Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[TheL8Elvis]

Congratulations Sherlock.
Indictment: "a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment#United_States

In many, but not all, United States jurisdictions that use grand juries, prosecutors often have a choice between seeking an indictment from a grand jury and filing a charging document directly with the court. Such a document is usually called an information, accusation, or complaint, to distinguish it from a grand-jury indictment.

Looks like there is more to it than your definition...

 

[GWCarver]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment#United_States

In many, but not all, United States jurisdictions that use grand juries, prosecutors often have a choice between seeking an indictment from a grand jury and filing a charging document directly with the court. Such a document is usually called an information, accusation, or complaint, to distinguish it from a grand-jury indictment.

Looks like there is more to it than your definition...

The next sentence:

"To protect the suspect's due-process rights in felony cases (where the suspect's interest in liberty is at stake), there is usually a preliminary hearing, at which a judge determines whether there was probable cause to arrest the suspect who is in custody. If the judge finds such probable cause, he or she binds, or holds over, the suspect for trial."

That would suggest that taking an alternate path from a GJ doesn't constitute an indictment, but leads to a preliminary hearing - usually.

 

[Cylinder]

Florida 776.012 "imminent use of unlawful force"

Kentucky 503.080 "immediately neccessary"

Do you notice a difference between those words?

Blind sniping aside, that question does raise a good point.

When my gun club conducts self-defense refresher training (I am not a licensed CCW instructor, BTW), we do not teach the doctrine of imminence outside the code review, even though the doctrine is contained in the Arkansas Code. Title 5 describes the use of justified deadly force generally as:

5-2-607. Use of deadly physical force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

(1) Committing or about to commit a felony involving force or violence;

(2) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force; or

(3) Imminently endangering the person's life or imminently about to victimize the person as described in § 9-15-103 from the continuation of a pattern of domestic abuse.

(b) A person may not use deadly physical force in self-defense if the person knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force with complete safety:

(1) (A) By retreating.

----(B) However, a person is not required to retreat if the person is:

--------(i) In the person's dwelling or on the curtilage surrounding the person's dwelling and was not the original aggressor; or

--------(ii) A law enforcement officer or a person assisting at the direction of a law enforcement officer; or

(2) By surrendering possession of property to a person claiming a lawful right to possession of the property.

In my opinion, imminence issues, such as "about to use" in the example above are highly subjective in nature, too prone to misidentification, carry too much legal and moral risk and therefore are beyond the scope of trainning for the average novice firearm user and detract heavily from the ethical and tactical goals we have established as a club. Mere suspicion does not justify deadly force. Tactically speaking, during the suspicion phase of the encounter, a gun owner should be wholly focused on the quick assessment - subject, surruondings and escape.

For a victim with clean hands, the use of force will be ultimately judged by proportionality and neccessity - the key component of neccessity being immediacy. The decision tree (I was told not to use the term kill chain around civilians ) would be:

Suspicion -> Assessment
Question the use of force -> Enact assessment plan
Immediate threat -> Employ force

Firing a warning shot falls under "question the use of force" portion of that decision tree. In that sitution, you should have continued the threat assessment, effected your tactical advantage and evaluated your escape plan.

 

[Dan O.]

Firing a warning shot falls under "question the use of force" portion of that decision tree. In that sitution, you should have continued the threat assessment, effected your tactical advantage and evaluated your escape plan.

Let's put you on the receiving end of the warning shot and see how you react. You are in a standoff with some punk in a small isolated cottage. You don't know where he is but think you are in a safe location. You know that if you try to run he could easily shoot you in the back because there is no cover outside the cottage. Then you see the muzzle flash and a wall splinters nearby. The perp then tells you to run because he won't give you another warning.

Do you turn your back and run or stay and fight? Was the warning shot relavent in that decission?

 

[Cylinder]

Let's put you on the receiving end of the warning shot and see how you react. You are in a standoff with some punk in a small isolated cottage. You don't know where he is but think you are in a safe location. You know that if you try to run he could easily shoot you in the back because there is no cover outside the cottage. Then you see the muzzle flash and a wall splinters nearby. The perp then tells you to run because he won't give you another warning.

Do you turn your back and run or stay and fight? Was the warning shot relavent in that decission?

That's a question of tactics. The guy already committed an violent felony by firing the warning shot, so there's no real question concerning the use of force.

The rule for tactics is to never leave cover you trust. If you lose confidence in your cover, you don't move without another specific cover location in mind. If you loose confidence in your cover and are under fire, then you're probably want to do a move and shoot - or pucker, move and shoot. That is one of the weakest tactical situations you can imagine. You're relying solely on the shooter's lack of marksmanship, aversion to exposed fire and a big ole' chuck of luck. Move and shoot relies on your ability to pick a spot and move to it without losing your sight picture. The whole time you're exposed, you are lined up and firing. Hope you brought that spare mag, BTW.

Gunfight self-defense scenarios are relatively rare, BTW. Those are usually very close range in a commercial burglary. Your primary focus would at all times be find cover and eliminate the threat. Shoot and move is generally taught as a method to find cover, not to move from one.

Also, I am not a licensed CCW instructor.

ETA: I probably should have said that gunfight scenarios are relatively rare for private civilians not engaged in illegal activity. I'm not really talking about drive-by or drug territory confrontations (which do affect law-abiding civilians but generally have a seperate crime element involved.)

 

[Dan O.]

That's a question of tactics. The guy already committed an violent felony by firing the warning shot, so there's no real question concerning the use of force.

You saw the muzzle flash so you know there was no obstacle between your head and the punk's gun. Instead of realizing that he was giving you a chance to retreat by demonstrating his intention not to kill, you are sticking to your absolutist principle, "never give up, never surrender".


ETA: since he had clearly announced his intention to allow the fight to end peacefully, if you take any aggressive action while displaying deadly force, he will be legally entitled to kill you under florida's law.

 

[Cylinder]

You saw the muzzle flash so you know there was no obstacle between your head and the punk's gun. Instead of realizing that he was giving you a chance to retreat by demonstrating his intention not to kill, you are sticking to your absolutist principle, "never give up, never surrender".

Generally no - I'm not going to rely on tender mercies. It's not a function of bravado. I just wouldn't trust my life to the shooter in that situation. Firing a warning shot would be considered by me as an escalation, not an attempt to de-escalate.

ETA: since he had clearly announced his intention to allow the fight to end peacefully, if you take any aggressive action while displaying deadly force, he will be legally entitled to kill you under florida's law.

Err....no. That would be a novel defense, though.

Members of the jury, he had to know that I wanted peace, I fired at him.

 

[Dan O.]

Err....no. That would be a novel defense, though.

Members of the jury, he had to know that I wanted peace, I fired at him.

Generally, the looser in a fatal gun fight doesn't get to dictate what the jury is told. But where are your grounds to object to the self defense claim.

Here is that relavent section of the Florida statute again:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.​

The punk may have initially provoked the use of force but as under 2(b), the punk is no longer in physical contact and has indicated clearly that he desires to terminate the use of force. It is you who is now the assailant that continues the use of force. This gives the punk the right to claim self defense when he puts the next bullet into your noggon.

 

[Metullus]

Generally, the looser in a fatal gun fight doesn't get to dictate what the jury is told. But where are your grounds to object to the self defense claim.

Here is that relavent section of the Florida statute again:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.​

The punk may have initially provoked the use of force but as under 2(b), the punk is no longer in physical contact and has indicated clearly that he desires to terminate the use of force. It is you who is now the assailant that continues the use of force. This gives the punk the right to claim self defense when he puts the next bullet into your noggon.

The punk has not "indicated clearly that he desires to terminate the use of force". What he has said is indistinguishable from an attempt to entice me to leave cover and so give him a better target and I am under no obligation to give him the benefit of the doubt. A clear indication that he desires to terminate the use of force would for example be for him to leave cover and disarm.

 

[Xulld]

So if I have a guy covered in blood with machete in one hand and a human head in the other hand, and he's about 20' from me and says "your next", and I fire a warning shot, that's proof there was no immediate threat of harm? OK, got it.

Are you guys just stating the law here? Or are you seriously suggesting there are no situations in which a person firing a warning shot could ever be under a threat of immediate harm???

It seems to me what they are saying is that the prosecutor can muddy the waters a lot when any given deadly force action is called a warning shot.

Stories are what people want, and a warning shot is a much less clear story about the imminent nature of the threat.

 

[marplots]

Warning shot = kill shot that missed

 

[Dan O.]

The punk has not "indicated clearly that he desires to terminate the use of force". What he has said is indistinguishable from an attempt to entice me to leave cover and so give him a better target and I am under no obligation to give him the benefit of the doubt. A clear indication that he desires to terminate the use of force would for example be for him to leave cover and disarm.

This is fascinating. Can it be assumed that all vocal CCW advocates will similarly choose to continue the fight and expect the other guy to unilaterally disarm if the aggression is to end without a fatality?

 

[Metullus]

This is fascinating. Can it be assumed that all vocal CCW advocates will similarly choose to continue the fight and expect the other guy to unilaterally disarm if the aggression is to end without a fatality?

Am I a "vocal CCW advocate"?

If the other guy is the aggressor, which I understand to be the case in your proposed scenerio, I do not think that it is unreasonable for me to take the position that it is incumbent upon him to convince the victim of his aggression that his intent is now peaceful. To suggest that I am somehow obligated to rely on the aggressor's good will for my safety after he has already made manifest his willingness to use violence against me to achieve his goals is, IMO, absurd. I do not and cannot know his intent; I can judge only his actions and his capabilities. And as long as he has his weapon and has not withdrawn he is capable of injuring me and thus is a threat to me.

 

[Xulld]

This is fascinating. Can it be assumed that all vocal CCW advocates will similarly choose to continue the fight and expect the other guy to unilaterally disarm if the aggression is to end without a fatality?

Not really. Actually not very fascinating at all. Unless its likely to actually happen. Most encounters that escalate to a deadly threat are over long before any kind of back and forth dialog ensues about who is going to walk away, either becuase the aggressor has high tailed it, or the situation is over becuase someone is dead. It seems to me an example of an exception of an exception. Any real life examples? Or is this fascinating hypothetical not realistic and should not be seen as telling one way or the other about either CCW advocates or aggressors?

What is more fascinating to me is how one constructs a scenario with few details, no clear motivations illustrated by the active agents being depicted, and then draws sweeping conclusions from the hypothetical.

 

[Dan O.]

Am I a "vocal CCW advocate"?

If the other guy is the aggressor, which I understand to be the case in your proposed scenerio, I do not think that it is unreasonable for me to take the position that it is incumbent upon him to convince the victim of his aggression that his intent is now peaceful. To suggest that I am somehow obligated to rely on the aggressor's good will for my safety after he has already made manifest his willingness to use violence against me to achieve his goals is, IMO, absurd. I do not and cannot know his intent; I can judge only his actions and his capabilities. And as long as he has his weapon and has not withdrawn he is capable of injuring me and thus is a threat to me.

As I said, fascinating.

When encountering a mirror of yourself, neither of you will disarm to end the conflict. All I've heard are strategies for making the kill. No one wants to deescalate even tough the punk initiated the dialog to do just that.

 

[Xulld]

As I said, fascinating.

When encountering a mirror of yourself, neither of you will disarm to end the conflict. All I've heard are strategies for making the kill. No one wants to deescalate even tough the punk initiated the dialog to do just that.

If I encounter a mirror of myself a deadly situation would never occur.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

As I said, fascinating.

When encountering a mirror of yourself, neither of you will disarm to end the conflict. All I've heard are strategies for making the kill. No one wants to deescalate even tough the punk initiated the dialog to do just that.

I'm with you. Maybe it's just me, but as a non gun-owner, as I read several of these arguments, it's almost as if there's an extremely deeply embedded intellectual dishonesty, probably embedded during gun training, that prevents some from admitting to any situation in which a warning shot is feasible. I'm fine with arguing that one should always seek to avoid warning shots at all costs, or perhaps even that they should never be used, but to refuse to acknowledge ANY scenario in which one could have value seems extreme to me.

I think I can understand why this teaching exists though. If people, or police, felt free to issue a warning shot when ever they felt in danger that could be a disaster in the making. Hence the "party line".

 

[Metullus]

As I said, fascinating.

When encountering a mirror of yourself, neither of you will disarm to end the conflict. All I've heard are strategies for making the kill. No one wants to deescalate even tough the punk initiated the dialog to do just that.

Why should I entrust my life to the aggressor? You have heard nothing from me about strategies for "making the kill". My goal would be to exit the situation alive and in one piece. Taking at face value the word of someone who has opened fire on me does not strike me as an effective route towards that goal. Now, if the punk wants to deescalate and wants to earn my goodwill, he can withdraw and/or disarm, either of which will render him no longer a threat to me. This seems reasonable given that while I have no reason to trust him (given his actions towards me) he has far fewer reasons to distrust me.

When encountering a "mirror" of myself, no gun would be drawn as no one would be the aggressor.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Taking at face value the word of someone who has opened fire on me does not strike me as an effective route towards that goal. Now, if the punk wants to deescalate and wants to earn my goodwill...

Gimme a break . If you aren't armed and a punk is standing there and shoots a warning shot above your head and tells you to get the hell out, you are damn well going to take his word at face value and whether he "earns your goodwill" is going to be of no relevance. You're going to turn your ass around and book out of there as fast as possible. Unless you have some bizarre death wish.

 

[Metullus]

Gimme a break . If you aren't armed and a punk is standing there and shoots a warning shot above your head and tells you to get the hell out, you are damn well going to take his word at face value and whether he "earns your goodwill" is going to be of no relevance. You're going to turn your ass around and book out of there as fast as possible. Unless you have some bizarre death wish.

Give me a break. I understood the situation to be one in which I was armed as well.

If I am not armed then there would be nothing to prevent the punk from walking away, would there? Deescalating unilaterally, you know? No need, in other words, to fire a warning shot since I am merely cowering in fear, right? In short, there would be nothing for me to do to deescalate the situation, right?