|
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 |
August 10, 2014, 03:02 PM | #76 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Let me add an anecdote.
When I took LFI-1 from Massad Ayoob, he related a brief part of a cross examination of a defendant on trial for manslaughter following the defendant's shooting of a person in what he claimed was self defense. The brief segment of the cross examination, as the story was told by Mas went like this --
If someone having used force in self defense winds up in court, his legal defense presents some knotty problems. It is, in a self defense case, very different from ordinary criminal defense. 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:
__________________
"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 Last edited by Frank Ettin; August 10, 2014 at 03:09 PM. |
|
August 10, 2014, 03:27 PM | #77 |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Armed, please read and heed Frank's responses.
One does not shoot "to kill". One shoots when and only when it is immediately to prevent someone else from seriously harming someone. Shooting may well result in the death of the assailant, but that is not the lawful objective. One of the things pointed out by Lisa Steele is that one may lawfully use no more force than is necessary to defend oneself. If one shoots and the assailant falls unconscious or drops his gun and runs, one may not shoot again--period. A pharmacist who did shoot a person on the ground after he no longer constituted a threat was charged with and convicted of first degree murder in Oklahoma City not too long ago. Research the Jerome Ersland case. Last edited by OldMarksman; August 10, 2014 at 03:42 PM. |
August 10, 2014, 08:10 PM | #78 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,929
|
Quote:
The purpose is clearly stated: Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.While it is reasonable to state that the display of a firearm may be viewed as a threat to cause death, that doesn't mean that a defender would be well-advised to state that his purpose was to kill the attacker. Assuming the proper justification exists, the defender has the right to use deadly force to prevent or stop certain violent crimes with the understanding that the death of the attacker may result, but that is not equivalent to being given the right to kill. If the attack ceases and the attacker is still alive that is irrelevant—the justification for deadly force no longer exists even though the attacker has survived. Justifiable deadly force is about preventing killing, not about killing. Sometimes death is an unavoidable consequence, but it is never the goal.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
August 10, 2014, 08:45 PM | #79 | ||
Member
Join Date: September 21, 2013
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 22
|
Quote:
Quote:
When I said “The crisis is over and now it's time to assist.” That meant the bursting/shooting event is over and it’s now time to assist the authorities in their investigation. When I said, "Frank Ettis has posted some good stuff on that, i.e., humble, cooperate, assist, to a limited degree…” That meant you wrote excellent pieces on how someone should assist first responders in their investigation, i.e, how someone should act humble, cooperate, and aid investigators, but only to a limited degree. |
||
August 10, 2014, 10:25 PM | #80 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Another example of a very poorly thought out proposed response from that post: A better plan:
__________________
"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 |
||||
August 11, 2014, 11:56 AM | #81 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,498
|
Yes, Armed, I do consider myself very fortunate. Things could have gone a lot differently, had the driver not pulled up behind us prematurely.
I'm not sure what to say about your further arguments supporting your theory on this 'burst presentation'. One thing I believe you are overlooking is that the person you feel threatened by, because of aggression and/or larger size, may not make another person who is also of similar smaller stature feel threatened. If you want to do your burst presentation to defend your safety without having to point your gun at the threat, knock yourself out, good luck. Just don't try and insist that it should be added to the defensive repertoire of everyone else. Like I said before, disparity of force is subjective. If all they appear to be intent on doing is attacking you without using a weapon, maybe you should be reaching for the pepper spray, or a taser, or even go and get training in hand-to-hand defense. Wouldn't that be better alternatives?
__________________
"Every man alone is sincere; at the entrance of a second person hypocrisy begins." - Ralph Waldo Emerson "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kierkegaard Last edited by Frank Ettin; August 11, 2014 at 12:05 PM. Reason: remove some unhelpful commentary |
August 11, 2014, 03:04 PM | #82 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Disparity of force is a real issue. An unarmed big/strong/young person can indeed kill someone, especially someone who is infirm/frail/old. The difficulty can come in convincing a prosecutor or, if you're unlucky, a jury that under the circumstances you were at lethal risk from the unarmed assailant. But if the threat is legitimately a potentially lethal threat, and if the victim is infirm/frail/old, effective unarmed resistance might simply be a bad dream. And things like pepper spray or a taser can fail and, in the face of a truly deadly threat and depending on circumstances, leave one without enough time left to resort to lethal force. So there can be some merit to a threat of lethal force, when legally justified, which can immediately be backed up with lethal force if necessary. But that of course brings us back to the problem of having to establish that an unarmed assailant really did present a legitimately lethal threat. All of that serves to illustrate that Avoidance/Evasion/Escape might often be the best choice if possible.
__________________
"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 |
|
August 11, 2014, 06:58 PM | #83 | |||||
Member
Join Date: September 21, 2013
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 22
|
To All Conceal Carriers,
In relation to my writing it should be understood I’m addressing the working class, and folks that don’t necessarily have the discretionary income to hire a lawyer. What I’m offering is another approach you may want to explore. If you can afford a lawyer then disregard everything I’ve posted, and stop reading this. This is the Tactics and Training forum: Quote:
The trained animals will arrive. These sheepdogs will be the first ones on scene. Most have instinctive intelligence, these are spectacular sniffers so cleanse yourself of wolf odor. Some only have obedience intelligence, and can be mislead down false trails…witting or unwitting - so always be wary. For now, you are the cat walking a tightrope, but to the kings, queens, and their royal guests, you are just a jester who is expected to amuse. Though always remember, while you enjoy privileged status, excessive behavior could get you whipped for insulting the court. ENJOY THE CIRCUS. Lets begin… My arguments have been called stupid; silly; lousy; terrible; awful; nonsense; and my mock interrogation was hailed a “fantasy”. This is all in attempt to devalue and diminish your argument. Attorneys and skilled interrogators use this tactic to make you look uneducated. They want you to feel shame and foolishness for trying to match wits with them. Remember, they see you as a jester and view your arguments as buffoonery and “hooey” (#80). Ignore it and stand tall. If your argument is solid do not bend and be firm in your belief. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Quote:
Quote:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Quote:
Quote:
[I'm getting nauseous - literally] _______________________________________________________________________________________________ I have to break for dinner. I will be back shortly and rip to shreds their arguments on substantive law, and the ohhhhh-so-offensive word "kill". I'll even use it in a mock trial, so that you all may weigh in with a verdict on who's keeping things real. Last edited by armed; August 11, 2014 at 10:14 PM. |
|||||
August 11, 2014, 07:19 PM | #84 | ||||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
And please, one more time, what are you "offering"? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The point is that the "cues" might prove very valuable indeed in giving one cause to be wary, but a lay defendant's ability to describe them convincingly in a manner that would indicate reason to believe that he or she had had an immediate need to use deadly force would be unlikely to suffice in a defense of justification. I know that I would not want to try it. |
||||||
August 11, 2014, 08:21 PM | #85 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
If someone has a serious legal problem and his property or freedom is at stake, he needs a qualified lawyer. If he can't afford a lawyer he also can't afford not to have one. I know that a number of my colleagues made a good deal of their money trying to sort out messes for folks who tried to do it themselves -- messes, and legal expenses, that perhaps could have been avoided or minimized with a little care or attention. But at least that lack of care and attention helped enrich my colleagues. Anyone who thinks good legal representation is too expensive, or they can't afford it, should think about how much more it'll wind up costing them after they tried to do things themselves and made a hash of it. If you have a serious legal problem, you want a lawyer because (1) dealing with those things is something he's been educated and trained for; and (2) you will be under a lot of stress because you are at risk, while your lawyer is in a better position to think things through clearly and objectively. Lawyers when dealing with their own legal matters hire lawyers. When a few years ago I had occasion to sue the federal government, I immediately hired a good lawyer.
__________________
"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 Last edited by Frank Ettin; August 11, 2014 at 11:25 PM. Reason: correct typo |
|
August 11, 2014, 08:27 PM | #86 |
Staff in Memoriam
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA
Posts: 24,798
|
I won't get into the merits of anybody's views, okay? But it looks to me that this thread is an example of the problem of the written word without facial expressions and body language to help provide clarity.
Some could be "dictionary" as to what differences there could be in interpretations of various words. The old "talking past each other" thing. And what might be legal in one state might well not be legal in another. Might be best to just let this die. Go away and think about what's been said. Maybe try again--maybe. And I'll close with another of my "Damfino." |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|