If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
No question that it wasn't a legally justifiable shot.Probably not a justifiable shot. The sucker puncher got what he deserved. No guilty vote from me if I were on the jury.
I think society is better off with the sucker puncher in the ground.No question that it wasn't a legally justifiable shot.
However when the government doesn't do its job of policing society then we must allow for individuals to act to keep the peace. While a sucker punch shouldn't be a death penalty, it will only take a couple of victim selection fails before people think twice about taking that swing.
If the crowd had reacted by beating the guy the instant he suckered punched a random person then moral justice would have been fully satisfied, that didn't happen so the wronged person used the level of force he possessed to persuade the guy not to attack random people.
No question that it wasn't a legally justifiable shot.
However when the government doesn't do its job of policing society then we must allow for individuals to act to keep the peace. While a sucker punch shouldn't be a death penalty, it will only take a couple of victim selection fails before people think twice about taking that swing.
If the crowd had reacted by beating the guy the instant he suckered punched a random person then moral justice would have been fully satisfied, that didn't happen so the wronged person used the level of force he possessed to persuade the guy not to attack random people.
A punch to the back of the head can kill.As I said before, I'm shedding no tears over the sucker-puncher getting offed. But now that we're getting into philosophy? What moral-justice imperative says it's okay to respond to a closed fist with two rounds to the chest?
If the shooter had gone after the puncher with his fists, my view of this would be entirely different. Because that would be meeting force with force, battery against battery with only the "sneak-attack" nature of the initial punch to differentiate them. It's not so easy for me to justify the disparate levels of force, especially considering that the shooter declined to stand up for himself right away. The initial retreat is very damning, I think, both legally and morally.
But was it random? Seemed like maybe they had something more involved going on.persuade the guy not to attack random people
When you instigate, the law goes out the window in real life. You mess with the bull, you get the horns. PSGWSP. Zero sympathy. This needs to happen more often.....it likely does in chiraq it’s just rarely on video.Two things can be true: What he did was unlawful but I wouldn’t vote to convict.
Probably not, it did happen near Chicago right? If that is the case one scumbag is dead and another is going to jail.But was it random? Seemed like maybe they had something more involved going on.
Sure it can. Absolutely it can.A punch to the back of the head can kill.
Jury nullification. I’m my own person. I’m not a robot. I expect any jurors for me to act similarly.I don't want jurors who apply their own biases. I want jurors who apply the law.
I hope this in-duh-vidual is has sufficient medical knowledge to explain exactly what the medical consequences of a single punch to the head can be, and why another punch could easily have left him dead or organ donor material.
Don't sucker punch people and you won't have anything to worry about. If you read the link I posted, the victim refused treatment, and then went home and died. Suckerpunchers need to be exterminated. Sorry you have so much empathy for them.Sure it can. Absolutely it can.
But in this case? It didn’t. Hell, it didn’t even put the guy out. He just bounced up, stepped away, burrowed around for the gun in his bag, secured his escape, then gave him a parting shot before scampering.
I’m not sure why anyone here is defending that sort of conduct. I view it as cowardly. He took zero responsibility for his response. If it was justifiable, he sure didn’t act like it.
ETA: I'm rethinking the word "cowardly." I don't think the shooter was any more cowardly than the puncher. But he certainly wasn't courageous.
Are you living in the material world...?Beyond a reasonable doubt is the legal standard, and I want jurors who take that to heart, truly believe people are innocent unless proven otherwise, and apply meaning to what laws are meant. If there’s any biases, and it’s in favor of the individual and not the state, yes, I want jurors with biases. I want jurors that can think for themselves and don’t need to be told what to think.
The problem is the judge tells the jury what the rules are....lol JesusJury nullification. I’m my own person. I’m not a robot. I expect any jurors for me to act similarly.
That’s why it’s a jury of peers and not of cops or lawyers or judges.
I'm not a believer that you need to use equal force to defend yourself. I'm not arguing that he is a hero for putting the guy down, he certainly isn't a coward. PSGWSP all around for everyone.Sure it can. Absolutely it can.
But in this case? It didn’t. Hell, it didn’t even put the guy out. He just bounced up, stepped away, burrowed around for the gun in his bag, secured his escape, then gave him a parting shot before scampering.
I’m not sure why anyone here is defending that sort of conduct. I view it as cowardly. He took zero responsibility for his response. If it was justifiable, he sure didn’t act like it.
ETA: I'm rethinking the word "cowardly." I don't think the shooter was any more cowardly than the puncher. But he certainly wasn't courageous.
The problem is the judge tells the jury what the rules are....lol Jesus
I don't want jurors who apply their own biases. I want jurors who apply the law. Which kind of juror would you prefer if you were the defendant, for anything? You want a fair trial. You won't get that if jurors are disregarding the law.
@M1911 is entirely correct, up in post 93: if you're going to carry, it's on you to know the law. The law as it IS, not the law as you want it to be. You don't get to kill people in revenge. You just don't.
Me too. Unfortunately, I’ve been on a jury before....Beyond a reasonable doubt is the legal standard, and I want jurors who take that to heart, truly believe people are innocent unless proven otherwise, and apply meaning to what laws are meant. If there’s any biases, and it’s in favor of the individual and not the state, yes, I want jurors with biases. I want jurors that can think for themselves and don’t need to be told what to think.
I hear you....but chiraq.Uh huh.
And in this case? Based on the video? Given whatever understanding of SD, manslaughter, and murder you have? What would you say the shooter here is likely to be found guilty of?
Reminder: he was halfway out a door and could have just kept right on walking...
Don't sucker punch people and you won't have anything to worry about. If you read the link I posted, the victim refused treatment, and then went home and died. Suckerpunchers need to be exterminated. Sorry you have so much empathy for them.
Morally, you start shit, it’s your damn fault what happens.As I said before, I'm shedding no tears over the sucker-puncher getting offed. But now that we're getting into philosophy? What moral-justice imperative says it's okay to respond to a closed fist with two rounds to the chest?
If the shooter had gone after the puncher with his fists, my view of this would be entirely different. Because that would be meeting force with force, battery against battery with only the "sneak-attack" nature of the initial punch to differentiate them. It's not so easy for me to justify the disparate levels of force, especially considering that the shooter declined to stand up for himself right away. The initial retreat is very damning, I think, both legally and morally.
Nobody is going to jail over this!!!Probably not, it did happen near Chicago right? If that is the case one scumbag is dead and another is going to jail.
I’m 100% OK with the shooters conduct.I think you missed the part where I TWICE said I'm not sorry the suckerpuncher is dead.
We're not talking about the suckerpuncher's conduct here, or at least I'm not. We're talking about the shooter's conduct. You know, like the thread title says...
Welp:
Jury nullification my friend.
I’m 100% OK with the shooters conduct.
I imagine that I would not...Do you think you'd have done it?
Maybe you'll say "I don't know," and that's fine by me. I'm not trying to trap you. I'm just curious whether your endorsement of this kid's actions goes so far as to say you'd do the same thing.
I’m guessing most of us wouldn’t because I highly doubt this is a random attack.I imagine that I would not...
Welp:
In 2017, a jury was instructed: "You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that means, for your duty to follow the law, whether you agree with it or not. It is not for you to determine whether the law is just or whether the law is unjust. That cannot be your task. There is no such thing as valid jury nullification. You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to you in this case." The Ninth Circuit upheld the first three sentences of the jury's instruction and overruled the remainder but deemed that instruction a harmless error and affirmed the conviction.[59]