Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PaxNova t1_iuxgrck wrote

Just a guess, but if they can't prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the shooter was the aggressor, it would be a failed prosecution anyways... so they save some time and money and skip prosecution.

15

code_archeologist t1_iuxhq8h wrote

And there is the problem with our current legal theory of self defense. It makes gun battles between groups of people unjusticiable... In effect, you can legally commit murder, if you know that the people you are shooting at will shoot back.

4

PaxNova t1_iuxiuk8 wrote

... and there's no record of it with context, or witnesses (unless you wait for them to draw.)

It's not great, but is there a better suggestion?

3

InappropriateTA t1_iuz07ep wrote

From my time on jury duty, the prosecution’s job is not to prove anything “beyond the shadow of a doubt,” it’s to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

1