I have been looking at a bunch of self defense stories on the various media sites, and am amazed at how easily they can sway the facts to meet their needs. I guess I shouldn't be surprised; even if you don't subscribe to the "media is anti-gun" conspiracy theorists, you have to admit they are going to do whatever it takes to get readers/viewers. A juicy murder tale is much more interesting than some boring self defence incident.
For instance, notice how often any media uses the term "alleged". As long as someone has said something along that line, they can attach that prefix to just about any crime and not be slandering someone. Tension is what attracts attention, so "alleged murderer", "alleged shooter", "alleged killer" all make a better story than "victim". But just because someone is "alleged" to have done something, it doesn't mean they did it. And you never hear anyone coming back around and apologizing for the mis-placed moniker.
When some type of violent encounter takes place, it is normal for the police to take all involved parties in to custody until they sort out what happened. It isn't like on TV, were the officers pat the person on the back and thank them for taking another "scumbag" off the streets. No, every person has a right to their life, and any time someone takes a life it needs to be carefully investigated. Only then can the surviving parties return home and try to pick up their broken lives.
Another thing they do is act as if someone being charged with manslaughter or murder is a monster. First of all, if you purposefully cause the death of another person, even if your intention was not to kill them, you are indeed guilty of manslaughter. No ifs or buts. However, if you took this action to protect yourself or someone around you, then self-defense is what they call an "affirmative defense" against manslaughter charges. What happens is the defendant admits certain facts of the cases, but contends mitigating factors made the use of force or deadly force required to protect themselves. So, while it is admitted that a death took place, the defendant was justified in using deadly force and therefore avoids punishment.
That brings up the topic of arraignments, The media is very fond of shouting that a person is being charged with an offense after a grand jury arraignment, as if this was some sort of trial. Let's look at what happens, and how things work. An arraignment is a place where a prosecuting attorney takes all the information he has about a case to a group of citizens, and asks them to decide if there is enough evidence to bring charges. Notice there is no talk yet about the defense, or defendant. That's because they aren't involved. Of course, someone who may be charged with a crime can appear before the grand jury, but they must do so against a hostile prosecutor without the benefit of a lawyer of his own. That's right, they CAN'T bring a lawyer in because it is not really a trial. So, charges out of an arraignment simply mean that the prosecutor did a good job of presenting his facts when there was no one in the room to refute them.
All these things can be used to make any story sound more sensational than it really is. Now, I am not saying that every person who cries "self defense" is innocent as the day they were born. Nearly anyone involved in a shooting either says it wasn't them, or they did it in self defense. But let's please remember how our system of law works, and exactly what is happening at each step of the way. While the media likes to build up a story against someone at each step of the process, the person is not guilty of whatever they are accused of until the jury of his peers say so.
0 comments:
Post a Comment