anotherlimey

LOL - for the last bit [hopefully] of wit.

But, who will decide, is it the Judge, the Jury a computer perhaps? oh Mr Wise and mighty?

Franklin

Who do you think ... see if you can at least get this right!


But what the heck ... the defense and prosecution counsel will argue what was reasonable in the circumstances, i.e., both sides will present their version of what was reasonable/what the reasonable person would have done if placed in the same shoes as the defendant. Then the Judge will issue Jury Instructions ... then the Jury will retire to consider their verdicts on each count having listened to all the evidence presented by both sides and having listened attentively to the Judge's guidance ... and go and watch some sport on the telly in the jury waiting room, and between goals or touch downs or whatever take the vote on whether the defendant hangs or walks ... well, not quite ... but you get my drift ...

anotherlimey

Come on, I'm asking you?

My guess would be the Jury would decide on reasonable force but in that case it is subjective, which would be the case if it was the Judge too. So therefore it must just be an IBM Supercomputer... obviously.

EDIT: Better add a roll of the eyes so you know I'm being sarcastic.

Franklin

asked and answered ... see above ...

anotherlimey

You haven't answered it at all, it's all Lawyer speak. You still have to prove it's not subjective, and for me the only way to do that is to exclude humans which means, from a geek view, it must be a computer.

Wintersong

Franklin is the master of not answering straight questions asked of him. That and his totally condescending and offensive manner are the main reasons why he is the only person I have on ignore. I've found it very beneficial

anotherlimey

Notice he stopped being so condescending when I called him Mr Wise and mighty? Perhaps he has a power complex.

Anyway, he did answer by editing his original post. But the jury, being subject to basic human nature, will make a subjective descision. So Franklin was wrong.

Franklin

The jury system is what it is. Not all of them are equal or good at what they do, but by and large we think they do a good job. But the bottom line is: it is not the defendant or the plaintiff who ultimately decides what a reasonable person would do in the shoes of the defendant. So the decision does not rely on what the defendant thought at the time, but how a reasonable person would think at the time in like or similar circumstances. The judge should explain this concept of the law in the form of jury instructions, i.e., instructions given by the Judge to the jury. The Judge explains the law and how it should be applied in the case before the Jury. The Jury decides on the verdict on each count. That is the system that we have. I don't understand your reference to supercomputers, half of my PhD was spent programming so called supercomputers, and I can assure you that they don't have a high IQ, they just process "jobs" at fast computational speeds relative to the speed of the average computers of the day. What was a supercomputer 10 years ago would be regarded as a mere abacus today!

anotherlimey

I know what the system is, but I'm saying it would be subjective to the thoughts of the jury. So the definition of reasonable is decided by the jury. A computer doesn't need IQ, it does what you tell it and bases it's decision on "facts". I would love a future where a computer decides on the verdict, without predjudice.

candy wy.

sorry but i don't undersand how it even gets to court for a jury to decide. if you shoot someone because you are in fear of your life you have not commited a crime. if you havent commited a crime you can't be charged.

anotherlimey

Apparently, and I can feel Franklin's presence here, the new law in Florida says you can't be arrested unless the police think you shot someone without a reasonable threat.

Wintersong

In support of your argument:

Jury members would be bound to think that they themselves were reasonable people. Therefore they would base their conclusions as to what a "reasonable person" would do based on what they think they themselves would do.

A jury made up of pro-gun lobbyists would therefore vote way differently on a matter like this to a jury made up of people who don't believe that guns should be legal.

Therefore it's subjective. There is no definition of "reasonable person" laid down in law that I am aware of.

candy wy.

yes i know, and if they do arrest and they are wrong they are liable for all costs incured. so its the police that decide if it is a lawful shooting and probably the district attorney.

Franklin

I agree the jury system is not perfect, but imho, it's pretty good. I guess you could argue that a supercomputer makes more sense with your Congressman/woman. I don't think you would get very far with that argument, but you are free to make it.

anotherlimey

It's as good as it can be, in this day and age.

But the argument still stands, the new law doesn't define 'reasonable' so it will be subject to the predjudices of a jury.

Case closed.