In Session: Sidebar  « Back to Blog Main
October 30, 2008

The defense of self-defense

Posted: 02:36 PM ET

NEW YORK - This week we are covering the trial of Alejandro Ferrer in Florida. And his case raises the problem with the defense of self-defense. It only works in court if the jury believes the defendant's fears were reasonable and that he used reasonable force to defend himself.

Alejandro Ferrer in court with defense team

Sounds good in theory but it often doesn't work in practice. Think about it: What is reasonable can vary from situation to situation, person to person. Remember Bernard Goetz, the subway vigilante here in New York? Most people thought his fear was reasonable when he shot four black teenagers late at night on the subway. But the experts agree that if a black man had shot a bunch of white kids, his fear would have been considered unreasonable by most Americans.

A woman’s fear of her husband can also be hard to believe, especially in the context of an upstanding middle class family. The law should allow a jury to take into account years of abuse when deciding whether she acted reasonably and in self defense; but it doesn’t.

In the Ferrer case, we have the classic man to man fight and it's easier to apply the law of
self-defense. But only two people really know what happened. And one of those two people is dead. And that shifts the burden from the prosecution to the defense. And it is more often than not a burden that cannot be met.

-Jami Floyd, In Session anchor

Filed under: Uncategorized


Share this on:
Miriam   October 30th, 2008 3:07 pm ET

Ah, if people would just not be involved in these "fights" then maybe there would not need to be a trial or defense case. When you take the law into your own hands you get to pay the consequences either with your life or charges. Both men could have called the police and this would be irrelevent and alive.

Kelly   October 30th, 2008 3:16 pm ET

While I don't disagree with you that people taking the law into their own hands never has a positive outcome but seriously, the victim was ambused. At what point in time would he have been able to call the police?

aco9010   October 30th, 2008 4:27 pm ET

Can she open the bags of evidence closer to the mics. I can hear them ...lol

Miriam   October 30th, 2008 4:43 pm ET

Based on testimony, the victim threw the first blow, he had a cell phone in his hand. Should the evidence prove otherwise then that would be an exception. The woman should have went to the police to report the alleged rape, when she told the defendant about the rape, he should have encouraged her to go to the police not to confront the now victim.

Steve   October 30th, 2008 4:54 pm ET

Instead of trying to a exception to the hearsay rule for the girlfriend's testimony why doesn't the prosecution simply issue a subpoena and compel the testimony?

lorraine of california   October 30th, 2008 5:01 pm ET

Only 2 comments? That should prove....you are covering the wrong trial!!! Where is the Phil Spector retrial???? You want interest and ratings? Air that trial, the one we all want to see. Everyone who wants to see the Phil Spector retrial, speak up and be heard! I thought CNN covered all the BIG trials. What happened here?

Steve   October 30th, 2008 5:18 pm ET

A self-defense legal defense requires reasonable force. Late at night, outside the victims apartment, 40 stab wounds etc. makes the prosecution case very strong. For self-defense you have to stop once the threat is neutralized. How threatening is an attacker after he has already been stabbed 10 or 20 or 30 times? Ferrer would have to stop once the threat is neutralized – or it's murder. What I don't understand is why this case didn't plead out.

Bill Keihl   October 30th, 2008 5:25 pm ET

Hello Jami, your great

You asked a question the other day, which was, why do people talk so much, to the police? Its because, people that never have been in jail, will say anything, not to go there. And of course the police tell people if you don't tell me information, you are going to jail.

Darby   October 30th, 2008 5:29 pm ET

I have to say that it apppears as though the victim was outside of his own house. The defendant went to the victim's home to provoke a fight, and the victim was stabbed 40 times. If I were on the jury, I would have a very hard time accepting that it was self-defense.

Darryl   October 30th, 2008 8:07 pm ET

It is a matter of defending you`re self in a situation when you can`t call for help, you do not know how far a person is going to escalate the situation, some times you have to make a decision in the spurr of the moment, and hope that you acted in good faith, but some times that is not good enough, unless you find you`re self in that situation, you will never know.

Estella Mitchell   October 30th, 2008 9:30 pm ET

Why are all of the voting machines only switching from Obama to McCain and not McCain to Obama when people vote? Every time I hear of something happening, its Obama's votes switching to McCain.

Vixen   October 30th, 2008 11:07 pm ET

"But the experts agree that if a black man had shot a bunch of white kids, his fear would have been considered unreasonable by most Americans."

Don't put me in that ridiculous claim!

I am a white woman with a black son in law. I have first handedly watched the judicial system laugh at my son in law when he went to court and filed charges against a 'skin head' who said he was 'going to drag him behind his truck'. The system chose to believe the skin head and his lying family and my son in law has to watch his back where ever he goes now. He didn't 'have proof' that it was said and of course the skin head had hair and covered his tats for court.

Back to this case:

"IF" this g/f was 'raped' why did she not call the police or file a claim?Why did she not go forth with a restraining order EVER? The two of them planned this, her leading him through a bullring through his nostrils, and they are both GUILTY of 1st degree OVER KILL.

Kimber   October 31st, 2008 12:29 am ET

Ferrer stopped pummeling the guy for a minute to walk to his car to get a 12 inch knife and then come back and butcher him! To me that really sounds like "Pre meditated" mudrer. Appalling!

Darrell Compton   October 31st, 2008 1:06 pm ET

Jami Floyd just lost a viewer. her defense of all Blacks is well known, but to come on her program and warn us that if McCain were to be eleected, we are "IN DANGER" of Palin becoming President. We all know that she is for Obama, just because he is black. She constantly says that Blacks never get a fair trial, unless of course, they win their case. She is the most biased TV Personality that I have ever seen.

Spider   October 31st, 2008 1:09 pm ET

One last try.

Which “experts” are you quoting, Jami, that would agree that in the same situation, fearing for his life in front of a group of hoodlums, a Black man would not be allowed to defend himself against a gang of white punks?

Woman already have been getting acquitted of murder using the “spousal abuse” defense. Anyone else remember the trial where the man was shot point blank with a shotgun, while he slept, and she walked because he had beaten her two years earlier.
.
The fact of the matter is that “self defense”, as any defense argument, is dependent upon the defense attorney’s ability to convince a jury that his client did not commit the crime, in this case, the crime of murder. If this defense attorney is able to plant the idea in the jury’s head that his client was acting in self defense, then Ferrer will walk amongst us once again. That is a fact, regardless of the race or the sex of the defendant.

Peggy C.   October 31st, 2008 1:16 pm ET

I watch your show at least three days per week. Usually I feel that you are reasonable while giving your daily comments at the end of the show.
Today, you reversed my good opinion of you. Political commentaries or judgements have no place on this show. That's not why I watch and is about as unwelcome as an IRS audit.

Judy Bahr   October 31st, 2008 1:24 pm ET

I was completely shocked to see you close today's show with your personal comments on Sarah Palin. Who do you think you are? I just started watching your show alomst everyday but after hearing your bias remarks I think today was my last show. I don't really care what political party you are with but those comments had nothing to do with your court show. How would you like the shoe on the other foot and your republican counterparts saying racists remarks about Obama? Your comments had absolutely nothing to do with your show and it was definitely YOUR five minutes of rambling. I hope others would see the same thing I did and stop watching you. Keep your comments to yourself next time if you want people to keep your ratings up.

Ronda   October 31st, 2008 1:37 pm ET

Raise your hand if you are shocked by Jami Floyd, once again bringing RACE into a case.

No matter the case, Jami you always find a way to bring Race into it. WHY?

Jami in your comment you said "Most people thought his fear was reasonable when he shot four black teenagers late at night on the subway. But the experts agree that if a black man had shot a bunch of white kids, his fear would have been considered unreasonable by most Americans".

Does the name Rick Ross mean anything to you? You have a Black Man that is ashamed of being a Corrections Officer. Wants to be known as a Drug Dealer and now a crooked Corrections Officer. Jami, when you have a Black Man being ashamed of being on the right side of the law, exactly what kind of image do you think this man wants to betray himself as.

So to once again you using the color of a man's skin to use your race card shows exactly who the racist is and that is YOU, Jami.

Why would a Black man be ashamed of being a Corrections Officer and not ashamed of but proud of being a drug dealer and a criminal. So Jami, what image is this Black man wanting to be betrayed as? LET ME ANSWER IT FOR YOU, HE WANTS TO BE BETRAYED AS A CRIMINAL, SO YOU COMMENT ABOUT THE WHOLE IMAGE OF A WHITE MAN VERSES A BLACK MAN HAS NO MERIT BECAUSE YOU HAVE A BLACK MAN BEING PROUD OF BEING LOOKED AT AS A CRIMINAL.

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO STOP BEING A RACIST JAMI? THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE, NO MATTER THE CASE YOU HAVE TO GO WHITE VS. BLACK. WHAT DID THE CASE YOU MENTION ABOVE HAVE TO DO WITH THIS CASE? NOTHING JAMI, NOTHING.

GO LOOK IN THE MIRROR JAMI IF YOU WANT TO SEE WHAT A RACIST LOOKS LIKE BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE SCARLETT LETTER R ON YOUR FOREHEAD BECAUSE YOU ARE A RACIST.

I know you and your idiots won't post my comments as you never do but hopefully you and your idiots will read. I dare you to post my comment Jami.

Spider   October 31st, 2008 1:38 pm ET

Boy Jami. What did you say on today's show? You have some viewers completely up in arms. I have never watched your show, mainly because reading your blog articles burns me up and my blood pressure isn't excellent.

Those of you posting about Jami's biases on her televised show should start reading her blog articles. She reveals her sexist and racist nature on here a few times a day, every day. Enjoy.

Leave Your Comment


 

Comments are moderated by CNN, in accordance with the CNN Comment Policy, and may not appear on this blog until they have been reviewed and deemed appropriate for posting. Also, due to the volume of comments we receive, not all comments will be posted.


subscribe RSS Icon
About this blog

Sidebar takes you behind the scenes of the day's legal headlines with breaking news and in-depth analysis from In Session's anchors and correspondents.

Contact us
  • Questions or comments? E-mail
In Session Team
Jean Casarez
Correspondent
Jean Casarez
Beth Karas
Correspondent
Beth Karas
Mike Brooks
Law Enforcement Analyst
Mike Brooks
Midwin Charles
Legal Contributor
Midwin Charles
Sunny Hostin
Legal Contributor
Sunny Hostin
Powered by WordPress.com VIP