ChuangTzu said:

Enlil said:

That's some pretty far-removed logic...and a very broad definition of "violence."

---

It's not that removed because they directly take tax money and give it to tree trimmers.  Without forcibly extracting tax money using threats of violence, the city doesn't trim trees.

Enlil said:

johnm214 said:

So what?  You say this yet don't base any relevant argument on this claim.  The shooter does not bear the burden of proof.

---

Actually, he does with respect to the self-defense claim...

---

In many states self-defense is just an affirmative defense in which case the burden of proof is on the defendant.  In Florida and many other states, however, when a self-defense claim is made, an arrest can't even be made unless there is probable cause that the killing was not in self defense.  If this burden isn't met, the police and/or prosecuting attorney can be sued.  So, for now at least, the burden of proof is on the prosecuting attorney.

---

Icelander said:

Shroomism said:

Diploid said:

even though the kid was not doing anything wrong

How do you know he wasn't doing anything wrong?

---

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Last I heard he was walking back from the store with a bag of skittles and iced tea.

---

No one said he was guilty of anything. The statement was "how do YOU know he wasn't doing anything wrong"  Last you heard was just what was fed to the media so you don't know all the details yet like the rest of us who are not rushing to judgement.

---

Enlil said:

Probable cause is necessary in every state to arrest someone.  That's a constitutional issue.  It's a very low burden, however...

---

Quote:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

---

Quote:

In court, he would still need to prove his self-defense claim.

---

Quote:

And equating the seizure of one's bank account with "violence" would make everything and anything violence...

---

How so?  Most transactions are based on voluntary exchange.  Not even all account seizures employ violence or threat of violence--a hacker can divert funds to another account electronically but he did not threaten anyone.  He only employed deceit.  At no point along the way was force used to enact the transaction.  When an account is seized, however, there is the explicit threat of arrest if the bank does not comply.  If someone doesn't have money in a bank account, money and/or property will be seized from their home or business.  Any attempt by the owner to maintain control of their property will result in violence. 

Please elaborate on how sitting on my couch typing on my laptop is violence. 

ChuangTzu said:

Please elaborate on how sitting on my couch typing on my laptop is violence. 

---

Enlil said:

You're the one with the broad definition...Don't ask me to defend it.

---

Quote:

Taxation isn't violence...If you believe it is, then there is no common ground from which to argue...we have a fundamentally different definition of "violence."

---

Quote:

P.S.  In no state in the country is the death of someone prima facie evidence of murder...The state always has to have probable cause to believe the other elements of murder exist.

---

ChuangTzu said:

If someone broke into my house where I live and I shot them out of fear of my life, I will be arrested and charged with murder.

---

ChuangTzu said:

I suspect that our definitions of violence are actually quite similar. 

---

Diploid said:

They're looking to cash in on their dead kid

---

Not Quite Social said:

Enlil,

Care to weigh in on whether Trayvon Martin's parents loved him?  Whether they're sad Trayvon is dead?  Whether their priority is profiting from Trayvon's death, not justice?  Perhaps the Martin's had no natural affection for their son.  What do you think, Enlil?  What's the legal angle on these issues Diploid & Icelander raise?

Btw, George Zimmerman murdered an innocent black teenager.

---

Diploid said:

Here's another one. If Martin had been a straight-A student, on the honor role, and taking AP classes, I'd bet every last dollar I have that you and the other lynch mob apologist would be parading that irrelevant fact in my face as vehemently as you deny that Martin's apparent burglaries and attack on a bus drivers are relevant to plausibility that he attacked Zimmerman while Zimmerman was walking back to his car.

---

Enlil said:

zappaisgod said:

Yes it is.  If I refuse to provide the tax money that pays for it they will prosecute me and at the very least forcibly extract my treasure.

---

That's some pretty far-removed logic...and a very broad definition of "violence."

---

Enlil said:

ChuangTzu said:

Please elaborate on how sitting on my couch typing on my laptop is violence. 

---

It isn't...neither is seizing money from a bank account...or burglary...or suing someone for money...

You're the one with the broad definition...Don't ask me to defend it.

Taxation isn't violence...If you believe it is, then there is no common ground from which to argue...we have a fundamentally different definition of "violence."

---