Brave 2A-er stands his ground while harassing a family in parked vehicle, shoots dad, is not charged

[CastlevaniaNut18]

36 minutes ago, Slug said:

Question for the class about Stand Your Ground in general - At what point is lethal self-defense OK, if ever?  How many attacks should someone have to endure before deciding, "OK this person is going to really hurt me?"  Someone bigger and stronger than you charges and knocks you to the pavement and stands over you.  Do you wait for follow-up attacks?  A kick to the face?  Or does it matter at all; lethal response in self defense is never appropriate and you should just curl up and hope for the best?

 

 

The dude was backing away. 

 

At the absolute most, the guy could have just brandished his weapon and I'm pretty sure the dude would have backed off. 

 

The line for lethal force is a lot further than getting shoved to the ground.

[Kal-El814]

Just now, Slug said:

So no disparity in size/strength or circumstance matters if no other weapon is involved?  Victim is elderly?  5'6 110lb. girl attacked by 6'4 250lb. guy?  No weapons but victim is on the ground and the attack is continuing (repeated kicks, etc.)?  Multiple attackers?

Yes. The cost to society is too great.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

3 minutes ago, Slug said:

So no disparity in size/strength or circumstance matters if no other weapon is involved?  Victim is elderly?  5'6 110lb. girl attacked by 6'4 250lb. guy?  No weapons but victim is on the ground and the attack is continuing (repeated kicks, etc.)?  Multiple attackers?

I knew you would mention those circumstances and my response remains the same.

 

It is not in the greater interests of society to permit those exceptions to the State's monopoly on violence.

[PaladinSolo]

4 minutes ago, Slug said:

So no disparity in size/strength or circumstance matters if no other weapon is involved?  Victim is elderly?  5'6 110lb. girl attacked by 6'4 250lb. guy?  No weapons but victim is on the ground and the attack is continuing (repeated kicks, etc.)?  Multiple attackers?

Then you're toast already, stop with this shit.  Tens of thousands die every year so people can dream up scenarios where a gun wouldn't matter.

[Slug]

1 minute ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

The dude was backing away. 

 

At the absolute most, the guy could have just brandished his weapon and I'm pretty sure the dude would have backed off. 

 

The line for lethal force is a lot further than getting shoved to the ground.

Oh absolutely, I agree.  The attacker was advancing on the guy until he pulled the gun out.  As soon as the gun was out the guy backed off.  There was no need to shoot in this circumstance.  I think the man absolutely did not need shoot.  Showing the weapon was clearly enough to stop the attack.  No reasonable person should still "feel threatened" by someone backing off or running away.  The shooter was absolutely in the wrong in this instance.

 

My question was about Stand Your Ground in general. 

[Slug]

2 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

Then you're toast already, stop with this shit.  Tens of thousands die every year so people can dream up scenarios where a gun wouldn't matter.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

13 minutes ago, Slug said:

Question for the class about Stand Your Ground in general - At what point is lethal self-defense OK, if ever?  How many attacks should someone have to endure before deciding, "OK this person is going to really hurt me?"  Someone bigger and stronger than you charges and knocks you to the pavement and stands over you.  Do you wait for follow-up attacks?  A kick to the face?  Or does it matter at all; lethal response in self defense is never appropriate and you should just curl up and hope for the best?

 

 

Considering he shot the father after the father had backed off, it's not really the scenario presented in your question. 

 

There could be times when shooting somebody could be a legitimate form of self defense. This does not look to be one of those. Had the father lunged back at the old man with a gun pointed at him, yeah, it is a much more valid case of self defense. That did not happen. 

 

The fact that this confrontation is a repeat of one weeks prior where the old guy threatened to somebody over the handicap parking, and how quickly he pulled that gun; one could think this guy was waiting for an excuse to shoot somebody over the parking violation. 

[Slug]

Just now, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Considering he shot the father after the father had backed off, it's not really the scenario presented in your question. 

 

There could be times when shooting somebody could be a legitimate form of self defense. This does not look to be one of those. Had the father lunged back at the old man with a gun pointed at him, yeah, it is a much more valid case of self defense. That did not happen. 

 

The fact that this confrontation is a repeat of one weeks prior where the old guy threatened to somebody over the handicap parking, and how quickly he pulled that gun; one could think this guy was waiting for an excuse to shoot somebody over the parking violation. 

I agree.  This wasn't a case where lethal response was justified.

[johnny]

I like the idea that a 110 pound girl being actively attacked by a large man is going to pull out her gun and blast his ass. Not to mention if there is a safety or the gun isn’t already loaded. And this is assuming she’s trained well enough to actually do those things in what would be one of the most stressful situations of her life. 

 

Of course, a real American would be able to navy seals any situation.

[PaladinSolo]

18 minutes ago, Slug said:

Seriously its just as bad as those fantasizing about bringing down the government because they have a rifle, its not going to happen.

[Slug]

Just now, PaladinSolo said:

Seriously its just as bad as those fantasizing about bringing down the government because they have a rifle, its not going to happen.

Well, I think that's a little different, but OK cool.

[skillzdadirecta]

27 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

 

 

I generally agree with these and and of the opinion that if you’re carrying around a gun with the notion that you need to be able to protect yourself with lethal force at any time you’re far more likely to see lethal intent where none exists.

THIS... it's why I don't carry or own a gun despite losing several family members to gun violence and having been confronted by guys with guns several times in my life. I can't think of one instance in those situations where having a gun would have made a difference,  much less made things better. The only reason I see to have a gun is to protect your home and even then it's risky considering the number of accidental shootings that happen every year that the C.D.C. can't report. My attitude may change once I have a family of my own to protect but right now? I see carrying a gun as being more dangerous than not personally.

[PaladinSolo]

15 minutes ago, Slug said:

Well, I think that's a little different, but OK cool.

It isn't, you're attempting to justify something being legal based on a fantasy scenario.

[Slug]

1 minute ago, PaladinSolo said:

It isn't, you're attempting to justify something being legal based on a fantasy scenario.

I'm not attempting to justify anything.  I was asking for opinions.  All I asked was if people thought lethal force in self defense was ever OK and if it was where was the line for them.  SFLU said his line was basically only if an attacker had a weapon, so I gave him those examples to clarify if he really meant only if the attacker was armed.  He said still yes, which is all cool, and that was the end of it.  You're reading something into it that I didn't intend. 

[brucoe]

1 hour ago, SFLUFAN said:

When the attacker is clearly brandishing a weapon is the only situation where I would consider lethal self-defense using another weapon to be acceptable.

Then it's too late. You die.

 

I prefer the Monty Python method of dealing with adversaries (they used to publish a book of humor that had ads in it, and one of them was a "did someone kick dirt in your face" response of): There's no way to know if someone is going to be a threat to you, so you are totally within your rights to immediately kill anyone you come across because the situation might escalate faster than you can handle.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

I will go further to state that my "weapons-only" lethal force scenario also has several caveats as well.  For example, if someone comes at you with a pool cue, the use of a firearm to stop that attack would be illegal.  In essence, the weapon that could potentially be used against its intended target should carry a "reasonable expectation" that it would inflict lethal force in order for that intended target to respond with weaponized lethal force of its own.

 

There would also be no exception for unrestrained lethal force in the event of a violation of property.  In order to respond with lethal force to an intrusion, the same "weapons standard" would also apply.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

4 minutes ago, brucoe said:

Then it's too late. You die.

Which is a perfectly acceptable outcome from the perspective of overall societal stability.

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

It isn't, you're attempting to justify something being legal based on a fantasy scenario.

 

Didnt WaPo have an article that indicated there were around 100,000 lawful defensive uses of guns annually? I don’t think these things are quite as fantastic as you suggest.

[Captain Pickle]

2 hours ago, Slug said:

Question for the class about Stand Your Ground in general - At what point is lethal self-defense OK, if ever?  How many attacks should someone have to endure before deciding, "OK this person is going to really hurt me?"  Someone bigger and stronger than you charges and knocks you to the pavement and stands over you.  Do you wait for follow-up attacks?  A kick to the face?  Or does it matter at all; lethal response in self defense is never appropriate and you should just curl up and hope for the best?

 

 

if they comply once you draw your gun...

 

idiot

 

[Slug]

Just now, Captain Pickle said:

if they comply once you draw your gun...

I wholeheartedly agree.

[skillzdadirecta]

4 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

Didnt WaPo have an article that indicated there were around 100,000 lawful defensive uses of guns annually? I don’t think these things are quite as fantastic as you suggest.

This was a lawful defensive shooting so... the laws are more than likely part of the problem.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

5 hours ago, Nokra said:

 

Do I need to read the book you recommended to know what you mean by this?  

Yes.

[Captain Pickle]

Just now, Slug said:

I wholeheartedly agree.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

This was a lawful defensive shooting so... the laws are more than likely part of the problem.

 

No doubt about that. Subjective states of mind are really awful ways to base whether or not use of force was appropriate.

[johnny]

22 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

I will go further to state that my "weapons-only" lethal force scenario also has several caveats as well.  For example, if someone comes at you with a pool cue, the use of a firearm to stop that attack would be illegal.  In essence, the weapon that could potentially be used against its intended target should carry a "reasonable expectation" that it would inflict lethal force in order for that intended target to respond with weaponized lethal force of its own.

 

There would also be no exception for unrestrained lethal force in the event of a violation of property.  In order to respond with lethal force to an intrusion, the same "weapons standard" would also apply.

What if they jam the pool cue up your ass 

[Pikachu]

For what's its worth, the state attorney's office is still investigating this incident. Doubt anything will come of it. Even if they file charges, I wouldn't count on the jury on serving justice.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

22 minutes ago, johnny said:

What if they jam the pool cue up your ass 

I'm not seeing the problem here.

[Slug]

11 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

I'm not seeing the problem here.

Yeah but what if the cue isn't lacquered properly so it's all splintery.

[skillzdadirecta]

45 minutes ago, johnny said:

What if they jam the pool cue up your ass 

Then you are literally FUCKED.

[Greatoneshere]

I've always found the "you may only respond in self-defense with an equal and reasonable amount of opposing force to the force being applied to you" to be the best standard. I believe that is PA's state law on the "standing your ground" issue (when it's not on your property). So if you get shoved, and they continue to be a threat but are just standing there, you can only shove them back. If you pull out a gun in response instead, then it isn't self-defense anymore, you have become the aggressor and now the other person who only shoved you now has the right of self-defense you've given up now that you've pulled a gun out.

 

Yes, there is the issue of escalation (he pulls out a gun, so I pull out a gun) but that's the entire point of "standing your ground". It's a game of chicken until someone hurts/kills someone else, then a determination of whether it was in self-defense or not is made.

 

Other states, like here, have much much worse stand your ground laws because right wing and red states basically want to have a legal way for white people to kill who they want. That's literally why there's a legal history of it in those states.

 

I'm all for Stand Your Ground when it's an eye for an eye in terms of self-defense allowances. But beyond that - violence should be basically outlawed, I think, gun or otherwise. There's always legal, non-violent recourses to achieve justice in your mind. They may not be as satisfactory a conclusion, but that's life.

[Slug]

18 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

I've always found the "you may only respond in self-defense with an equal and reasonable amount of opposing force to the force being applied to you" to be the best standard. I believe that is PA's state law on the "standing your ground" issue (when it's not on your property). So if you get shoved, and they continue to be a threat but are just standing there, you can only shove them back. If you pull out a gun in response instead, then it isn't self-defense anymore, you have become the aggressor and now the other person who only shoved you now has the right of self-defense you've given up now that you've pulled a gun out.

 

Yes, there is the issue of escalation (he pulls out a gun, so I pull out a gun) but that's the entire point of "standing your ground". It's a game of chicken until someone hurts/kills someone else, then a determination of whether it was in self-defense or not is made.

 

Other states, like here, have much much worse stand your ground laws because right wing and red states basically want to have a legal way for white people to kill who they want. That's literally why there's a legal history of it in those states.

 

I'm all for Stand Your Ground when it's an eye for an eye in terms of self-defense allowances. But beyond that - violence should be basically outlawed, I think, gun or otherwise. There's always legal, non-violent recourses to achieve justice in your mind. They may not be as satisfactory a conclusion, but that's life.

I generally agree with this, but I have a tough time making that call for other people.  I can see the argument that if you can only respond with equal opposing force, then you run into situations where overwhelming force can applied before you can respond.    You're helpless against an attacker because you had to let it escalate to the point where it was too late before being able to respond with force sufficient to end the attack.  In principle though, I agree.  A shove doesn't deserve a lethal response and a standard of...reasonableness (I don't have a good word here) should have to be met before resorting to deadly force to stop someone.  "I felt threatened" should not be an excuse to kill someone.

[osxmatt]

1 hour ago, SFLUFAN said:

Yes.

 

Purchased! I've been looking for a new book to read. 

 

Excited to start this tonight.

[Greatoneshere]

17 minutes ago, Slug said:

I generally agree with this, but I have a tough time making that call for other people.  I can see the argument that if you can only respond with equal opposing force, then you run into situations where overwhelming force can applied before you can respond.    You're helpless against an attacker because you had to let it escalate to the point where it was too late before being able to respond with force sufficient to end the attack.  In principle though, I agree.  A shove doesn't deserve a lethal response and a standard of...reasonableness (I don't have a good word here) should have to be met before resorting to deadly force to stop someone.  "I felt threatened" should not be an excuse to kill someone.

 

Standard of reasonableness is basically the most commonly used term in law and it applies here so you are on point.

 

Nothing is clear cut, which is why the standard is there and then discretionarily applied to each individual case because no two cases are exactly alike and reasonableness is subjective. 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Slug said:

 "I felt threatened" should not be an excuse to kill someone.

 

What is worse is many people believe it’s not simply an excuse, but a good reason to shoot somebody.

 

There is a really popular community Facebook page in the town I live, something like 30,000 members. Somebody posted security camera footage of a man who had taken photos of their home and climbed up on the roof.

 

A TON of people were advocating for

shopting the guy.

 

I asked i they had recently purchased new insurance coverage for their home. The lady answered in the affirmative, I said that it was very likely an inspector from your insurance company checking the state of your roof.

 

The jackals were then like “I’d still shoot, insurance company should have let me know. I’ll defend my property with deadly force every time.”

 

 

[Slug]

23 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Standard of reasonableness is basically the most commonly used term in law and it applies here so you are on point.

That's great.  I thought I was making up a word because I couldn't come up with the right one.  It sounds like a made up word.

11 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

What is worse is many people believe it’s not simply an excuse, but a good reason to shoot somebody.

 

There is a really popular community Facebook page in the town I live, something like 30,000 members. Somebody posted security camera footage of a man who had taken photos of their home and climbed up on the roof.

 

A TON of people were advocating for

shopting the guy.

 

I asked i they had recently purchased new insurance coverage for their home. The lady answered in the affirmative, I said that it was very likely an inspector from your insurance company checking the state of your roof.

 

The jackals were then like “I’d still shoot, insurance company should have let me know. I’ll defend my property with deadly force every time.”

 

 

Yeah, wow.  Even if it wasn't an inspector I've never understood how people can advocate deadly force in response to a property crime.  I mean, if someone breaks into your home at night while your kids are sleeping or it's a home invasion type scenario...then yeah.  It sucks but you have to protect your family.  But I've heard people argue that you should shoot like..trespassers on your lawn or someone breaking into your car.  I just don't get that.