• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judges Denies Stand your Ground

Cryptic said:
"Roman Law" is a legal concept that applies in many countries, including the state where the shooting took place. I don't know whether Roman Law applies in Rome, Italy or not. Italy may have adopted Napoleonic codes since the days of Augustus.

Historically, our jurisprudence has been Roman Law (written, codified law) mixed with some British Common Law concepts. Recently, however, the unofficial use / development of common law concepts in the U.S. has declined. In Roman law is an action is lawful, unless codified that it is not. Pure Common Law systems have no written laws.

The examples below are oversimplified, but I think they show the differences between a Roman application and a mix:

Q. Does Reeve's confrontation and badgering of Oulson detract from his claims to self defense?
Roman Law: Telling somebody repeatedly to stop texting is not illegal. I don't see how it relates.
Mixed: No, it is not illegal- and that helps Reeves. Reeves, however, started an avoidable confrontation and continued it. Let's look at the totality...

Or....
Q. Was it legal for the man to kill his neighbor who was having an affair with his wife?
Roman Law: No, he is guilty and the adultery issue is not really material
Mix: No, he is guilty. But sleeping with another man's wife is asking for trouble. That should be considered in the charges.
Click to expand...

Then I guess I support Roman law, insofar as people should not be sent to prison for decades based on people's subjective judgement of the morals of a situation, instead we need to look at the law.

In your world any trivial transgression against someone means they can kill you and you can't protect yourself. and let's talk about common law, the common law in England required you to confront people, if someone committed a crime you were obligated as a male citizen to aid in the chase and arrest of that person. so you can't have a legal system that puts culpability on you for "confronting" someone and then actually mandate you confront someone, that isn't just.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
In your world any trivial transgression against someone means they can kill you and you can't protect yourself.
Click to expand...
Really? And what do you base this on? In your world, can a person walk around bating and provoking people- then kill them if they even look like they might take the "bait"?

Rather, I simply said that I would consider the totality of the situation. Giving offense to or harassing somebody does not void my right to self defense. But.... it can diminish it. In this case, Reeves killed somebody based on "maybes", "might bes" and "could bes". Given Reeves willing participation in the confrontation, his diminished (but not voided) right of self defense does not support killing a person based on "maybes".
EMNofSeattle said:
And let's talk about common law, the common law in England required you to confront people, if someone committed a crime you were obligated as a male citizen to aid in the chase and arrest of that person. so you can't have a legal system that puts culpability on you for "confronting" someone and then actually mandate you confront someone, that isn't just.
Click to expand...
As texting is not a crime, I don't think the earlier British Common Law thoughts on mandatory assistance would have required confronting Oulsen.
 
Last edited:
Cryptic said:
Really? And what do you base this on? In your world, can a person walk around bating and provoking people- then kill them if they even look like they might take the "bait"?

Rather, I simply said that I would consider the totality of the situation. Giving offense to or harassing somebody does not void my right to self defense. But.... it can diminish it. In this case, Reeves killed somebody based on "maybes", "might bes" and "could bes". Given Reeves willing participation in the confrontation, his diminished (but not voided) right of self defense does not support killing a person based on "maybes".

As texting is not a crime, I don't think the earlier British Common Law thoughts on mandatory assistance would have required confronting Oulsen.
Click to expand...

I don't think Reeves was a willing participant in a physical altercation.

also justifiable homicide is a binary concept, it is actually a "perfect defense" in that if your claim is validated you are completely innocent, if it is disproven you are completely guilty.

there is no diminishment here, so we need to look at, who made this a physical confrontation.... ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom