re: #327 ‘M AFFN FUN

But the problem was with with the lack of arrest (and subsequent procedures, like testing), not charging (which might have been easier after arrest). So then that’s the main problem with the law, not that it removes one avenue of proof.

I’m not sure if the ‘main’ problem is really determinable. There are multiple problems, at any given juncture one may be more or less problematic than the other. In this case, the cops apparently completely failed to do any sort of good questioning or evidence collection. The law limits the easiest way of disproving a self-defense claim— that you had an avenue for escape or retreat and did not take it.

This same story could have happened without the SYG law, and a lot of people— both defenders and attackers of the law— are mixing up the ‘stand’ part as part of the requirements, rather than the right granted.

But the SYG law is problematic in this circumstance because the shooter doesn’t even have to assert that they made any attempt to escape or any attempt to judge whether or not whether they could escape the situation, and it codifies the self-defense right as the right to use lethal force in respond to a ‘reasonable’ fear of severe injury, which has so far been interpreted to mean a fear of basically any sort of aggressive motion on the other’s part.

So the problems I’d say are fourfold, each making each other worse:

1. Cops didn’t investigate.

2. The law removes the need to de-escalate or escape if able

3. The law has, through rulings, been established to mean that ‘reasonable’ fear is basically any aggressive act as interpreted by the shooter.

4. All of this is determined by a judge, not a jury, and it doesn’t serve as part of a defense against a charge, but a denial of a charge in the first place.