Comments on: Second Guessing Crime Victims Who Have Defended Themselves

By: Jared

Jared — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:54:16 +0000

I am writing a satirical piece for my high school english class, this piece really helped me show how ridiculous the rhetoric being used to portray topic really is. “Veda Starks, Brandon Starks’ mother, then had the audacity to condem the clerk who shot her (burglary and armed robbery committing) son.” Just take a look at that quote. It oozes satire. My thanks to the writer/publisher/Republican.

By: John

John — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:57:20 +0000

I appreciate this final point: “the store clerk likely prevented other people from suffering at Stark’s hands in the future.”

I don’t see the problem with shooting an armed criminal in the back as soon as he starts to run away. Who’s to say that the armed robber won’t kill someone on the street? (Example: someone sees the robber running with wads of cash in his pocket and tries to tackle him, not knowing about the concealed weapon.)

Anyone willing to point a gun at an innocent person for personal gain is a potential killer. Simply letting a dangerous person run away when you have the opportunity to stop them could result in an innocent death. The man who shot Brandon Starks was a hero. I’m sure he had no desire to kill a man, but at the same time, he didn’t want someone innocent to die due to his own inaction.

By: Dale

Dale — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 13:53:02 +0000

As a law school graduate (I, on the other hand, have never had a law class) you are, no doubt, aware of the proper solution to the problem of Monday-morning-quarterbacking self-defense situations: jury nullification.

Interestingly, I stumbled on the concept from what is probably an unexpected source. I had heard of the term but generally only in the scenario where some jurors might be influenced to not vote guilty against a suspect of their own race – particularly if the victim was of another race. And please don’t jump to conclusions – this scenario occurs in all races. Thus, my view on jury nullification was negative for most of my life.

Then came Gunsmoke reruns on cable. As I watched episode after episode I noticed that the common thread was Matt Dillon always made the morally right choice with no political or social agenda. It was a better show than I remembered from my childhood in the 50s and 60s. More importantly, Matt never arrested anyone who shot another in self defense or who shot another for raping one’s wife or child. Matt, in the show, knew that no jury would convict the shooter in those situations. It finally hit on me that this was the real value in jury nullification.

Not being an attorney or law school graduate, I had to look it up. It is not only the right of a jury to weigh the circumstances along with the law but it is their obligation.

When the Supreme Court began to strip juries of the right to be informed of this, their right to nullify, we began to live under tyranny; we were flung headlong into the current situation where juries assume guilt first and defendants, in practice, not the law, have to prove their innocence.

http://fija.org/