WV man standing his ground, except it wasn't his

[Checkmite]

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding this post. It sounds to me like you taught people who were in a position from which they could safely retreat how to manipulate the situation into one in which they could legally kill someone in "self defense". If this is a correct interpretation you are guilty, at least in my mind, of accessory to murder.

IXP

I'm not going to agree yet, but I can't help but concede that there are some unfortunate implications to the way fuelair worded his statement. It does sound awfully like he's saying he taught people to deliberately manipulate otherwise escapable/avoidable situations so as to create the opportunity to kill people instead.

 

[fuelair]

How 'bout now?

Still murder..been murder since the thread started. I'm pro-gun ownership for rational, non-criminal persons.

 

[smartcooky]

High quality facial hair like mine is a sign of maturity and personal responsibility. Besides, chicks dig it.


23 years and going strong. She's also a responsible gun owner with her concealed carry permit. If this marriage fails it will be spectacular!

Oooh, a chick wearing a "Hog" sweatshirt! Nice find!

 

[fuelair]

I'm not going to agree yet, but I can't help but concede that there are some unfortunate implications to the way fuelair worded his statement. It does sound awfully like he's saying he taught people to deliberately manipulate otherwise escapable/avoidable situations so as to create the opportunity to kill people instead.

eta: this is after I reread the comment and I thought I pointed the below out - in less detail, but if I did not, this is the full detail:

Yes, I did: specifically and only to protect them from that charge by a politically motivated prosecutor in a situation where they were being assaulted but where unless they provably tried to get out of their residence/place of business (etc.) could be charged with a felony. That was neither fair nor right - it was just a way for prosecutors to run up their conviction rate.

YMMV but self defense (real self defense that does not require you to take a chance* on losing your life/becoming permanently disfigured/immobilized/having others lose their lives (wife, children, visitors/customers) is supposedly and should be an absolute right - for persons not engaged in criminal activity (which is why the SYG laws need to be clearly amended to remove SYG protection for gangs in gang shootouts/fight and bad guy killing other bad guy situations.



* and by chance I mean turning to run from an assailant/past an assailant who has seen you or is between you and a safe exit. By safe exit I mean one that is not blocked in any way and is not complicated to get through safely. None of these points missing were considered sufficient for exhoneration/dismissal of charges/ in many of the cases I have read of - that is why I considered the situation and how to handle it - the same way I used things I noticed and read to come up with weapons in my early misspent youth.
(have you ever thought how to weaponize, say, capacitors or heavier fireworks? I did - still in seventh/8th grade) (both work nicely). Or how to make a safer (for the thrower) Molotov cocktail. (Two methods and one does not need to have it thrown)

 

[Bob001]

Yes, I did: specifically and only to protect them from that charge by a politically motivated prosecutor in a situation where they were being assaulted but where unless they provably tried to get out of their residence/place of business (etc.) could be charged with a felony. That was neither fair nor right - it was just a way for prosecutors to run up their conviction rate.

YMMV but self defense (real self defense that does not require you to take a chance* on losing your life/becoming permanently disfigured/immobilized/having others lose their lives (wife, children, visitors/customers) is supposedly and should be an absolute right - for persons not engaged in criminal activity (which is why the SYG laws need to be clearly amended to remove SYG protection for gangs in gang shootouts/fight and bad guy killing other bad guy situations.

I know CSI is a fantasy, but cops in the real world are pretty good at catching lies, especially by someone who has been under extreme stress. What happens to your client if he tells his story, and the cops find a witness he didn't know about, or the security cameras contradict him, or forensics shows that the bullets wouldn't have hit that way if he had been standing where he says. Once caught in a lie, your guy is screwed forever. And if the cops can even prove that he ever had a conversation in which he was advised how to doctor a death scene, no one will believe word he says. And of course, the guy he shot might not die, and he'll have his own story to tell.

And don't forget that avoiding prosecution doesn't free your guy from civil action by the victim or his relatives, or ordinary guilt about taking a human life. Shooting somebody should always be the last resort.

Retreat and escape is the only rational option, no matter what the law permits, and if your life is truly (or even plausibly) in danger, trust a jury of your peers to recognize you did what you had to do.

 

[commandlinegamer]

When hazard warning lights were introduced to cars in the UK a lot of people would double-park or park in excluded areas and switch on their hazard lights.

Still pretty much the case.

Also annoying when people use hazards for legal parking.

 

[fuelair]

I know CSI is a fantasy, but cops in the real world are pretty good at catching lies, especially by someone who has been under extreme stress. What happens to your client if he tells his story, and the cops find a witness he didn't know about, or the security cameras contradict him, or forensics shows that the bullets wouldn't have hit that way if he had been standing where he says. Once caught in a lie, your guy is screwed forever. And if the cops can even prove that he ever had a conversation in which he was advised how to doctor a death scene, no one will believe word he says. And of course, the guy he shot might not die, and he'll have his own story to tell.

And don't forget that avoiding prosecution doesn't free your guy from civil action by the victim or his relatives, or ordinary guilt about taking a human life. Shooting somebody should always be the last resort.

Retreat and escape is the only rational option, no matter what the law permits, and if your life is truly (or even plausibly) in danger, trust a jury of your peers to recognize you did what you had to do.

I sort of trust jurors. I do not in any way trust prosecutors - the way they are rewarded for winning precludes any trust in them. I am not big on lawyers either. Biased on both ends I fear.

 

[I Ratant]

I feel a juror has to determine which side is lying the least.

 

[fuelair]

If he backs into a corner and the bad guy follows there is no lie needed. As to the bad guy surviving, that is a) why shotguns are strongly suggested for in-home and b) why the first two or three in the mag or cylinder are Black Talons (the magnums) and the .45's. And Golden Sabers in the others. Don't think I will likely need them* (statistics) but have a rule just in case.



*just in case it comes up: compact .45's for carry - the magnums aren't great for that.

 

[Rolfe]

What a strange life, to spend so much time thinking and planning for the possibility of being the victim of a violent attack.

This is something I have literally never wasted a second of my thinking time contemplating.

Rolfe.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

What a strange life, to spend so much time thinking and planning for the possibility of being the victim of a violent attack.

This is something I have literally never wasted a second of my thinking time contemplating.

Rolfe.

I won't say I haven't planned for the possibility, but I have spent a lot more time planning a motorcycle trip or a deer hunt.

 

[Checkmite]

eta: this is after I reread the comment and I thought I pointed the below out - in less detail, but if I did not, this is the full detail:

Yes, I did: specifically and only to protect them from that charge by a politically motivated prosecutor in a situation where they were being assaulted but where unless they provably tried to get out of their residence/place of business (etc.) could be charged with a felony. That was neither fair nor right - it was just a way for prosecutors to run up their conviction rate.

What bizarre logic. It seems to me that if you taught people to use the advantage of escaping when it exists, rather than deliberately ignoring it and even intentionally steering the situation toward an inescapable one, they'd never have to worry about being maliciously prosecuted by "politically motivated" DAs because they would have escaped without killing anyone.

This is allowing of course that politically-motivated prosecutors going around laying malicious charges of the sort you claim they do is actually a thing, a claim of which I'm personally rather skeptical. It smacks of the "make sure you drag him inside your house" bravado I've occasionally heard from people talking to each other about ways to kill folks they're not entirely justified in killing.

 

[KatieG]

I won't say I haven't planned for the possibility, but I have spent a lot more time planning a motorcycle trip or a deer hunt.

Or as they say in scuba diving, plan the dive, then dive the plan.

 

[marplots]

I feel a juror has to determine which side is lying the least. best.

FTFY

 

[BenBurch]

What a strange life, to spend so much time thinking and planning for the possibility of being the victim of a violent attack.

This is something I have literally never wasted a second of my thinking time contemplating.

Rolfe.

Civilization will come to America some day. But then, I am an optimist.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Civilization will come to America some day. But then, I am an optimist.

Perhaps when it does we'll send you some.

 

[WildCat]

This event speaks volumes about US gun culture.

No, it doesn't. It says nothing about anyone except the crazed lunatic who murdered those 2 men.

 

[WildCat]

Regarding the 10K children, I think they used a wide definition of "child".

That is, a 16 year old gang banger killed in a drug deal is probably simply counted as a child who was killed by a gun. Which is technically true.

So is a 19 year old gangbanger, that study considers anyone under 20 a "child". In fact the surviving Boston Marathon bomber is counted in that study as a child gunshot victim since the police shot him and he was 19.

 

[WildCat]

I also suspect that an international survey of when it is appropriate to shoot another person would show the USA to have more people who would shoot over minor disputes than anywhere else. There is a life is cheap and my life is way more important than yours culture in the USA than elsewhere.

You're never allowed to shoot over a dispute, minor or major.

 

[WildCat]

For my part I'm concerned about the notion of removing the duty to retreat. A self defense plea usually carries the test that the defendant was in fear of imminent fatal or grievous harm and it's really hard to argue that when no attempt is made whatsoever to remove oneself from the situation. SYG doesn't as far as I know supersede the castle doctrine and simply adds the caveat that you can be anywhere that you have lawful authority to be, meaning that if someone waves a knife at you in the street you can gun them down even if the opportunity to retreat is there. And I'm really not sure how that gels with fearing imminent harm.

Even in states with a duty to retreat (and Illinois is not and never has been one of them) it only applies if you can retreat in complete safety. Therein lies the rub, how can one be certain he can retreat in complete safety? Moreover, how on earth can a prosecutor looking to put feathers in his cap know this? This is why many states never had a duty to retreat, and why many of those that did scrapped it. It added too much uncertainty and vagueness into the law, much simpler if you only had to prove that you reasonably feared for your life and were not engaged in illegal activity at the time. It's slightly more complicated than that, but you get the idea.