there's no need to go looking for evidence. Well... yes, but only because you've already got it, not because it's not required.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I've already said that his MO is pretending not to have read the thread… oh wait, it's Manfred.

Still, distinction without difference.

Yay, RD threads are totally the best.

 

[Socrates99]

Yes he is... "So police, or anybody else for that matter, killing somebody else is supposed to be justified until and unless proven otherwise? Is this what you've come to?"

Therefore he thinks killing someone is unjustified until proven otherwise.

That doesn't refute what I said at all. The quote you give is a question about your position complete with question marks. If you're going to take an out of context quote and pretend it's a statement of belief at bare minimum doctor it up to look like a statement.

The police officer as an agent of the state unilaterally takes a suspect's life and claims the deceased was resisting (not a capital offense). That's removing the victim's presumption of innocence. The officer still gets their habeas corpus because they get to go to court and defend themselves. It's the victim that loses that right. The dead can't defend themselves.

When you sit down and say "well so and so resisted/didn't follow orders/made the wrong move/was a criminal/was a drug addict therefore the killing was justified" you're taking away that person's presumption of innocence. That's why cops, as agents of the state, should be held to a higher standard not the lower one they currently enjoy.

They're mocking you because a libertarian position on this shouldn't be to defend the agent of the state who took away the habeas corpus of an American citizen. Its literally the opposite of the "smaller government" mumbo jumbo libertarians espouse. Apparently that smaller government stuff only applies to welfare stuff? If an agent of the state uses brutal methods it's ok as long as said agent claims the citizen was a "bad guy."

 

[Seon]

You are being nonsensical.

I am indeed saying that in self-defense cases there necessarily exists evidence that proves that the person claiming self defense have murdered someone else. They would not be claiming self-defense otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty would still be true, but they will be found guilty based on the evidence unless the murder is deemed a justifiable act.

The state does not need to prove that the murder was a justifiable act. Our legal code indicates that the state only needs to establish that the deed happened beyond reasonable doubt. In self defense cases, this standard is met by the state. The burden of proving that there were unavoidable circumstances that lead to death of the victim lies solely in the defense, as our court system operates on an adversarial rather than inquisitorial system.

This is because in self defense cases, guilt of the individual is not in question. The defendant is absolutely guilty and have admitted to the crime. Self Defense defense is a request for clemency, not request for us to ignore that a murder has happened until the end of trial.

what the person I’m arguing with is saying is that a policemen shouldn’t be brought to trial, unless his guilt is established beforehand, which is an absurd proposition and against “innocent until proven guilty” standard of legal proceeding.

 

[Bugfatty300]

No it's not on you, but it is on the state, who are the ones who would be imprisoning/executing him.



So this satisfies the burden of proof then yes? You seem to be saying that when a whole load of apparent and obvious evidence exists, that there's no need to go looking for evidence. Well... yes, but only because you've already got it, not because it's not required.

No. In a self defense case the accused has already confessed to killing someone. The burden of proof for establishing mitigating circumstances (insanity, self-defense, etc) can then be placed entirely to the defendant. It's called "affirmative defense."

 

[Seon]

They're mocking you because a libertarian position on this shouldn't be to defend the agent of the state who took away the habeas corpus of an American citizen. Its literally the opposite of the "smaller government" mumbo jumbo libertarians espouse. Apparently that smaller government stuff only applies to welfare stuff? If an agent of the state uses brutal methods it's ok as long as said agent claims the citizen was a "bad guy."

This is not entirely fair. Libertarians have historically been mostly composed of and allied with authoritarian right wingers. Supporting the police and forceful interventionism to maintain economic ‘freedom’ is precisely what they argue for all the time. We shouldn’t make the mistake of misunderstanding their positions.

Libertarians, along with pretty much every other conservative movements in America, always espouse smaller government. However, they consistently support a large police force. Notably, libertarians here support ending the drug war, but not defunding and thus, significantly downsizing the police.

 

[Commodore]

Burden of proof is not on me to prove that a murderer’s act to murder someone else was an unjustifiable act

If you are the prosecutor, that burden of proof most certainly is on you. That's what innocent until proven guilty means, or at least what it's supposed to mean. If I'm a defendant, the court is supposed to take my defense as the truth of the matter until the state can prove otherwise.

The crime of murder is an intentional unjustifiable killing of another person. Unjustifiable is the key word there. If I claim self-defense, then I have not committed the crime of murder, because it would then be a justified killing. If the state is going to refute my claim and make their own claim that the killing was unjustified, then they have to prove it was unjustified.

And that's how a legal system should be set up. Sure, it may allow the occasional murder to get away with their crime, but allowing a few murderers to go free is preferable to people being afraid of going to prison for exercising their inherent right to defend themselves.

 

[Gorbles]

If you are the prosecutor, that burden of proof most certainly is on you. That's what innocent until proven guilty means, or at least what it's supposed to mean. If I'm a defendant, the court is supposed to take my defense as the truth of the matter until the state can prove otherwise.

The crime of murder is an intentional unjustifiable killing of another person. Unjustifiable is the key word there. If I claim self-defense, then I have not committed the crime of murder, because it would then be a justified killing. If the state is going to refute my claim and make their own claim that the killing was unjustified, then they have to prove it was unjustified.

And that's how a legal system should be set up. Sure, it may allow the occasional murder to get away with their crime, but allowing a few murderers to go free is preferable to people being afraid of going to prison for exercising their inherent right to defend themselves.

This is tedious semantics, Commodore. If you claim self-defense, you have only claimed self-defense. It doesn't magically transform the alleged act into not one of murder, because at that point in time that charge will not have been ruled on yet.

Notably, nobody in this thread is in a courtroom. Ergo, Seon is correct - is it not on them to prove an act of murder was, in fact, an act of murder. This is what the facts of the case will pertain to, and isn't something you can switch from Seon's personal statement to a generalised claim about the criminal justice system in the US. You're being disingenuous by doing so. The question asked (by Berzerker) to Seon involved a personal question about a killing being unjustified or not. You can't (fairly) switch tracks to the hypothetical where Seon is now a prosecutor. It's a shifting of the goalposts.

It seems like you're invested in opposing the state in any scenario where the state is invoked, which I understand is a common and consistent position for you to take (my agreement, or more accurately disagreement, being completely immaterial here). I just don't think it's that helpful.

 

[Commodore]

The question asked (by Berzerker) to Seon involved a personal question about a killing being unjustified or not

I honestly did not see Berserker's post which is why my response was framed the way it was.

 

[Bugfatty300]

If you are the prosecutor, that burden of proof most certainly is on you. That's what innocent until proven guilty means, or at least what it's supposed to mean. If I'm a defendant, the court is supposed to take my defense as the truth of the matter until the state can prove otherwise.

The crime of murder is an intentional unjustifiable killing of another person. Unjustifiable is the key word there. If I claim self-defense, then I have not committed the crime of murder, because it would then be a justified killing. If the state is going to refute my claim and make their own claim that the killing was unjustified, then they have to prove it was unjustified.

And that's how a legal system should be set up. Sure, it may allow the occasional murder to get away with their crime, but allowing a few murderers to go free is preferable to people being afraid of going to prison for exercising their inherent right to defend themselves.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.c...criminal-defense-case/affirmative-defense.htm

Sometimes a criminal defendant is entitled to acquittal even though the prosecution has proven every element of the charged offense. This happens when the defendant has successfully raised and the jury has accepted an “affirmative defense” that operates by law to exonerate him.

....

The defense strategy described just above isn’t the only way a criminal defendant can obtain an acquittal. Instead of (or in addition to) trying to defeat the prosecutor’s goal of proving every element, a defendant can also introduce evidence of his own that, if believed by the jury, will defeat the charge. The word “affirmative” in the term refers to the requirement that the defendant prove the defense, as opposed to negating the prosecution’s evidence of an element of the crime.

An affirmative defense operates to prevent conviction even when the prosecutor has proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to every element of the crime. For example, consider again the elements that the state must prove when charging murder (that a human died, killed by another human, who intended to do so). Now imagine a claim of self-defense—the defendant says that he shot the victim only after the victim attacked him. There is no doubt that a human died, killed by another human who intended to do so. But if the jury believes the defendant’s claim, he will escape conviction.

An affirmative defense operates to prevent conviction even when the prosecutor has proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to every element of the crime. For example, consider again the elements that the state must prove when charging murder (that a human died, killed by another human, who intended to do so). Now imagine a claim of self-defense—the defendant says that he shot the victim only after the victim attacked him. There is no doubt that a human died, killed by another human who intended to do so. But if the jury believes the defendant’s claim, he will escape conviction.

 

[Commodore]

I know about affirmative defense and I think it's a concept that runs counter to the principles our legal system is supposed to operate on. A defendant should never have to prove their innocence.

Also, that last paragraph gets the murder thing wrong. Murder, as a crime not a concept, is the unjustified intentional killing of another human. If the reason you had for killing another human is justified, such as self-defense, then the crime of murder has not been committed. So if we are going to hold to our innocent until proven guilty principles, then a defendant should never have to prove that their killing was justified. That should just be the base assumption by the court and jury, and it should be incumbent on the prosecution to prove the killing was unjustified and the crime of murder was committed.

That last paragraph conveniently leaves out the unjustified part when describing the crime of murder.

 

[El_Machinae]

Ugh, whether self-defense is a proactive defense or not (whether there's a shift in burden), is a question of modern law in your region. Not your opinion.

Just check. If your opinion was wrong, it just means your comprehension of the gist of the law needs updating.

 

[Seon]

Well you can certainly try to pass a law to lower Evidentiary standard of Self defense claim as what you seem to be suggesting, commodore.

It doesn’t mean that it’s gonna become anything aside from an affirmative defense. Logically, you have to *claim* self defense for the defense to work, which necessarily has to involve admitting you have killed someone else.

What I’m saying is that claiming that in America, claiming self-defense makes the court have to accept your position based on the idea of innocent before proven guilty is factually incorrect. It’s stupid easy to prove you acted in self defense in America, but the defense is always the one trying to prove they acted in self defense.

 

[Bugfatty300]

It’s stupid easy to prove you acted in self defense in America

Yet nearly impossible for a defense to prove insanity or diminished intelligence even though they're legally speaking in the same category.

"The voices in my head made me do it" = Presumed guilty
"The criminal forced my hand" = Presumed innocent

 

[cardgame]

Yet nearly impossible for a defense to prove insanity or diminished intelligence even though they're legally speaking in the same category.

"The voices in my head made me do it" = Presumed guilty
"The criminal forced my hand" = Presumed innocent

This isn't very fair, because one is just in your head and the other is a material reality.

On the other hand, it's completely fair because whether or not "the criminal forced my hand" is determined entirely in your head and no amount of physical evidence, including body cameras, audio testimony, material circumstances, etc. are admissible as evidence. See exhibit A, the murder of Daniel Shaver.

 

[El_Machinae]

I've said a thousand times, the game-winning solution is to invent viable interventions for mental illness. It's literally a science problem. Every successful intervention prevents the injustice from occurring in the first place. Find a research charity and support it. Everything else is re-arranging the deck chairs.

 

[gay_Aleks]

It's definitely not just a science problem. It is a societal problem (not that science isn't part of society!), especially with the way we handle mentally ill people. How can a research charity help with interventions, if the main solution is to call the cops or send someone into an asylum? It's just unsustainable.

 

[El_Machinae]

Nah, it just means that you need to do more than one thing at a time. I'm engaging in critical path analysis.

You cannot deliver a viable intervention until the intervention is created. And the difference between the disease absence and any treatment is overwhelming. You're talking about iron lungs, I'm talking about a polio vaccine.

Everything is a Band-Aid until there's a viable intervention. And then rolling out the viable intervention is its own problem. And yeah, you can use the same infrastructure that was delivering Band-Aids, so it's certainly worth improving that infrastructure

But the game-winning scenario requires viable intervention