|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 27, 2016, 03:59 PM | #26 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
You obviously have a jaundiced view of the process, but all societies have some mechanism, or mechanisms, to deal with acts of violence by one person causing injury or death to another. Some, more primitive societies have effectively institutionalized feuding or the seeking of revenge by the family of the person harmed. Some societies require the payment of "blood money" by the actor -- often regardless of fault. In any case, our process is what it is. You're welcome to suggest an alternative process and to lobby your state legislature for the installation of such an alternative. But unless/until things change, it can be useful to understand how things work now.
__________________
"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 |
|
January 27, 2016, 04:37 PM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 15, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 10,808
|
Lots of shootings are claimed to be self defense. Sometimes after all the facts are considered they are not what they appear. After several high profile shootings by LE and private citizens in many places over the last decade I can certainly see why a DA would err on the side of being sure of the facts.
|
January 27, 2016, 06:48 PM | #28 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
And that is the bottom line. In fact one is not punished for refusing to be a victim. However, it must first be established that's what happened. |
|
January 27, 2016, 11:13 PM | #29 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 13, 2015
Posts: 291
|
This is in response to post # 16 made by Frank Ettin. His post is very long so I am not going to quote it all. I will quote parts but quoting the whole thing would take up too much space.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
January 27, 2016, 11:26 PM | #30 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 13, 2015
Posts: 291
|
Quote:
Quote:
The martial arts student thought he was in the right but what became of it was this, he had to make two court appearances. He was charged criminally and civilly and he had to pay for the guy's teeth. In his second court appearance he had a lawyer with him so he was able to avoid any prison time but he still ended up with a felony record. So that is an example of somebody who used self defense to beat up a bad guy but he did not keep up his attack after the bad guy was no longer a threat, and he got in trouble as I explained above for doing it. |
||
January 28, 2016, 12:38 AM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
|
He should of stayed in his truck and found a cop. Sounds more like mutual combat to me.
|
January 28, 2016, 12:55 AM | #32 | ||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,989
|
Quote:
"Oh yeah, I shot and killed Bob, but you don't need to worry about it--he wasn't innocent, he was criminal scum. You can take my word for it."I hope it's blatantly obvious to everyone why it's necessary to have someone other than the shooter review the facts to verify that the shooting was justified. Quote:
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||
January 28, 2016, 01:13 AM | #33 | ||||||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Second, whether your use of force was justified as necessary to prevent harm to you or another innocent still needs to be determined before you can be let off the hook. Quote:
You are allowed to defend yourself. But whether you in fact did defend yourself and thus were justified in using force against another human is something that is decided after the fact, by others, based on the evidence. Quote:
It's true that many people mistakenly give that advice, but it can ruin your credibility. And you very much need to be credible if you are claiming self defense. I commented on that advice in 2009 in this post: It is important to understand the nature of a claim of self defense. If you are claiming that you resorted to violence out of the necessity of having to defend yourself or someone else, you will be effectively admitting the basic elements of a crime. Your defense will be based on your reasonable belief that you had no choice but to use force. It's therefore crucial that you be seen as honest and forthright. Several years ago a lawyer by the name of Lisa Steele wrote an excellent article for lawyers on defending a self defense case. The article was entitled "Defending a Self Defense Case" and published in the March, 2007, edition of the journal of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, The Champion. It was republished in four parts, with permission, on the website, Truth About Guns. The article as republished can be read here: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; and Part 4. As Ms. Steele explains the unique character of a self defense case in Part 1:
Quote:
Mas quoted me his column in the August, 2010, issue of Combat Handguns on the inadvisability of falsely requesting medical attention, writing (pg 9):
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 |
||||||||
January 28, 2016, 09:41 AM | #34 | |||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Posted by Photon Guy:
Quote:
Quote:
The operative word is "if", and not whether everyone would agree that the attacker had been "criminal scum". And what happened has to be determined, by others, based upon the totality of the facts that can be assembled after the event. Quote:
Yes, the use of necessary force defense to defend against robbery is excused under the law. "Castle doctrine" does not really change the conditions necessary for the justification for using force. What it really does is change the requirements on the defender to produce evidence of justification, and in most places, to eliminate the duty to retreat. In Texas, where the armed robbery we have been discussing occurred, "castle doctrine" provisions do apply in the defender's place of employment. That incident occurred in September, 2014. I have seen nothing to indicate that the defender has either been criminally charged or convicted or found criminally liable, yet. The news report said that a Grand Jury would "evaluate the incident." That is apparently routine for cases of homicide in Texas, but also apparently, it does not always occur. Does anyone know what may have happened here? Back to that "criminal scum" reference. Keep in mind that someone who is most unsavory, and even one who may have a criminal record of some kind, has the same rights to self defense as the next person. He may not be able to possess a firearm lawfully, but if he is attacked through no fault of his own, he may lawfully defend himself as necessary. It's not a matter of what kind of person the actor may be, it's all about what happened. Imaginary white hats and black hats are not visible to the law. |
|||
January 28, 2016, 10:40 AM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
The names "Usman Seth" and "Abugalboush" are both pretty unusual, so I suspect that the Googles would have found subsequent news reports if they existed. Harris County criminal court records don't indicate that anyone named Usman Seth was brought before the courts after September 2014, so I surmise that prosecutors may have dropped the case.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
|
January 29, 2016, 06:05 PM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 13, 2015
Posts: 291
|
Quote:
|
|
January 29, 2016, 06:18 PM | #37 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
For example, consider the cases of Jerome Ersland or Markus Kaarma. Each used deadly force against a person committing a crime, but each was found by a jury to have gone too far; and each was convicted of murder. Ersland lost his appeal and is in prison serving a life sentence. Kaarma was sentenced to 70 years in prison, and it's been reported that he will appeal.
__________________
"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 |
||
January 29, 2016, 06:34 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 7,172
|
OK. Here's a good question for you:
If you are involved in an SD "shootout," and your attacker is still alive but incapacitated, are you under any obligation, be it a Good Samaritan law or what have you, to render aid and assistance to the person you have just shot?
__________________
As always, YMMV. __________________________________________ MIIAA SIFE |
January 29, 2016, 07:01 PM | #39 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 13, 2015
Posts: 291
|
Quote:
Anyway I though its always a good idea to talk to the police any more than you have to without talking to a lawyer first. The police might not be your enemies but they're not necessarily your friends either. After all, they're not there to be your friends they're there to enforce the law, so that's why its a good idea to talk to a lawyer first. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
January 29, 2016, 07:17 PM | #40 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 13, 2015
Posts: 291
|
Quote:
So as its defined "to take money or property from a person or a place" so people do rob places such as stores. That's why people who forcefully steal money from banks are called, "bank robbers" and why such actions are called, "bank robberies." When a bank robbery occurs they don't say that the bad guys robbed the tellers they say they robbed the bank. Quote:
|
||
January 29, 2016, 07:18 PM | #41 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 13, 2015
Posts: 291
|
Quote:
|
|
January 29, 2016, 07:23 PM | #42 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 13, 2015
Posts: 291
|
Quote:
|
|
January 29, 2016, 08:19 PM | #43 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Second, you have demonstrated that you don't have a good understanding of the law. I suggest that it would be most productive for you to take the opportunity to learn some things about the law from people who really do know a good deal more than you do. Third, quibbling about whether bare hands could be a weapon really isn't productive in this context. A legal definition of "weapon" can really be very broad: It would probably be stretching the point too far to consider hands, even when being used as a means of violence, as "instruments", but an umbrella or anything else when used as a weapon is a weapon. Fourth, and by quibbling about what is a weapon, you are missing Ms. Steele's most significant point, viz., when you claim self defense you admit that you intentionally committed an act of violence against another human. Quote:
Note that force or intimidation is an element of robbery, and one can only apply force to, or intimidate, a person. Taking the property of another in ways that don't involve forcing or intimidating a person to give up the property would be some other form of theft:
__________________
"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 |
|||||
January 29, 2016, 11:17 PM | #44 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,989
|
Quote:
The reason for that should be blatantly obvious. Given the necessity for someone other than the persons involved in a shooting to rule on the legality/criminality of the shooting it should be clear that the process of arriving at that ruling is not punishment. It is simply what is necessary to insure that it's not possible for a person to murder someone and then justify it purely on the basis of their statement that the other person was involved in criminal activity. Only if the shooting is determined to be unjustified will punishment be handed down.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
January 29, 2016, 11:43 PM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
|
If you want to know why you have to justify your self-defense shooting, just recall the case of the fireman who filmed himself shooting his neighbor over a petty issue, while looking at the camera and stating, 'I'm standing my ground'.
He was sentenced for murder, and rightfully so. Or the man in Montana, laid out bait for a burglar in his garage, then laid in wait and shot him. He was sentenced for murder, and rightfully so. Lots of self-defense claims are without basis in fact. But every one of them thought the other party was a criminal scumbag, no doubt about it. |
January 30, 2016, 09:07 AM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Quote:
This reminds me of a couple of cases where the loved ones of bad guys blamed their intended victims for the deaths of their criminal loved ones. In one case, a teenaged boy was involved in a gang initiation involving a home invasion. The father of the family of the home encountered the intruders (multiple) in the hallway leading to the bedroom area of the home. He ordered the intruders out and when they rushed him, shot the one in the front, killing him. The mother of the boy kept repeating that the punishment for TRESPASSING was not death, completely misrepresenting what his son was doing and the threat that he and his fellow intruders posed. In the second case, a man was killed during the robbery of a convenience store, sort of like in the OP. His family kept saying that all he was trying to do was to feed his family...as if armed robbery is perfectly okay if you have some good intentions. It doesn't matter if you are misrepresenting what is going on with a good guy or with a bad guy, you are still misrepresenting the situation. In all these cases, there is an agenda to do so for the purpose of trying to sway people's perspectives. That just isn't right.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
January 31, 2016, 09:31 PM | #47 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 7,172
|
Quote:
Now, in our currently twisted, lawyer dominated court systems, is it not possible that something could be done against you because you just stood by and watched the man die?
__________________
As always, YMMV. __________________________________________ MIIAA SIFE |
|
January 31, 2016, 10:04 PM | #48 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,989
|
Quote:
It's something you're going to have to make a judgement call on. Just keep in mind that before you approach someone who was just trying to kill you a few moments earlier, you need to absolutely convince yourself that the person is no longer a threat.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
January 31, 2016, 10:21 PM | #49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
|
According to a news report, Usman Seth shot the robber on September 12, 2014 and was 'no billed' by the Harris County Grand Jury in November 2014.
__________________
Cave illos in guns et backhoes |
January 31, 2016, 11:05 PM | #50 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Quote:
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
|
|