Feeling threatened? Shoot them.

[C.J.]

Interesting response, Beerina.

Going to the innocent guy who gets killed in my scenario:

Tough break for him. The death lies on the head of your attacker, though.

Perhaps. I guess the logic here is that if your attacker hadn't attacked you, there would be no retaliation and so no collateral damage; any action (or the effects of any action) you take in response to the attack is in essence the responsibility of the attacker. Is that the way you see it?



In response to the notion that it would be "fine" were I to be charged for accidentally shooting someone in the course of defending myself:

Why do you think this is fine? The death is a tragedy, but at least 1. it isn't you, and 2. it isn't you because some lawyer in an office thinks you shouldn't be able to defend yourself.

Well, as far as I understand it, people are still held responsible under the law for unintentional acts that cause harm or damage. It's an inexact analogy, but I very much doubt that most people who hit pedestrians with their cars intended to do so, yet they still can be prosecuted for their actions regardless of intent. As a side note, I am glad it isn't me who is dead.

Let's suppose you were a god who knew you had a 70% chance of death at the hands of your attacker if you don't use your gun and merely attempt to flee, but you have a 3% chance of death if you use your gun, but if you do, a 30% chance (or 80% chance) of killing accidently someone else as you shoot a hail of bullets at your attacker?

What do you do?

Me, I'm choosing life. I will cry if other innocents die, but their death is on the head of my attacker, not me(emphasis added)..

In this situation, I'd probably choose for my life, too, even if there were an 80% chance of me killing an innocent. I would also cry. However, I don't think that I can simply shrug and say, "Well, it sucks, but it'd never have happened if that guy hadn't tried to kill me, so it's really his fault." Furthermore, I'm not sure you should be able to argue this, as it seems to suggest that you can protect yourself at any cost and cannot or should not be held responsible for those costs.

The scenario I created was designed to leave you little chance but to defend yourself or be killed, because I was interested in what people perceived their moral responsibility to be for the innocent slain as a result of one's own actions. That those actions were precipitated by another does not absolve me of the consequences, unintended or not, of my response (in my view). While the law does offer some mitigation of consequence in that I'm not tried for murder should I demonstrate self-defense, should I be exempted from any and all other damage caused in the most direct sense by my actions? This is what I'm uncertain about in the Florida law, and why I wonder where others stand on this issue.

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by C.J.:

In this situation, I'd probably choose for my life, too, even if there were an 80% chance of me killing an innocent. I would also cry. However, I don't think that I can simply shrug and say, "Well, it sucks, but it'd never have happened if that guy hadn't tried to kill me, so it's really his fault."

Legally, I think you can.

This is from memory and I'm not a lawyer, so you can probably nitpick, but in general:

A death that happens in the course of (or perhaps as a result of?) the commission of a felony can be charged to the perpetrator(s) regardless if it was their initial intent and regardless if they actually committed the act causing death.

So from a legal standpoint, if the perpetrator commits a felony and Beerina shoots back, wounds the perpetrator but accidentally kills an innocent, the perpetrator can be charged with the murder of the innocent.

All of which is separate from the moral standpoint, of course.

 

[billydkid]

But

You are waiting at a light rail station with your 14 year old son and pregnant wife. It is around 9 p.m. and you and your family have just come from the baseball stadium after the game. It is just you and your son and your pregnant wife alone on the street.

A barechested man in a highly inebriated state approaches. He appears to be in excellent physical condition, but homeless. He steps into close quarters with your family and asks for money in a somewhat demanding voice. You decline. He refuses to go away. He turns to your 14 year old son and asks him if he has any money. Your son replies he does not. The homeless man snarls and slaps your son in the chest and tells your 14 year old son to get a job!

What do you do?

Imagine the same scenario and in a state where self defense is a prosecuteable offense. You try to to usher your son away and the man comes up behind you and hits your son on the head with a large rock. There is always going to ambiguous in many cases of self defense, but I don't think the answer lies in making it illegal to defend yourself. and remember, the instigator of any situation must accept the bulk of the responsibility for consequences - you can not read peoples minds and you have no way to know their true intentions. I have always been bothered by the notion, for example, that women who wear expensive jewelry on the subway are in any way shape or form remotely culpable should they be assaulted or robbed. The fact is, any person should be free to walk around with thousand dollar bills taped to their clothing without being assaulted and anyone who does assault them should bear the complete responsibility for the attack.

 

[Skeptic]

Sure, I think he's taping a show next week entitled, "Cross-dressing question dodgers." You'll be a star.

Well, cut AUP some slack. The 1,423,655th "Look at the Barbaric Americans" thread he started had failed, for some inexplicable reason, to create general outrage at the USA, and instead served as a launching-pad for a serious discussion of the moral and ethical issues about guns and self-defense (well, at least until Shanek got into the act).

This is highly frustrating to AUP, of course. So it is understandable that he uses his famously subtle sense of irony and parody (of "If you rape an underage girl, make sure you are wearing a yarmulke" fame) to try and get everybody to stop making those silly moral and ethical distinctions, and just be shocked, SHOCKED at the evil Americans, as they are supposed to be.

 

[crimresearch]

Legally, I think you can.

This is from memory and I'm not a lawyer, so you can probably nitpick, but in general:

A death that happens in the course of (or perhaps as a result of?) the commission of a felony can be charged to the perpetrator(s) regardless if it was their initial intent and regardless if they actually committed the act causing death.

So from a legal standpoint, if the perpetrator commits a felony and Beerina shoots back, wounds the perpetrator but accidentally kills an innocent, the perpetrator can be charged with the murder of the innocent.

All of which is separate from the moral standpoint, of course.

That is the gist of felony murder...the person initiating the series of crimes is held responsible for outcomes even if they weren't directly caused by the criminal.

 

[crimresearch]

"Imagine the same scenario and in a state where self defense is a prosecuteable offense. "

And exactly what states are those again BillyD?

 

[C.J.]

Legally, I think you can.

This is from memory and I'm not a lawyer, so you can probably nitpick, but in general:

A death that happens in the course of (or perhaps as a result of?) the commission of a felony can be charged to the perpetrator(s) regardless if it was their initial intent and regardless if they actually committed the act causing death.

So from a legal standpoint, if the perpetrator commits a felony and Beerina shoots back, wounds the perpetrator but accidentally kills an innocent, the perpetrator can be charged with the murder of the innocent.

All of which is separate from the moral standpoint, of course.

Ahh...looks like this has already been dealt with then, if your memory serves, and that's why it wasn't made a concern in the Florida bill. Thanks for the info, Garrette (& crim)!

 

[Nicodemus2004]

In our area the following took place:
The area Blockbuster gets robbed at gun-point near closing time. Following the robbery, the father of one of the boys working there now goes to the store at closing time to bring him home.
On another night the robbers return with a shotgun. The father, who posseses a CWP (Conceled Wepons Permit) draws his weapon and fires. One robber is dead, the other is transported to the hospital in critical condition.
The father is not charged in the incident but the surviving robber is charged with the death of his accomplice along with armed robbery.
I stood up and cheered when I heard this on the news. Finally, the outcome I would hope to see in such a situation.

 

[shanek]

Since you didn't object to the first two reasons why your data is invalid, can I presume you agree to them?

No, just that it's not worth responding to. Just as I didn't respond to Bjorn's post above yours since it's merely reiterating a point that I've already refuted.

As for Lott's survey wasn't that about the number of defensive gun uses, rather than cross-state comparisons of homicides?

No, that was Kleck.

No it wasn't - that might have been the point of your discussion with Bjorn, but it is not the point of this discussion.

The point of this discussion, and the subject of this entire thread, is the effect that people who are free to defend themselves without prosecution or persecution will have. I gave an example of that, and as I've shown, all of the statistics show that it works really well.

When you comment on something I say, the issue is what I said; not what you think you've been debating with other people on the same thread.

Nope, sorry, you don't get to move the goalposts or derail the thread. I know that's a favorite tactic employed when people start to lose the argument, but that doesn't make it right. The discussion is what it is. You want to talk about something else, start another thread.

 

[shanek]

A death that happens in the course of (or perhaps as a result of?) the commission of a felony can be charged to the perpetrator(s) regardless if it was their initial intent and regardless if they actually committed the act causing death.

Yep. As I pointed out, it's called "felony murder." I think it's ridiculous in that it basically charges the felon with first degree murder when it's nothing of the kind, but I agree with the basic idea that the felon is ultimately responsible for the death.

 

[shanek]

In our area the following took place:
The area Blockbuster gets robbed at gun-point near closing time. Following the robbery, the father of one of the boys working there now goes to the store at closing time to bring him home.
On another night the robbers return with a shotgun. The father, who posseses a CWP (Conceled Wepons Permit) draws his weapon and fires. One robber is dead, the other is transported to the hospital in critical condition.
The father is not charged in the incident but the surviving robber is charged with the death of his accomplice along with armed robbery.
I stood up and cheered when I heard this on the news. Finally, the outcome I would hope to see in such a situation.

Cool! Do you have a link to this story?

 

[CFLarsen]

Cool! Do you have a link to this story?

"Cool"? Why are news stories that confirm your agenda "cool"?

Are stories that don't confirm your agenda equally "cool"?

 

[Mycroft]

"Cool"? Why are news stories that confirm your agenda "cool"?

Are stories that don't confirm your agenda equally "cool"?

A man successfully defends himself, his son, and incidentally makes the neighborhood a lot safer as two armed robbers are taken out of circulation.

Is it cool? Well, a man did die. Then again, had he been allowed to continue his crime spree, odds are someone would have died sooner or later, and it's a good chance it would have been an innocent.

Naturally Shanek would be interested in this article.

 

[CFLarsen]

Naturally Shanek would be interested in this article.

If shanek was as rational as he claims he is, he should attach the same significance to news stories that contradicted his political agenda.

 

[Bjorn]

No, just that it's not worth responding to. Just as I didn't respond to Bjorn's post above yours since it's merely reiterating a point that I've already refuted.

I don't think you have responded to my question about how you're cheating even when quoting yourself - it's the first time I point it out (in this thread, of course).

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
If shanek was as rational as he claims he is, he should attach the same significance to news stories that contradicted his political agenda.

Who among us does that?

 

[LTC8K6]

In Florida, merely entering the building is considered burglary. You don't have to take anything or attempt to take anything. The mere fact of stealthily entering the building makes you a burglar.

Burglary also applies to cars in Florida.


810.07 Prima facie evidence of intent.--

(1) In a trial on the charge of burglary, proof of the entering of such structure or conveyance at any time stealthily and without consent of the owner or occupant thereof is prima facie evidence of entering with intent to commit an offense.

(2) In a trial on the charge of attempted burglary, proof of the attempt to enter such structure or conveyance at any time stealthily and without the consent of the owner or occupant thereof is prima facie evidence of attempting to enter with intent to commit an offense.

 

[crimresearch]

Tallahassee is where the punch though the open car window which I mentioned took place, and was charged as a burglary.

 

[Suddenly]

Getting desparate Shanek? You are in mid flip-flop...going from claiming that a punch in the nose is 'aggravated assault', to quoting my own definition back to me, and pretending that you came up with it.

A punch in the nose can be aggrevated assault under that definition:

An aggravated assault is an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. This type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. ...

So as long as the attack was for the purpose of inflicting severe or exxagerated bodily injury, a punch in the nose can be aggrevated assault. This is similar to the "Felonious Assault / Unlawful Wounding" statute I deal with where what seperates a midemeanor battery from a felonious assault is the intent of the actor. Intent can be inferred from circumstances, so in some situations a punch can qualify. Not all, but some.

(And 'assault' is the offer, 'battery' is the completion of the offer...do try to get a clue).

Not correct as a general statement, looking to basic common law.

A "battery" is an unlawful, unconsented touching.

An "assault" has two different defintions:

1) An attemped battery (i.e. "a swing and a miss")

2) Placing a victim in the apprehension of recieving an immediate battery. (i.e. "Made you flinch")

This is reflected in W.Va. Code 61-2-9, although there it requires that for there to be a criminal assault there must be the attempt/apprehension of violent contact. Generally, these terms also refer to civil assault, as assault and battery are two of the classic "intentional torts," so there are some differences depending on the context.

However, a naked "offer" to batter is not sufficent evidence for assault. There must be immediate apprehension of a battery, and this generally requires as a bare minimum the ability to carry out the threat.

If there were anything wrong with my work in this area, my employers, or the courts would tell me, not some superstitious woo-woo on the internet, who can't even tell the difference between a law dictionary, and the legal code, or a police officer and a sheriff.

Ah, yes, it wouldn't be a real crimresearch legal argument without an ill-defined and naked claim of expertise.

 

[CFLarsen]

Who among us does that?

You are asking who claims to be unbiased?

I can only think of shanek.