|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 30, 2013, 05:32 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Zimmerman is off topic for this thread. It shows that nothing is guaranteed to be a good shoot but we don't discuss him yet. There is a sticky explaining our reasoning.
Thanks.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
May 30, 2013, 06:01 PM | #27 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
IANAL so I will not presume to discuss the nuances of whether or not statutory provisions for self-defense are or are not set forth as an affirmative defense. I'm pretty certain that Frank Ettin has covered this a time or three in the past, and he IS a lawyer. Basically, I think this just reinforces the fact that there are 51 sets of laws in place (if we include Washington, DC, as a jurisdiction), and there is simply no substitute for understanding what the law says in the jurisdiction where you are situated. |
|
May 30, 2013, 06:18 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 28, 2004
Posts: 105
|
In virtually all of the United States one has the right to use deadly force to protect one's self from the eminent harm or death. Once we've gone beyond this the waters get a little muddy. In Chicago one may use deadly force to prevent arson or felony theft. Evidently they didn't consider the people of the other end of the mall when writing the law.
Unfortunately the smart thing to do would be to gather up your friends and associates and leave by the nearest exit. I am not saying this would be the noble thing to do, merely the smartest. A few years ago at the NRA came up with the figure of $50,000 to protect oneself in a " righteous shooting ". Lord knows what the figure is today. Another aspect of this which is perhaps not legal in nature, is that it is impossible for you to be absolutely certain about what is going on at the other end of the mall. It could be a film that is using the mall as a backdrop. It could also be some kind of security exercise for the employees of a certain store using blank ammunition. I know these sound far-fetched but are at least possible. For me the use of deadly force requires almost absolute certainty and this scenario doesn't quite satisfy it. |
May 30, 2013, 07:31 PM | #29 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
May 30, 2013, 10:46 PM | #30 | |
Member
Join Date: January 10, 2013
Location: Atlanta, GA USA
Posts: 75
|
Spats McGee's post
Quote:
was an excellent read. |
|
May 31, 2013, 09:23 AM | #31 | ||
Member
Join Date: April 15, 2013
Location: MA
Posts: 16
|
Quote:
Quote:
So back to the OP, the answer is "it depends" |
||
May 31, 2013, 01:04 PM | #32 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
AFAIK, in every State, in order to get a self defense instruction to the jury, the defendant will need to have put on sufficient evidence to establish, prima facie (on the face of things), that the elements of justification under applicable law have been satisfied. In other words, the prosecution doesn't need to try to convince the jury that it was not self defense unless/until the defendant has made such prima facie showing. There is a unique wrinkle in Florida law, however. As the laws of a number of States now do, Florida law provides for immunity from criminal prosecution and from civil suit for someone who uses force in justified self defense. See 776.032: The difficulty is that there will always be some threshold questions to be decided before it can be determined whether or not immunity applies. Immunity only applies when the use of force meets all the legal requirements for justification. In Florida, as provided under 776.032, that would mean that the defendant's use of force was, "...as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031..."; and each of those statutes has conditions that must be satisfied for there to be a finding of justification. If the DA agrees that someone's use of force was justified, that would resolve at least the criminal side of things. Issues, however, arise when the DA thinks someone's use of force was not justified. If there is that fundamental disagreement, there needs to be a way to resolve it. Ordinarily, that would be done at a trial, as described above. Florida has established a slightly different procedure. In Dennis v. State, 51 So.3d 456 (Fla., 2010), the Supreme Court of Florida ruled: And in Peterson v. State, 983 So.2d 27 (Fla. App., 2008), referred to by the Florida Supreme Court, the appellate court ruled: Based on these seminal Florida court decisions, if a defendant is charged with a crime (or, it would appear, sued) based on a use of force, and if the defendant claims justification as his defense, instead of raising self defense as an affirmative defense at trial --
I'm unaware of any other State currently using a pre-trial evidentiary hearing to test a self defense claim.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||||
May 31, 2013, 01:23 PM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
That's very interesting. It was my (obviously incorrect) assumption that these immunity clauses were specifically for civil liability, and not criminal liability.
|
May 31, 2013, 11:30 PM | #34 | |||
Member
Join Date: January 10, 2013
Location: Atlanta, GA USA
Posts: 75
|
Frank, help me better understand. After three readings of your post I'm still confused. Are you saying that there are two defenses: "justification" and "self defense"?
Cutting to the quick. Is a person who is not in danger by an active shooter, but who chooses to seek out and to engage that active shooter to protect innocents not known to him/her, justified to use violent force so long as the active shooter was not a law enforcement officer? From reading the three references below (especially 776.012) I believe the answer would be--yes. The references below make it pretty clear that the person need not know the people they are defending. It also appears to me, that unless the active shooter is wearing a police uniform, they can be justifiably shot because they are engaged in causing imminent death or great bodily harm and are in the commission of a forcible felony. Here are the three sections referenced in Frank's post: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
May 31, 2013, 11:50 PM | #35 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
The laws of all States, AFAIK, recognize that one may use force, including when appropriate lethal force, in defense of an innocent third party, even if a stranger to the actor. The general standard is that the actor "steps into the shoes" of the person defended, so the actor may be justified in using whatever level of force that person defended would be justified in using. (So if the person defended was the initial aggressor, or otherwise unable to justify a use of force in self defense, and even if that wasn't known by the actor, the actor can not defend his use of force on the basis of justification.) The underlying legal issue in the situation posited by the OP is whether the actor might lose the opportunity to defend his use of force if he entered the fray from a place of safety. I don't think there's a sure or easy answer to that. However, in general the actor would have no legal duty to become involved. And of course there are practical and tactical issues as well, but those are outside the scope of this thread. Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
June 2, 2013, 12:22 PM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,869
|
Like Brian, I cannot fathom any legal downside to engaging an active shooter who:
1. Is CLEARLY the bad guy (and not an innocent) 2. Has CLEARLY already demonstrated lethal force (not just an OC-type exercising incredibly bad judgement) 3. Is CLEARLY still actively aggressive (and not retreating/surrendering)** Whatever your choice, you will have pledged your life, your honor, and definitely your fortune in this day & age. ** Aaaaaaah... There's the rub.... He "retreats" from you into a department store full of shoppers. You have a clear shot. At his back. Oh boy..... |
June 2, 2013, 11:54 PM | #37 | |
Member
Join Date: January 10, 2013
Location: Atlanta, GA USA
Posts: 75
|
Mehavey, Your signature is interesting. It is worth a thread of its own.
Quote:
|
|
June 3, 2013, 12:02 AM | #38 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
June 3, 2013, 08:58 AM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
To me, it seems pretty obvious that no "active shooter" situation can be considered over before the shooter(s) is/are down, and separated from all weapons.
|
June 3, 2013, 05:28 PM | #40 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,869
|
Quote:
...and lived with for lifetimes. No matter the choice. |
||
June 3, 2013, 09:24 PM | #41 |
Member
Join Date: January 10, 2013
Location: Atlanta, GA USA
Posts: 75
|
Our legal system offers too much risk to me and my family for me to get involved in anything short of saving the life of someone in my family.
That busload of innocent children, lead by their devout Nuns, and chaperoned by their elderly bus driver, at the other end of the mall is on their own. No hero here! Uncle Sam wants it that way. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|