• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Feeling threatened? Shoot them.

As I read it, the law does not remove the requirement for appropriate level of force.

Intentionally extreme and silly hypothetical example:

A frail, 100 year old woman weighing no more than 75 pounds stands poised to push the red button marked "Kill Garrette's family." She looks at me, smiles, and says: "I'm going to push the button."

[Stipulate here that it is an indisputable fact that pushing the button will result in the death of my family]

I'm standing three feet away, I'm holding a loaded gun that I have qualified as a Dead-Eye Sharpshooting Expert on, and I have recently won the Ultimate Fighting Championship with my unmatched skills at beating the crap out of tough guys.

The threat is real and imminent. Without my intervention, my family will die.

If I shoot the old lady, it is my opinion that the courts will not allow me the legal defense of self defense because I could have removed the real and imminent threat with a much lower level of force.

Ditto if I go into ninja mode and break all her bones.

The court will, imo, find instead that it would be reasonable for me to have simply and non-injuriously restrained the old lady.

I think this holds with this law and without it.


But if we reverse the situation, the legal findings change:

I, with an evil glint in my eyes, am standing poised next to the button marked "Kill the old lady's progeny." I have no gun, but I'm 7 feet tall, 330 pounds of pure muscle, and have won the last three Ultimate Fighting Championships without suffering a scratch.

The old lady is three feet away. She's still 100 years old and 75 pounds. She's never touched another person in anger, has never had physical training of any kind.

Fortuitously, though, she was on her way to the local showing of Antiques Roadshow with her late husband's buffalo rifle circa 1876, complete with a personally etched inscription from Wild Bill Hickock in the stock.

As my hand starts to lower toward the button, she raised the rifle and pulls the trigger. Amazingly, her late husband left it loaded.

I die.

The courts find her not guilty because it was self defense.


Am I wrong?
 
Garrette said:
As I read it, the law does not remove the requirement for appropriate level of force.

Intentionally extreme and silly hypothetical example:

A frail, 100 year old woman weighing no more than 75 pounds stands poised to push the red button marked "Kill Garrette's family." She looks at me, smiles, and says: "I'm going to push the button."

[Stipulate here that it is an indisputable fact that pushing the button will result in the death of my family]

I'm standing three feet away, I'm holding a loaded gun that I have qualified as a Dead-Eye Sharpshooting Expert on, and I have recently won the Ultimate Fighting Championship with my unmatched skills at beating the crap out of tough guys.

The threat is real and imminent. Without my intervention, my family will die.

If I shoot the old lady, it is my opinion that the courts will not allow me the legal defense of self defense because I could have removed the real and imminent threat with a much lower level of force.

Ditto if I go into ninja mode and break all her bones.

The court will, imo, find instead that it would be reasonable for me to have simply and non-injuriously restrained the old lady.

I think this holds with this law and without it.


But if we reverse the situation, the legal findings change:

I, with an evil glint in my eyes, am standing poised next to the button marked "Kill the old lady's progeny." I have no gun, but I'm 7 feet tall, 330 pounds of pure muscle, and have won the last three Ultimate Fighting Championships without suffering a scratch.

The old lady is three feet away. She's still 100 years old and 75 pounds. She's never touched another person in anger, has never had physical training of any kind.

Fortuitously, though, she was on her way to the local showing of Antiques Roadshow with her late husband's buffalo rifle circa 1876, complete with a personally etched inscription from Wild Bill Hickock in the stock.

As my hand starts to lower toward the button, she raised the rifle and pulls the trigger. Amazingly, her late husband left it loaded.

I die.

The courts find her not guilty because it was self defense.


Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
It's my impression too and I'm sure somebody would have pointed it out if it was otherwise. Still to continuo with the silly hypothetical, we could imagine you being threatened with a knife by the old lady from your example, only instead of being UFC champion your world champion in 1500 meter runs. Under the new law you would be allowed to kill her, instead of exercising the 100% safe option of retreating. OK you might still fall to the appropriate level of force requirement, but let's imagine she's only 50 or so. I don't really agree with this, but on the other hand I don't think it would be that big a problem, as long as not mistakes are made at least, and I really have no idea how common that is.
 
Kerberos,

I think I see your point, but you changed two variables.

In my scenario, the threat was against a third party (my family) and would not be removed by retreating.

In your scenario, retreating removes the threat.

I agree that the law (is it law yet? Or still proposed?) removes retreating from the spectrum of force levels to be considered, but it does not automatically follow that the other end of the spectrum becomes acceptable.

If I can reasonably be expected to remove the threat without killing or maiming, I will be held to that standard. If I successfully argue that it was only reasonable for me to kill or maim (since I don’t have to defend not retreating) then I get to claim self defense.
 
It always comes down to reasonableness...

If you get prosecutor, and a jury who thinks that you should have kicked the gun out of your attacker's hand, instead of shooting them first, you're screwed.

The law just sets the playing field, it doesn't guarantee an outcome.
 
Garrette said:
Kerberos,

I think I see your point, but you changed two variables.

In my scenario, the threat was against a third party (my family) and would not be removed by retreating.

In your scenario, retreating removes the threat.

I agree that the law (is it law yet? Or still proposed?) removes retreating from the spectrum of force levels to be considered, but it does not automatically follow that the other end of the spectrum becomes acceptable.

If I can reasonably be expected to remove the threat without killing or maiming, I will be held to that standard. If I successfully argue that it was only reasonable for me to kill or maim (since I don’t have to defend not retreating) then I get to claim self defense.
Click to expand...
Well this thread is about a law that removes the requirement to retreat, so any relevant hypothetical or example has to include that possibility. If you're locked in a small room with your assailant and cannot retreat, or if the retreating wont make the threat go away, then there is no difference between the old and the new law. I'm fairly sure the old law had no requirement that the victim run through brick walls to escape.
 
Garrette said:
Kerberos,

I think I see your point, but you changed two variables.

In my scenario, the threat was against a third party (my family) and would not be removed by retreating.

In your scenario, retreating removes the threat.

I agree that the law (is it law yet? Or still proposed?) removes retreating from the spectrum of force levels to be considered, but it does not automatically follow that the other end of the spectrum becomes acceptable.

If I can reasonably be expected to remove the threat without killing or maiming, I will be held to that standard. If I successfully argue that it was only reasonable for me to kill or maim (since I don’t have to defend not retreating) then I get to claim self defense.
Click to expand...
Interesting what-if's. The law is intended to allow a person to take the appropriate action up to and including lethal force if necessary without automatic persecution at the hands of the legal system. In the first extreme example, if the old lady is inches from the button and you are 10 feet from her, odds are you cannot cover the distance effectively, or retreat with your family, before she pushes the button. It is the only way to ensure the safety of your family. OTOH, she has a 10 inch butcher knife, in your driveway and your family isn't there, you would have a hard time convincing a law officer that shooting was the only way.
As in the earlier example, if the roles here are reversed: She cannot reach the house before you could over-take her. Bang.
This law is not a permission to blaze-away when someone gives you the eye. The cases of someone defending themselves in the face of real peril, only to be caught up in crimminal and civil suits were the attacker is rewarded are shameful.
This does not remove answerability, it only seeks to put the victim first for a change.
 
Originally posted by crimresearch:

It always comes down to reasonableness...

If you get prosecutor, and a jury who thinks that you should have kicked the gun out of your attacker's hand, instead of shooting them first, you're screwed.

The law just sets the playing field, it doesn't guarantee an outcome.
Click to expand...

Well said.

And agreed.
 
Originally posted by Kerberos:

Well this thread is about a law that removes the requirement to retreat, so any relevant hypothetical or example has to include that possibility. If you're locked in a small room with your assailant and cannot retreat, or if the retreating wont make the threat go away, then there is no difference between the old and the new law. I'm fairly sure the old law had no requirement that the victim run through brick walls to escape
Click to expand...

Point taken.
 
Originally posted by Nicodemus2004:

This law is not a permission to blaze-away when someone gives you the eye. The cases of someone defending themselves in the face of real peril, only to be caught up in crimminal and civil suits were the attacker is rewarded are shameful.
This does not remove answerability, it only seeks to put the victim first for a change
Click to expand...

I agree with the intent of the law. If it has appeared otherwise then I haven't communicated well.

I do, however, worry about some of the potential (not necessarily likely, though) ramifications.

Courts try to set a "reasonable person" standard, but there are lots of unreasonable people out there.
 
Kerberos said:
Yep, that's what I said, Retard! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Name calling? Hrmmm.. . .

You seem to be saying that you should let the police handle everything. So what does that say about the victim who the police can't help.
 
Ian Osborne said:
can't you just admit you contradicted yourself and move on?
Click to expand...

No, because I didn't. Can't you just admit you're using a bogus statistic and move on?
 
Bjorn said:
- you really ment there would be less robberies, not less burglaries?
Click to expand...

I didn't use the word robbery, but I didn't use the word burglary, either. Stop putting words in my mouth, people. What I said was crystal clear.
 
Bjorn said:
:hb:
Click to expand...

Bang your head all you want (apparently an acceptable substitute for rational argument in the minds of some), but it doesn't change the fact that you put the word "burglary" in my mouth. I have explained several times why the meaning was clear, and you have ignored each and every one of those explanations.
 
shanek said:
Bang your head all you want (apparently an acceptable substitute for rational argument in the minds of some), but it doesn't change the fact that you put the word "burglary" in my mouth. I have explained several times why the meaning was clear, and you have ignored each and every one of those explanations.
Click to expand...

.........why would criminals break into homes, if they didn't intend to steal anything?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom