Submitted by LaunderMachine t3_zppgoj in baltimore
jojammin t1_j0u6s4m wrote
For the stand your ground people...squeegee boy who shot the guy on Conway would have a defense under stand your ground
bob_smithey t1_j0ucgia wrote
If it was legal for the squeegee man to carry in MD:
Coming up with a bat, yes.
Shooting him in the back, no.
CrabEnthusist t1_j0w70ym wrote
He was 15. He wasn't a man.
Duty to retreat/stand your ground as legal principles are affirmative defenses to homicide, have no inharent connection to guns, and thus the legality of the firearm used is irrelevant.
I suspect you already know these things.
bob_smithey t1_j110qjp wrote
I'm unaware of the details with minor vs adult when on trial for murder. I don't know what the jury will think, since that is how we decide things. Being a minor, illegally carrying, and then shooting someone retreating multiple times doesn't sound good to me. The legality of the firearm doesn't matter. But it definitely matters in how the jury thinks. Just looking at the bigger picture.
r3d51v3 t1_j0wrk2d wrote
I don’t think the legality of the kid carrying a gun has bearing on his right to self defense. He could have been guilty of a gun crime, but still be not guilty on the homicide due to self defense. Initially it seemed to me he was defending himself, however after seeing the video, it looks like he shot the aggressor as he retreated, which is not self defense.
bob_smithey t1_j10zzb1 wrote
Illegally carrying a firearm in Maryland is a misdemeanor. I'll leave the legal fu for the lawyers and courts to figure out. I don't know what differences there are between a minor and an adult in this instance.
You're in the "Judged by twelve is better than carried by six" group. However, as you stated, this doesn't appear to be self defense. We are not in a stand your ground state. And even if we were, I suspect there would be the same outcome in the courts.
r3d51v3 t1_j11swhz wrote
All I’m saying is that the legality of the weapon doesn’t bear on one’s right to self defense. When I heard the story, it sounded like the kid defended himself; whether or not he was allowed to have the gun is immaterial. However, upon seeing the video, he appears to have re-engaged after the man with the bat was walking away, which is clearly not self defense.
Douseigh t1_j1bn8zc wrote
This is correct. The fact that the gun was illegal is not related to self defense - I beeline Maryland has case law specifically noting this
Timmah_1984 t1_j0uez1r wrote
Maybe? The problem is that it’s been reported that the guy with the bat had turned and was walking away when the kid shot him. It’s possible that there is evidence which shows something different but if not then it doesn’t qualify as a self defense or stand your ground situation. There was a case in Florida a few years ago where a guy was yelling at a woman for parking in the handicap spot. Her boyfriend came out and immediately shoved him to the ground. The guy responded by shooting and killing him. He claimed stand your ground but was charged with murder and went to prison. Basically he didn’t give her boyfriend enough time to register that he had a gun, which arguably would have been enough to stop most people from continuing to fight.
jojammin t1_j0uq593 wrote
Jury would make determination if he satisfied syg jury instruction/statute. He would get to present evidence that he did. I would get the other squeegee boys to take the stand and testify that the victim charged the shooter and only turned away at the last second which would create reasonable doubt/give the affirmative defense of SYG
Puzzleheaded-Eye6596 t1_j0w0zxc wrote
I think the entire altercation was filmed from multiple angles
thethighshaveit t1_j0unr9u wrote
It's cute that you think SYG would be applied equitably.
jojammin t1_j0up3i9 wrote
Not sure what that means. It would be up to the jury to determine if the facts presented to them would satisfy the hypothetical stand your ground jury instruction based on the corresponding statute.
thethighshaveit t1_j0uroc6 wrote
Gee, you can't possibly imagine that might not mean equitable application? Also, prosecutorial discretion has a substantial effect on these cases. If there's inadequate evidence to prove that the individual did NOT act in self-defense, evidence that is hard to document because of the subjectivity of "fear," killers will not even be charged. And that's /if/ the local prosecutor is motivated solely by evidence and not protecting their buddies. Note all the times in recent news when overwhelming public outcry was needed to even charge murderers because the local prosecutor decided there was no crime.
If only research on this were easy to find.
https://efsgv.org/wp-content/uploads/StandYourGround.pdf
https://psychology.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/2017-04/1-s2.0-S0277953615301489-main.pdf
https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/stand-your-ground-laws-and-racial-bias
jojammin t1_j0uu940 wrote
>SYG shifts the burden of proof to the State
State always has the burden of proving defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. What? You are citing papers without understanding them.
Jury, not the state, determines guilt and whether affirmative defense (defendant has burden usually under SYG statutes to prove self defense) has been met.
jojammin t1_j0uw7vz wrote
Wtf hypothetical are you talking about? Squeegee boy has been charged and is not a friend of the cops. Did you mean to respond to another comment?
thethighshaveit t1_j22lwkw wrote
I'm saying that being up to a jury depends on actually getting in front of a jury. I'm not talking about the squeegee situation in particular but the reality of prosecutorial discretion being used inequitably.
lolokaydudewhatever t1_j0u9d9c wrote
I like this take
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments