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

[Dodger]

1 hour 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 don't agree with that. If you are attacking me, it ain't on me to figure out how far you are willing to go. I should have the right to take reasonable action to defend myself. If you start punching me and I have a knife, and it takes stabbing you to get you to stop punching me, that's fine for me. My response doesn't need to be proportionate to yours, it just needs to be reasonable. Stabbing you 2-3 times to get you to stop punching me, reasonable. Stabbing you 50 times then going over to your dying body and slitting your throat while you're bleeding to death, not reasonable.

 

This guy was fine until he pulled the trigger. The guy wasn't Trayvon Martin'ing him.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Dodger said:

Stabbing you 2-3 times to get you to stop punching me, reasonable.

 

We have pretty different definitions of reasonable

[Greatoneshere]

18 minutes ago, Dodger said:

I don't agree with that. If you are attacking me, it ain't on me to figure out how far you are willing to go. I should have the right to take reasonable action to defend myself. If you start punching me and I have a knife, and it takes stabbing you to get you to stop punching me, that's fine for me. My response doesn't need to be proportionate to yours, it just needs to be reasonable. Stabbing you 2-3 times to get you to stop punching me, reasonable. Stabbing you 50 times then going over to your dying body and slitting your throat while you're bleeding to death, not reasonable.

 

This guy was fine until he pulled the trigger. The guy wasn't Trayvon Martin'ing him.

 

Most courts in the United States wouldn't find that reasonable. If a guy just comes up and starts punching you (which isn't a real hypothetical most of the time . . . ) you have to do enough to reasonably defend yourself. 

 

There are cases where pulling out a knife is warranted - say a small woman against a big man. But that's my entire point: that would be equal to a shove for a shove, which is an example where the combatants are equal in all ways. Where things are unequal between two people, a person should only be legally allowed to do enough to reasonably stop it. If the scenario is such that looking at the context and evidence it made sense for so and so to pull a knife and stab so and so 2-3 times to get them to stop, that is what is reasonable and thus would be equal and thus legal.

 

We're advocating for the same thing, so we do agree from what I can tell.

[GeneticBlueprint]

Reading the last several posts I'm actually a bit conflicted. I think it's kind of unfair to ask people to make these kinds of calculations in situations where their fight/flight response is going crazy. But I also think there are clear situations (like this specific story) where somebody else's reaction was way overboard. If a guy shoves me I'm probably not going to shoot him (if I carried a gun). If a guy is punching the shit out of me yeah I might pull a knife, but not with the intention to kill or even wound (if I carried a knife), but just as a visual warning that if he continues he will escalate the situation now that he knows what I'm carrying.

[Dodger]

7 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Most courts in the United States wouldn't find that reasonable. If a guy just comes up and starts punching you (which isn't a real hypothetical most of the time . . . ) you have to do enough to reasonably defend yourself. 

 

There are cases where pulling out a knife is warranted - say a small woman against a big man. But that's my entire point: that would be equal to a shove for a shove, which is an example where the combatants are equal in all ways. Where things are unequal between two people, a person should only be legally allowed to do enough to reasonably stop it. If the scenario is such that looking at the context and evidence it made sense for so and so to pull a knife and stab so and so 2-3 times to get them to stop, that is what is reasonable and thus would be equal and thus legal.

 

We're advocating for the same thing, so we do agree from what I can tell.

Real life isn't UFC where you are theoretically equally matched in weight and skill class. Like on the surface, I'm a big dude. 6' and 300 pounds. But I'm also extremely out of shape and I've never been in a real fight in my entire life. If you attack me, I'm doing whatever I can to get you to stop. I'd rather be alive and on trial then dead because I let some guy punch me in the right spot and kill me because I wanted to be reasonable about stopping the attack.

[skillzdadirecta]

1 minute ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

Reading the last several posts I'm actually a bit conflicted. I think it's kind of unfair to ask people to make these kinds of calculations in situations where their fight/flight response is going crazy. But I also think there are clear situations (like this specific story) where somebody else's reaction was way overboard. If a guy shoves me I'm probably not going to shoot him (if I carried a gun). If a guy is punching the shit out of me yeah I might pull a knife, but not with the intention to kill or even wound (if I carried a knife), but just as a visual warning that if he continues he will escalate the situation now that he knows what I'm carrying.

It's unfair to ask people to make these split second calculations... but perfectly reasonable to give these folks the option to use lethal force?

[skillzdadirecta]

1 minute ago, Dodger said:

Real life isn't UFC where you are theoretically equally matched in weight and skill class. Like on the surface, I'm a big dude. 6' and 300 pounds. But I'm also extremely out of shape and I've never been in a real fight in my entire life. If you attack me, I'm doing whatever I can to get you to stop. I'd rather be alive and on trial then dead because I let some guy punch me in the right spot and kill me because I wanted to be reasonable about stopping the attack.

So if you got into a fist fight on the street your FIRST option is to shoot someone? Not every brawl or altercation on the street is a life and death affair for Christ's sake

[Greatoneshere]

4 minutes ago, Dodger said:

Real life isn't UFC where you are theoretically equally matched in weight and skill class. Like on the surface, I'm a big dude. 6' and 300 pounds. But I'm also extremely out of shape and I've never been in a real fight in my entire life. If you attack me, I'm doing whatever I can to get you to stop. I'd rather be alive and on trial then dead because I let some guy punch me in the right spot and kill me because I wanted to be reasonable about stopping the attack.

 

I just said that if you aren't the same/equally matched then using a knife would be reasonable and thus proportional, equal to my analogy of two guys of equal qualities shoving each other. Are you being willfully dense here?

 

But if you overdo it, then yes, you deserve to be put in jail.

[GeneticBlueprint]

Just now, skillzdadirecta said:

It's unfair to ask people to make these split second calculations... but perfectly reasonable to give these folks the option to use lethal force?

That's not what I said at all. I specifically said the opposite. 

 

I'm looking at @Greatoneshere's posts about the law in PA saying you need to use equal force in these situations. I'm saying I don't think it's unreasonable to not know what that is since you apparently have to take into account weight, sex, and muscle mass among other things while you are being attacked. I think that's a little unfair to ask of the vast majority of people and I don't think it's unreasonable to use a level of force or threat higher than the one your assailant is using to get them to stop. That does not escalate to purposefully killing.

[Greatoneshere]

Just now, GeneticBlueprint said:

That's not what I said at all. I specifically said the opposite. 

 

I'm looking at @Greatoneshere's posts about the law in PA saying you need to use equal force in these situations. I'm saying I don't think it's unreasonable to not know what that is since you apparently have to take into account weight, sex, and muscle mass among other things while you are being attacked. I think that's a little unfair to ask of the vast majority of people and I don't think it's unreasonable to use a level of force or threat higher than the one your assailant is using to get them to stop. That does not escalate to purposefully killing.

 

Well, what you described is what I'm saying though. That's why it's discretionary when being adjudicated in court - a judge or jury can decide if the proportionate force was reasonable or too much. I didn't mean to imply one should have split second calculations in the middle of a heated situation, but the proportionate force has to be reasonable is what I am advocating for. I didn't mean literally equal.

[GeneticBlueprint]

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Well, what you described is what I'm saying though. That's why it's discretionary when being adjudicated in court - a judge or jury can decide if the proportionate force was reasonable or too much. I didn't mean to imply one should have split second calculations in the middle of a heated situation, but the proportionate force has to be reasonable is what I am advocating for. I didn't mean literally equal.

 

Okay that makes more sense. I guess I didn't catch that before.

[Greatoneshere]

1 minute ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

 

Okay that makes more sense. I guess I didn't catch that before.

 

I may have not been completely clear. All good.

 

What I'm basically saying is if a guy shoves you to the ground and you pull out a gun in response, that's not reasonable in this context. In others, the exact same situation may be reasonable. That's the distinction I'm drawing.

 

Either way, it wasn't reasonable here. And firing it?

 

In this situation, that's murder based on what I am advocating for. In another situation, pulling out a gun and having to kill them really may be in self-defense as proportionate force. That's not the case here so let's stay on target everyone. 

[Dodger]

7 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

So if you got into a fist fight on the street your FIRST option is to shoot someone? Not every brawl or altercation on the street is a life and death affair for Christ's sake

I probably would never carry a gun on me ever, but if I felt I needed to pull the gun on you I'd do that and wait to see to see if you backed down. If you still continued to come after then I'd shoot.

 

 

[GeneticBlueprint]

6 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I may have not been completely clear. All good.

 

What I'm basically saying is if a guy shoves you to the ground and you pull out a gun in response, that's not reasonable in this context. In others, the exact same situation may be reasonable. That's the distinction I'm drawing.

 

Either way, it wasn't reasonable here. And firing it?

 

In this situation, that's murder based on what I am advocating for. In another situation, pulling out a gun and having to kill them really may be in self-defense as proportionate force. That's not the case here so let's stay on target everyone. 

 

Agreed. Especially in this case. The moment the dude pulled the gun (which he probably shouldn't have at all) the assailant backed off. Then he pulled the trigger. He needs to be tried for murder.

[legend]

5 hours 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?

 

Are you interested in how an independent rational actor in a vacuum should behave, or what makes for good social/legal policy? The answers are not the same and the former has all kinds of complex context that could potentially matter.

[Slug]

Just now, legend said:

 

Are you interested in how an independent rational actor in a vacuum should behave, or what makes for good social/legal policy? The answers are not the same and the former has all kinds of complex context that could potentially matter.

In that instance I was just clarifying SFLU's statement that the assailant being armed is the only reason to respond with deadly force.

I wouldn't expect most people to behave rationally in any of those situations.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

For me, it comes down to the notion that it's probably "better" for society as a whole for individuals to die because there is no "right" to lethal self-defense -- and for those that do engage in lethal self-defense to be punished for their "crime" -- than for the State to compromise its monopoly on violence.

[skillzdadirecta]

36 minutes ago, Dodger said:

I probably would never carry a gun on me ever, but if I felt I needed to pull the gun on you I'd do that and wait to see to see if you backed down. If you still continued to come after then I'd shoot.

 

 

This guy didn't do that... the husband was backing away and he still shot him. The threat had ended yet they said lethal force was still appropriate.

[Dodger]

1 minute ago, skillzdadirecta said:

This guy didn't do that... the husband was backing away and he still shot him. The threat had ended yet they said lethal force was still appropriate.

I would agree he went too far. I don't have a problem with him pulling the gun, but he definitely should have waited to see if that de-esculated the situation before shooting

[Kal-El814]

57 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

For me, it comes down to the notion that it's probably "better" for society as a whole for individuals to die because there is no "right" to lethal self-defense -- and for those that do engage in lethal self-defense to be punished for their "crime" -- than for the State to compromise its monopoly on violence.

This is what it comes down to for me as well. There should be no legal right to lethal self defense. Not because there are no situations in which it is warranted, rather because the aggregate cost for society to behave and to be armed to act in this matter is a net negative.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

This is what it comes down to for me as well. There should be no legal right to lethal self defense. Not because there are no situations in which it is warranted, rather because the aggregate cost for society to behave and to be armed to act in this matter is a net negative.

 

How are you weighing the cost/benefit here? I wouldn’t even know where to begin on this particular issue.

[Kal-El814]

10 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

How are you weighing the cost/benefit here? I wouldn’t even know where to begin on this particular issue.

Poorly and with great imagination.

 

Snark aside... if we’re sticking with some of the hypotheticals we’re talking about here, the surest way someone can apply lethal force in self defense is with a firearm. I feel there should be less of them in the hands of private citizens. Not too much mote to my logic than that aside from the perspective that the state having a monopoly on the use of lethal force specifically is positive.

[skillzdadirecta]

This is where progressives lose the argument. Saying that there should be absolutely no right to lethal self defense defies not only logic, it defies billions of years of evolution. Again why are we behaving as if we have no ability to adjudicate situations on a case by case basis and apply reasonable levels of justice. Jesus Christ...

[Greatoneshere]

23 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

This is where progressives lose the argument. Saying that there should be absolutely no right to lethal self defense defies not only logic, it defies billions of years of evolution. Again why are we behaving as if we have no ability to adjudicate situations on a case by case basis and apply reasonable levels of justice. Jesus Christ...

 Yep.

[Captain Pickle]

48 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

This is where progressives lose the argument. Saying that there should be absolutely no right to lethal self defense defies not only logic, it defies billions of years of evolution. Again why are we behaving as if we have no ability to adjudicate situations on a case by case basis and apply reasonable levels of justice. Jesus Christ...

because your lawmen (lawpeople???) have shown time and time again that they Jesus holy Christ can't do that.

 

See this thread as example

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

My argument against the "right" of lethal self-defense in deference to the State's monopoly on violence isn't as much a "progressive" argument as it is a "fascist" one.  It's a argument based on the "insignificance" of the individual relative to that of the State.

[skillzdadirecta]

1 minute ago, Captain Pickle said:

because your lawmen (lawpeople???) have shown time and time again that they Jesus holy Christ can't do that.

 

See this thread as example

So... rather than try and fix it just say that only those same lawmen have the right to kill for whatever reason but citizens dont have the right to lethal force in self defense situations? At all??? That makes sense to you guys?

[skillzdadirecta]

1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said:

My argument against the "right" of lethal self-defense in deference to the State's monopoly on violence isn't as much a "progressive" argument as it is a "fascist" one.  It's a argument based on the "insignificance" of the individual relative to that of the State.

Conservatives and libertarians often paint Liberals and fascists with the same brush.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

3 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

So... rather than try and fix it just say that only those same lawmen have the right to kill for whatever reason but citizens dont have the right to lethal force in self defense situations? At all??? That makes sense to you guys?

This is a very valid point and I would say that in a scenario where the State has the theoretical monopoly on violence, then lethal acts of self-defense directed at those agents of the State carries more legitimacy than lethal acts of self-defense directed at non-State actors.

[Captain Pickle]

7 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

So... rather than try and fix it just say that only those same lawmen have the right to kill for whatever reason but citizens dont have the right to lethal force in self defense situations? At all??? That makes sense to you guys?

Im just airing my frustration that you are right that we should have some sort of edumucated people determine through rational thought whether or not someone was justified in murdering someone but this very thread suggests that we cant.  Guy backs up... cops be like...yeah but he could be just prepping for the psycho crusher

 

[skillzdadirecta]

Just now, Captain Pickle said:

Im just airing my frustration that you are right that we should have some sort of edumucated people determine through rational thought whether or not someone was justified in murdering someone but this very thread suggests that we cant.  Guy backs up... cops be like...yeah but he could be just prepping for the psycho crusher

 

I hear you... those street fighter special moves can be lethal though.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

 

How are you weighing the cost/benefit here? I wouldn’t even know where to begin on this particular issue.

It largely comes down as to whether you value the "individual" or the "collective".

[skillzdadirecta]

4 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

It largely comes down as to whether you value the "individual" or the "collective".

Those things don't have to be at odds... the collective is made up of individuals.

[CitizenVectron]

3 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Those things don't have to be at odds... the collective is made up of individuals.

 

Everyone would prefer to drive a car (or at least the majority), but that is bad for society, and it would be better if everyone took the bus or train. There are many other examples where the good of the collective is contrary to the wants or good of the individual.

[skillzdadirecta]

3 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Everyone would prefer to drive a car (or at least the majority), but that is bad for society, and it would be better if everyone took the bus or train. There are many other examples where the good of the collective is contrary to the wants or good of the individual.

What? But no one is saying that the individual cannot OWN a car and that right is only reserved for members of the state... is that what you're arguing here? Because that's what they are arguing except replace car with " the right to defend one's self ".

 

I value the collective good, but it cannot come at the explicit expense of the individual.  Humans just dont work that way... we're not fucking ants.