When is "self defense" a legitimate defense?

Rittenhouse verdict flies in the face of legal standards for self-defense

theconversation.com/rittenhouse-verdict-flies-in-the-face-of-legal-standards-for-self-defense-171908

Ronald Sullivan

In a two-week trial that reignited debate over self-defense laws across the nation, a Wisconsin jury acquitted Kyle Rittenhouse for shooting three people, two fatally, during a racial justice protest in Kenosha.

The Wisconsin jury believed Rittenhouse’s claims that he feared for his life and acted in self-defense after he drove about 20 miles from his home in Antioch, Illinois – picking up an AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle in Kenosha – in what he claimed was an effort to protect property during violent protests. The lakeside city of 100,000 was the scene of chaotic demonstrations after a white police officer shot Jacob Blake, a 29-year-old Black man, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down.

In delivering its verdict, a Wisconsin jury decided that Rittenhouse’s conduct was justified, even though the prosecution argued that he provoked the violent encounter and, therefore, should not be able to find refuge in the self-defense doctrine.

As prosecutor Thomas Binger said in his closing argument: “When the defendant provokes this incident, he loses the right to self-defense. You cannot claim self-defense against a danger you create.”

Our mission is to share knowledge and inform decisions.

The Wisconsin jury disagreed, and its decision may portend a similar outcome in another high-profile case in Georgia, where three white men are on trial for the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery after they claimed the Black man was a suspect in a rash of robberies. Like Rittenhouse, the three men claimed they were acting in self-defense.

Self-defense arguments are often raised during trials involving loss of life. Juries are then asked to determine whether a defendant’s conduct is justified by principles of self-defense or whether the offender is criminally liable for homicide.

Complicating matters is that each state has its own distinct homicide and self-defense laws. Some states observe the controversial “stand your ground” doctrine, as in Georgia – or not, as in Wisconsin – further clouding the public’s understanding on what constitutes an appropriate use of deadly force.

Five elements of self-defense

As a professor of criminal law, I teach my students that the law of self-defense in America proceeds from an important concept: Human life is sacred, and the law will justify the taking of human life only in narrowly defined circumstances.

The law of self-defense holds that a person who is not the aggressor is justified in using deadly force against an adversary when he reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. This is the standard that every state uses to define self-defense.

To determine whether this standard is met, the law looks at five central concepts.

First, the use of force must be proportionate to the force employed by the aggressor. If the aggressor lightly punches the victim in the arm, for example, the victim cannot use deadly force in response. It’s not proportional.

Second, the use of self-defense is limited to imminent harm. The threat by the aggressor must be immediate. For instance, a person who is assaulted cannot leave the scene, plan revenge later and conduct vigilante justice by killing the initial aggressor.

Third, the person’s assessment of whether he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury must be reasonable, meaning that a supposed “reasonable person” would consider the threat to be sufficiently dangerous to put him in fear of death or serious bodily injury. A person’s own subjective view of this fear is not enough to satisfy the standard for self-defense.

Fourth, the law does not permit a first aggressor to benefit from a self-defense justification. Only those with “clean hands” can benefit from this justification and avoid criminal liability.

Finally, a person has a duty to retreat before using deadly force, as long as it can be done safely. This reaffirms the law’s belief in the sanctity of human life and ensures that deadly force is an option of last resort.

‘Stand your ground’

The proliferation of states that have adopted “stand your ground” laws in recent years has complicated the analysis of self-defense involving the duty to retreat.

Dating back to early Anglo-American law, the duty to retreat has been subject to an important exception historically called the “castle doctrine”: A person has no duty to retreat in his home. This principle emerged from the 17th-century maxim that a “man’s home is his castle.”

The “castle doctrine” permits the use of lethal force in self-defense without imposing a duty to retreat in the home. Over time, states began to expand the non-retreat rule to spaces outside of the home.

“Stand your ground” laws came under national scrutiny during the trial of George Zimmerman, who was acquitted in the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

In that case, Martin, 17, was walking home after buying Skittles from a nearby convenience store. At the time, Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer who called police after spotting Martin. Despite being told by the 911 operator to remain in his car until officers arrived, Zimmerman instead confronted Martin.

It remains unclear whether a fight ensued, who was the aggressor and whether Zimmerman had injuries consistent with his claims of being beaten up by Martin. Zimmerman was the sole survivor; Martin, who was unarmed, died from a gunshot wound.

In the Zimmerman case, for example, under traditional self-defense law, the combination of first-aggressor limitation and duty to retreat would not have allowed Zimmerman to follow Martin around and kill him without being liable for murder.

But, in a stand-your-ground state such as Florida, Zimmerman had a lawful right to patrol the neighborhood near Martin’s home. As a result, during his trial, all Zimmerman had to prove was that he was in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury.

In Wisconsin, Rittenhouse was also able to put in evidence that he was in reasonable fear of death. “I didn’t do anything wrong,” Rittenhouse testified. “I defended myself.”

The prosecution was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse was not reasonably in fear for his safety. This represents a high bar for the prosecution. They were unable to surmount it.

For more click here.

Why are we waiting for Medicare for All?

 

Why are we waiting for Medicare for All?Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

By F. Douglas Stephenson
The Gainesville (Fla.) Sun, March 23, 2020

An old social justice chant, “Why are We Waiting,” is sung to the tune of the beautiful and inspiring Christmas carol, “O Come All Ye Faithful.” The lyrics apply to the situation today: Even with the dangerous coronavirus pandemic, big insurance and big pharma continue opposing legislation for the new Medicare for All.

We still wait because these resistant, self-serving industries have the most to lose if their huge profits are redirected to direct patient care for all. Individual and corporate predators regard democracy, government and community as obstacles to their greed and avarice, always placing profits over individual patients, families and public health. It’s no wonder so many beholden members of Congress want to protect the interests of big insurance and big pharma, industries that spent $371 million on lobbying in 2017 alone.

Dealing with the COVID-19 virus would be more life-saving if Medicare for All was in place today. A recent New York Times editorial, “With Coronavirus, ‘Health Care for Some’ Is a Recipe for Disaster,” stresses the importance of covering everyone.

Even before COVID-19 was known to humans, Northeastern University professor of public health Wendy Parmet presciently warned that the push to exclude immigrants from access to health-care services would be both dangerous and quixotic.

“None of us can be self-sufficient in the face of a widespread epidemic,” she wrote in 2018. “That is just as true for noncitizen immigrants as everyone.” In any pandemic, self-sufficiency can be self-deluding; everyone’s health, citizens, immigrants, etc. alike is only as good as our most vulnerable neighbors.

In what is truly a recipe for disaster, vested interests reject the science of public health epidemiology by asserting that only an incremental approach to health insurance reform is possible or acceptable. So, what are we willing to settle for, and should we just settle for what we can get? Should we lower the expectations, turn down the public heat and keep waiting?

Gradualism, baby steps and extending health insurance coverage to some, but not all, are the mantra of the day. “Medicare for some,” but not Medicare for All, is fawned over by politicians, profiteers and advocacy groups alike while reducing communities resources to deal with dangerous epidemics.

Virtually all the risky gradual reforms being touted would reinforce a dysfunctional health insurance system with as many standards of insurance as there are dollars to purchase them. It would further lock us into an obsolete private insurance-based model that holds everyone’s health hostage to profiteering HMOs and unaccountable big insurance companies for years to come.

For these proponents of political expediency, the question remains, who will be left behind while we wait? Every year, well over 18,000 unnecessary deaths, the equivalent of six times the number who died in the Sept. 11 attacks, are linked to lack of health insurance coverage. Pandemics can quickly increase these numbers.

Our most successful national health insurance program, Medicare, provides one of the best arguments against incremental steps. When Medicare was enacted 55 years ago, following a broad grassroots campaign, many believed the dream of a full national health insurance system was right around the corner.

Five decades later, Medicare still has not been expanded. Most of the changes have been contractions with higher out-of-pocket costs for beneficiaries and repeated attempts at privatization by big pharma, the health insurance industry and its champions in the White House and Congress.

It’s time to end inadequate and dangerous health insurance programs. Insist on real health insurance reform essential for individuals and families.

American history is filled with examples of fundamental, democratic change brought about by successful mass action and public pressure against the counseling of the go slow, vested interest crowd. No more waiting! Ask your legislators to fully support Medicare For All now: HR-1384/S-1129.

F. Douglas Stephenson, LCSW, BCD, is a retired clinical social work psychotherapist. Formerly on the faculty of the University of Florida Department of Psychiatry, he is a health professional member of Physicians for a National Health Program.

https://www.gainesville.com…

United States in top 4 developed countries by highest percentage of population living in poverty.

 The definition of poverty differs from country to country, but in high-income countries, like those shown in the chart below, the poverty line is around $30 per day.1 

As the chart shows, a substantial share of people – between every 10th and every 5th person – lives below this poverty line in the world’s richest countries.

For more click here.

$30.00 dollars per day is an annual net income of 10,950.00

Research has shown that self reported quality of life increases with income up to about $75,000 per year for a family of four and then additional income makes little difference in quality of life reports.

The mission of social work is to enhance social functioning.

The mission of Social Work is to enhance social functioning at the micro, mezzo, and macro systems levels.

Social Workers are trained in the bio-psycho-social-spiritual model. Their expertise is found in the understanding of how social context influences behavior at the individual, couple, family, community, and societal level.

I have been a psychiatric social worker for over 53 years providing services at the individual, family, community, organizational, and societal level. Social Workers provide over 80% of the mental health services in the United States.

How does evil manifest in the world and what is to be done about it?

 

Stories about moral and philosophical ideas

This is one in  a series of stories which provide ideas for reflections on moral and philosophical ideas. They can be used for all kinds of discussion groups and for individual reflection.

David Wiseman wrote a story entitled “The Devil You Know” which appeared in the After Dinner Conversations magazine on July 2021.

The narrator is walking down the Main St. in a small town on Christmas eve when he encounters the devil all dressed up in formal attire with two of his sons. The devil says “hello” to the man as they  pass each other on the street and the man says “Who are you?”

The devil says “ I’m Nick, Nick Baphomet, other places I go by other names, but I think you already know me.”

The narrator says, “I ‘m not sure, maybe I do. You live here?”

The devil says, “No, not full time, just here for the holidays.”

The narrator says, “You celebrate the holiday? I mean…you celebrate Christmas?”

The devil says “Of course!” he replied, “One of my great successes, don't you think?”

“Your great successes? But…”

“Oh yeah. Jesus, Mohamed, Abraham, all the other guys like that, all mine.” He smiled and leaned towards me slightly, so a cloud of foul breath rolled over me. “To be honest, I’m still pretty smug about ‘em all. Used to be that there were so many gods nobody knew who did what and who to pray to, then I got the idea of just one god. Counterintuitive, right? But then the argument’s over whose god is the real god. So good, eh? Brought more misery into the world than anything before or since. Yep, proud of that.”

The devil goes on to tell the narrator that he likes peace and quiet and that people for the most part avoid him and pretend they don’t see him.

The narrator then asks the devil where else he visits like down there. The devil mocks him  and says he hasn’t been down there in centuries.

“No! Down there’s all closed up, has been for centuries. Got too crowded, and besides, there was nothing down there that couldn’t be done right here.”

“So where?”

“All over, a week here, another there. We’ve got offices worldwide, all the big cities and some fairly out of the way places too. There’s opportunities everywhere.”

“Offices? You have offices?”

“Incorporating was probably the single best thing I ever did. Meant I could delegate so much. Mostly it runs itself nowadays, I can put my feet up and do little more than watch, sometimes for decades. When I look back, I can’t imagine what it’d be like running things in the old way. It’d be ridiculous, I’d never keep up. 

The narrator then says to the devil “Let me get this right,” I said slowly, “You’ve turned into some kind of jet-set corporate executive and you don’t want my soul in exchange for my heart’s desire?”

“Where’ve you been, friend!” He threw back his head and snorted a kind of cross between a laugh and a whinny. “Do you have any idea how much a single soul is worth today? Even a hardly used one like yours?”

I shook my head dumbly.

“Less than the cost of a cell phone. And a very cheap one too, not one of your fancy things. Nobody deals in singles any more. Everything’s wholesale, bought and sold in bundles of two million here, ten million there.”

The narrator thinks about killing the devil while he has the chance but then realizes such an attempt wouldn’t work. The devil says “No, unless you really have got magic powers – and I’m pretty sure you haven’t – then it’s probably best to stand down your red alert. Here, let’s shake and we’ll be going.”

The narrator says “Well,” I said a little lamely, trying to retain some vestige of self-respect, “at least I didn’t sell my soul, I can say that. I didn’t do a deal with the…”

The devil says,“You didn't do a deal?” he called back, “Oh, Robert, I think you already did. I’m pretty sure we've got a file on you somewhere. There’s a file on everybody somewhere.”

Questions for discussion

1. Do you think the devil has a file on everyone? If so, what’s in yours?

2. What do you think about the claim by the devil that he invented “Christmas? In what ways has Christmas done harm to members of our society?

3. Some people say they hate the holidays. What are some of the reasons that they might say that?

4. The devil claims one of his best ideas was getting rid of many gods and claiming there was only one because with only one it’s easier for people to fight over the concept. What do you make of the devil’s claim?

5. The devil says that he closed up hell centuries ago and now has offices world wide, he has incorporated. What do you make of this claim?

6. The devil says that a single soul, barely used, isn’t worth much. He’s after volume now. What do you think of the idea that populations have sold their soul to the devil espousing certain beliefs and cultural values?

7. What do you think of the narrator, who we learn at the end is named “Robert,” thinks of killing the devil, but can’t figure out how to do this successfully. Would you want to kill the devil?

8. At the end, Robert tries to take comfort in his claim that he hasn’t sold his soul to the devil, but the devil questions him about this claim  and tells him he has a file on him somewhere. Do you think the devil does have a file on Robert, and what would be found in it if such a file exists?

The holiday blues

 My client told me on the Monday before Thanksgiving, "I hate the holidays. I just hate them."

We talked during our meeting about the holiday blues and what the factors are that contribute to them.

"What makes you hate them," I asked.

At first she repeated herself, "I just hate them. That's all."

I said, "What sets it off for you?"

She said, "Everyone expects you to be happy and I just feel sad."

"What makes you sad," I said.

"I miss my mother," she said. The client is 46 and her mother died when she was 11, 35 years ago.

"Tell me about her," I asked.

And she did. We talked about her memories of her mother and all her other losses since then.

The holidays brings the sadness engendered by losses as we miss the people we are attached to.

I said, "How do your honor the people you lost at this time of year?"

She said, "I don't. I am not in the mood."

"Well, maybe you could," I said. "The physical body dies but the person's spirit lives in the stories we tell about their values, their beliefs, their ways of doing things. Remembering these things makes our life richer, more vibrant, more meaningful, more joyful."

"Yeah, well..." she said.

I said, "We've got five more minutes. Anything else before we finish today?"

"No, I guess not, but I feel better," she said.

For more about the holiday blues, click here.

Meth addiction and treatment

From Scientific American, by Claudia Wallis, April, 2021. p.21

Poor results remain all too typical for what is more formally

known as methamphetamine use disorder. About one million

people in the U.S. are addicted to meth, a powerful stimulant

that—smoked, snorted, injected or swallowed—ruins lives and

contributed to more than 12,000 overdose deaths in 2018. Fatal

overdoses appear to have spiked by nearly 35 percent during the

COVID pandemic. Unlike people battling alcoholism or opioid

misuse, meth users have no approved medications to help them

shake their habit. And most behavioral therapies fail.

But this tragic picture at last may be changing. A recent study

found that a regimen of two medications helped some users stay

off the drug. In addition, a psychosocial intervention called contingency

management (CM) has been shown to be especially effective...

.....

All addictions are tough to beat, but methamphetamine poses

a particular challenge. A key way that researchers measure the

addictive grip of a substance is to look at how much dopamine (a

neurotransmitter associated with pleasure) floods into the brain’s

major reward center during use, based on animal studies. “Methamphetamine

is the drug that produces the largest release,” says

Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

“An animal will go crazy pressing a lever in order to get the drug,”

she adds. Another metric involves real-world human experience:

When you try a new substance, what is the likelihood of becoming

addicted? “In this respect, methamphetamine ranks along

with heroin among the top addictive drugs,” Volkow says.

...

The medication study used two substances that target withdrawal.

Bupropion, an antidepressant also prescribed for smoking cessation,

raises dopamine levels in the brain and thus may buffer the

misery of steep drops that occur when people stop using meth. Naltrexone,

the second medication, is an opioid blocker that “has an

effect on the reward circuit, potentially relieving cravings,” explains

the study’s lead author, Madhukar H. Trivedi, a psychiatrist at the

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. In a trial with

403 heavy users of meth, a regimen of the two medications helped

13.6 percent stay off the drug, testing meth-free at least three quarters

of the time over a six-week period. Only 2.5 percent of those

given placebos achieved that level of abstinence.

Contingency management works on behavior by reinforcing

abstinence with prizes. At VA clinics, addicted veterans submit a

urine sample twice a week. If the sample is meth-free, they get to

pull a slip of paper from a fishbowl. Half the slips show various dollar

amounts that can be spent at VA shops, and the rest feature

words of encouragement. Two clean samples in a row earn two

draws from the fishbowl, three in a row earn three draws, and so

on, up to a maximum of eight. But drug-positive urine means no

prize. The key “is the immediacy of the reinforcement,” says Dominick

DePhilippis, a clinical psychologist at the Corporal Michael J.

Crescenz VA Medical Center in Philadelphia. That is important, he

notes, because the rush of meth is also immediately reinforcing,

whether it is the “euphoric feeling that substance use brings or the

escape from fatigue or unpleasant mood states” of withdrawal.

Some interesting facts and trends:

Meth addiction rates tend to be worse west of the Mississippi and opioid addiction rates tend to worse east of the Mississippi.

The hit TV series, "Breaking Bad" depicted the manufacturing, distribution, and deadly consequences of the meth industry.