Decide How It "Should" Be.
 

Lot of talk about whether some laws and some cases and verdicts are or are not right. So, let's start from scratch, and design a standard that is right.

Rules for this thread: NO reference to any existing law or precedent, NO reference to any actual people, cases, events or trials. NONE of that is relevant. You want to re-hash that stuff, go to PARF along with the other people who can't control themselves.

We're trying to hypothetically roll back the clock to before anything bad has happened, and are going to decide what the rules should be in our hypothetical world, based simply on our collective sense of what is right and fair and wrong and bad.

Here is the situation:
- Mr. A physically assaults Mr. B. Mr. A is not responding to any physical threat or clear provocation from Mr. B. The assault is bare-handed but genuine, a violent attack with fists and feet. No other weapon.
- Mr. B fights back with equal violence. With fists and feet. No other weapon.
- Mr. A produces a weapon and kills Mr. B. Uses a gun or a knife.

What should be the result? The village is gathered to decide. Thumbs can go up, or down.

Does it matter if, or if not:
- Mr. A and Mr. B are equal in age, size, strength, and fighting experience and ability? Suppose they are unequal? Suppose one of the Misters is a Missus?
- Mr. B is "winning" the fight, when Mr. A kills him? Suppose Mr. B is just "holding even"? How about if Mr. A is "winning" at that point? What is "winning"?
- Mr. A says, during the fight, that he is ready to stop fighting? Does Mr. B have to believe him?
- What else would make a difference in the correct result?

I'll start. Imo, unless some really extreme mitigating factors are at play, Mr. A can't start something, then escalate it under any circumstances without being guilty of something. I'll also add that I don't believe Mr. A has to actually land the first punch, etc. In the real world, most people could be provoked under some circumstances by even "words".

No punishment no rules - jungle rule. Strongest and smartest survive - weak and stupid are compost.

What was Mr. A's motive for the original attack?

Also, is the widow B hot?
Do you have pics?

Does Mr. A's motivation matter to our decision? In what way? We're assuming Mr. A's initial assault is not "justified".

Anyone who commits a crime with a weapon* gets life in prison - no parole. They have to work outside the prison everyday building new roads and improving our infrastructure.

If they attempt to escape - they are to be shot and killed immediately.

*Unless they murder someone - in which case they are put to death within' 3 days after they are found guilty.

You have to break a few eggs in order to make an omelet.

We haven't had an omelet here in the states for a long time.....

That's not the question, though. Did Mr. A commit a crime when he killed (shot or stabbed) Mr. B?

When we have jurors who can show their faces after a trial without fear of harm....only then will I be satisfied we have an unbroken criminal justice system.

We are barbarians.

Heathens, in fact.

Sad but true.

Just send this thread to Parf and you will see..... :(

"Did Mr. A commit a crime when he killed (shot or stabbed) Mr. B?" Yes

And he started the fight.

He gets a quick trial, there's no question about guilt.
Death penalty and follow thought in short order.
End of story.

Suppose Mr. B has turned the tables on Mr. A and is hitting Mr. A pretty good, still bare-handed. Can Mr. A produce his gun or knife and kill Mr. B? If Mr. A keeps losing the fight he started, to the point that he can no longer effectively fight with his fists/feet, is his only alternative to go fetal and hope Mr. B stops?

Personal responsibility issue IMO
 

1. Can Mr. A produce his gun or knife and kill Mr. B? He can and will have to defend that action in a court of law on the surface it sounds excessive, however....

2. If Mr. A keeps losing the fight he started, to the point that he can no longer effectively fight with his fists/feet, is his only alternative to go fetal and hope Mr. B stops? He better be able to out run Mr. B at that point.

Sounds like Mr A was emboldened by this weapon: he started a fight he would not have started without it.

Then if Mr B turns the tables and starts kicking As ass, Mr A can not pull his weapon in self defense.

Mr A lost the right to self defense when he left his house with a weapon and started trouble.

If you start a physical fight without justification, you are responsible for what ever happens - whether it is you killing or being killed.

This thread is awesome.

And Baz for president after what he wrote in post 6.