Don't Let This Happen to You

[Lohman446]

So your telling me that if I decide the person walking towards me on a sidewalk is walking aggressively and presents a threat of imminent harm and draw my pistol and shoot him or her I will not be prosecuted? What if I believe it of the group of nuns? I'm the shooter - you may not question my belief. At least that is the argument you seem to be making.

[ammo.crafter]

I sure do miss the days when the news was merely the news and not a "news show".

When did news people start giving their interpretation of events rather than letting the public make their own opinion?

[briandg]

dibble, you continually choose to lay ridiculous claims out. READ THE LAW.

I have quoted this legal document over and over.

THE VICTIM IS ALLOWED TO DECIDE WHEN FORCE IS USED. Isn't this pretty clear? if the victim is not allowed to make this decision on his own, wouldn't there have to be an enormous document detailing ad nauseum when and why a person can use pepper spray, a club, knife, pistol, etc.

Seriously, who's bloody right is it to decide when a situation calls for dangerous force during an attack? it is the victims right to decide.

Once again, here you go.

The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section. If a defendant asserts that his or her use of force is described under subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of this section, the burden shall then be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of such force was necessary to defend against what he or she reasonably believed was the use or imminent use of unlawful force.

The defendent must make an accurate accounting of his actions, his actions must be supported by law. If he fails to fulfill these obligations and his statement or actions are suspect, if a prosecutor can prove within reasonable doubt that he violated the laws (there you go, not reasable belief, that doesn't belong in the legal system at all) the prosecutor has discretion to act, and only if he can prove, within reasonable doubt, that a crime was committed.

[Lohman446]

THE VICTIM IS ALLOWED TO DECIDE WHEN FORCE IS USED. Isn't this pretty clear? if the victim is not allowed to make this decision on his own, wouldn't there have to be an enormous document detailing ad nauseum when and why a person can use pepper spray, a club, knife, pistol, etc.

There is. Its called the reasonable person standard and has a mountain of case law referencing it (I imagine). Its not the "victim" - its a hypothetical "reasonable person" inserted in place of the "victim". The jury decides what that "reasonable person" would have considered reasonable given the evidence presented them.

Your use of the word victim slants the conversation.

[briandg]

So your telling me that if I decide the person walking towards me on a sidewalk is walking aggressively and presents a threat of imminent harm and draw my pistol and shoot him or her I will not be prosecuted? What if I believe it of the group of nuns? I'm the shooter - you may not question my belief. At least that is the argument you seem to be making.

Again and again the people on this thread throw absolutely ridiculous straw man arguments out. do you really, seriously, even in your craziest notions, believe that these laws, as they stand and have been repeatedly provided for your perusal, are going to allow you to go shoot nuns on the street?

For the love of god, man what in the world makes you believe that this is even remotely relevant? CASTLE LAWS DO NOT PERMIT YOU TO WALK DOWN THE STREET AND SHOOT PEOPLE WHO SCARE YOU!S


so, if you really want to go shoot a gaggle of nuns and pretend that they threatened, you be my guest, and maybe your friends will visit you as you rot.

Dont be ridiculous.

[Lohman446]

For the love of god, man what in the world makes you believe that this is even remotely relevant? CASTLE LAWS DO NOT PERMIT YOU TO WALK DOWN THE STREET AND SHOOT PEOPLE WHO SCARE YOU!S

You are kind of making my point.

You have argued, repeatedly, that the only person who determines what is reasonable is the shooter.

I have presented several examples of why this simply cannot be and defies logical interpretation of the law.

You are pointing out that the shooter cannot be the sole determiner of reasonableness (in the case of the group of nuns) but you are arguing that the shooter IS the sole determiner of reasonableness.

I am pointing out that it is not the shooter who is the sole determiner but the "reasonable person" standard.

[briandg]

You once again choose to read whatever you want to read. The person who has been placed in jeopardy is at the time, the only "reasonable person" who knows the situation and can advise him, is that correct? where is he supposed to find legal advice when he is being menaced, threatened, whatever.

Reasonable doubt is another concept entirely, isn't it? the prosecutor must prove within " reasonable doubt" that a crime was committed, and then, so must a jury, if it goes that far.

[briandg]

This part of the discussion was started when a person suggested that a person walking up and down beating on a car with a baseball bat didn't justify dangerous force, and that unless that man with the lethal weapon broke out the window and physically attacked the driver, that driver had no right to defend himself. over and over, there have been ridiculous notions tossed out, like whether I can go down the street and shoot nuns because I am afraid of them.

The laws, clearly and succinctly are stated, nobody gives a rat's butt about them, and all you guys want to do is argue that I'm wrong, you're right, and that anyone who follows those laws is at risk of imprisonment because he has no rights to decide when he or another has been exposed to imminent threat of serious injury or a felony crime against his person.

This is just the most ridiculous argument I have ever been involved in since debate in high school.

READ THE LAWS, IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT THEY SAY, WHAT THEY MEAN, AND QUIT WASTING TIME ARGUING WHAT THE HECK THE LAW SAYS AND MEANS! Read it for yourself, figure it out, and learn something, rather than jumping all over my hind end!

[Lohman446]

I don't get your argument any longer. You are saying that only the shooter can determine what is reasonable. I am saying the standard is that of a "reasonable person" I have no idea why we would discuss reasonable doubt.

You are pointing out that in the case of the group of nuns (out walking aggressively in the mall - maybe power walking) the shooter would find himself in great legal jeopardy. If the shooter is the only person who may determine what was reasonable why would he be in great legal jeopardy?

Your basically arguing if the shooter says he or she was in danger of great physical harm you cannot question the assertion. I am arguing you most certainly can and the standard that one would use to question it is the "reasonable person" standard. You would question the reasonableness of that perceived threat.

We are "jumping over your hind end" because someone following your advise is likely to find him or herself in great legal jeopardy. It is based, as near as I can tell, in an untrained reading of the law.

[briandg]

lohman, just one more explanation. have you paid any attention whatsoever to these posts? This is about castle law, nothing but castle law, and only castle law as it is posted in this unedited copy of the legal statement.

Again, why in the world would your suggestion even come within the most ridiculous reach of being covered under the castle law as defined by those statures that by now, you should have read?

Just another ridiculous straw man attack.

[Lohman446]

Ok - so in your view I have to be in or around my car when the nuns walk aggressively towards me in order to be covered? Because that would make all the difference?

I'm abandoning the argument. Because either your position is disastrous or we have a communication failure (might be mine).

[Koda94]

all a prosecutor needs to do is convince a jury the shooters actions were not reasonable, doesnt sound like the shooter gets to decide to me whats reasonable.

[briandg]

mister skans, this discussion never was, not even remotely, about the cone in the face. This started when someone posted that this jurisdition;s castle law did not allow me to defend myself unless I allowed myself to be physically attacked, or face imminent and expected physical attack.

Lohman, you one again threw out an absolutely ridiculous slam against interpreting the law.

Would you seriously shoot at a bunch of nuns just because you were afraid of nuns, if you were in your home, business, or car? What in the world makes you think that a person would be covered in clearly stated laws that clearly won't support you standing next to your car shooting at nuns because you are afraid of them?

[briandg]

Koda, it's not that simple. Read the law. it's not written to protect killers. It is written to protect other people, and without a strong, solid case, it's not even going to make it to a jury.

[Old Bill Dibble]

This started when someone posted that this jurisdition;s castle law did not allow me to defend myself unless I allowed myself to be physically attacked, or face imminent and expected physical attack

You do if you are claiming self defense.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by briandg

...THE VICTIM IS ALLOWED TO DECIDE WHEN FORCE IS USED. Isn't this pretty clear?....

It's also wrong, or at least a gross oversimplification.

Originally Posted by briandg

...who's bloody right is it to decide when a situation calls for dangerous force during an attack?...

While the person using the force must make the decision, he doesn't get the final say. In the aftermath, the police, the district attorney, perhaps a grand jury, and, if the guy is unlucky, the jury at his trial, will decide if his decision was correct and his use of force justified.

So let's again look an overview of the law related to the threat or use of force in self defense.

The important thing to remember at the outset of any discussion of the use of force in self defense is that our society has, for hundreds of years, frowned on threatening another human or intentionally hurting or killing another human. Threatening someone or intentionally hurting or killing him is prima facie (on its face) a crime everywhere. However, our laws have long recognized that under certain limited circumstances a threat or an actual act of violence may be excused or justified.

You won't have the final say about whether your act of violence was excusable or justified self defense. That decision will be made by others after the fact -- the prosecutor and/or a grand jury and/or, if you're unlucky, the jury at your trial.

So let's take a general, high level overview of use-of-force law in the United States.

But first the usual caveats: (1) I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer; (2) This is not legal advice, but rather it's general information on a legal topic; and (3) this is intended as a general overview without reference to the laws of any particular State, and as such it doesn't consider specific state laws that might allow justification of a use of force in some circumstance not mentioned here.

Now let's look at the basic legal reality of the use of force in self defense.

1. Our society takes a dim view of threatening or using force against and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human. In every State the threat or use of force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human is prima facie (on its face) a crime of one sort or another.
   
   
   1. However, for hundreds of years our law has recognized that there are some circumstances in which such an intentional act of violence against another human might be legally justified.
      
      
   2. Exactly what would be necessary to establish that violence against someone else was justified will depend on (1) the applicable law where the event takes place; and (2) exactly what happened and how it happened, which will have to be judged on the basis of evidence gathered after the fact.
      
      
   3. Someone who initiated a conflict will almost never be able to legally justify an act of violence against another.
   
   
2. The amount of force an actor may justifiably use in self defense will depend on the level of the threat.
   
   
   1. Under the laws of most States, lethal force may be justified when a reasonable person in like circumstance would conclude that a use of lethal force is necessary to prevent the otherwise unavoidable, imminent death or grave bodily injury to an innocent. And to establish that, the actor claiming justified use of lethal force would need to show that the person against whom the lethal force was used reasonably had --
      
      
      1. Ability, i. e., the power to deliver force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily harm;
         
         
      2. Opportunity, i. e., the assailant was capable of immediately deploying such force; and
         
         
      3. put an innocent in Jeopardy, i. e., the assailant was acting in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude that he had the intent to kill or cripple.
      
      
   2. "Ability" doesn't necessarily require a weapon. Disparity of force, e. g., a large, young, strong person attacking a small, old, frail person, or force of numbers, could show "Ability."
      
      
   3. "Opportunity" could be established by showing proximity, lack of barriers or the like.
      
      
   4. "Jeopardy" (intent) could be inferred from overt acts (e. g., violent approach) and/or statements of intent.
      
      
   5. Unless the standard justifying the use of lethal force is met, use of some lesser level of violence might be legally justified to prevent a harmful or offensive, unconsented to contact by another person.
      
      
   6. A threat of force or the use of force may be legally excused or justified only for the purposes of stopping the threat. Once the threat has ended, the continued threat or use of force can no longer be excused or justified and may result in criminal (and civil) liability.
   
   
3. If you have thus used violence against another person, your actions will be investigated as a crime, because on the surface that's what it is.
   
   
   1. Sometimes there will be sufficient evidence concerning what happened and how it happened readily apparent to the police for the police and/or prosecutor to quickly conclude that your actions were justified. If that's the case, you will be quickly exonerated of criminal responsibility, although in many States you might have to still deal with a civil suit.
      
      
   2. If the evidence is not clear, you may well be arrested and perhaps even charged with a criminal offense. If that happens you will need to affirmatively assert that you were defending yourself and put forth evidence that you at least prima facie satisfied the applicable standard justifying your act of violence.
      
      
   3. Of course, if your use of force against another human took place in or immediately around your home, your justification for your use of violence could be more readily apparent or easier to establish -- maybe.
      
      
      1. Again, it still depends on what happened and how it happened. For example, was the person you shot a stranger, an acquaintance, a friend, a business associate or relative? Did the person you shot forcibly break into your home or was he invited? Was the contact tumultuous from the beginning, or did things begin peaceably and turn violent, how and why?
         
         
      2. In the case of a stranger forcibly breaking into your home, your justification for the use of lethal force would probably be obvious. The laws of most States provide some useful protections for someone attacked in his home, which protections make it easier and a more certain matter for your acts to be found justified.
         
         
      3. It could however be another matter to establish your justification if you have to use force against someone you invited into your home in a social context which later turns violent.
         
         
      4. It could also be another matter if you left the safety of your house to confront someone on your property.
   
   
4. Good, general overviews of the topic can be found at UseofForce.us and in this booklet by Marty Hayes at the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network.
   
   
5. Sometimes a defensive use of lethal force will have grave consequences for the defender, even when ultimately exonerated. For example --
   
   
   • This couple, arrested in early April and finally exonerated under Missouri's Castle Doctrine in early June. And no doubt after incurring expenses for bail and a lawyer, as well as a couple of month's anxiety, before being cleared.
     
     
   • Larry Hickey, in gun friendly Arizona: He was arrested, spent 71 days in jail, went through two different trials ending in hung juries, was forced to move from his house, etc., before the DA decided it was a good shoot and dismissed the charges.
     
     
   • Mark Abshire in Oklahoma: Despite defending himself against multiple attackers on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal meat-grinder before finally being acquitted.
     
     
   • Harold Fish, also in gun friendly Arizona: He was still convicted and sent to prison. He won his appeal, his conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. The DA chose to dismiss the charges rather than retry Mr. Fish.
     
     
   • Gerald Ung: He was attacked by several men, and the attack was captured on video. He was nonetheless charged and brought to trial. He was ultimately acquitted.
     
     
   • Some good folks in clear jeopardy and with no way to preserve their lives except by the use of lethal force against other humans. Yet that happened under circumstances in which their justification for the use of lethal force was not immediately clear. While each was finally exonerated, it came at great emotional and financial cost. And perhaps there but for the grace of God will go one of us.

And for a discussion of Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground Laws see this thread: Duty to Retreat, "Stand Your Ground", and Castle Doctrine.

[GarandTd]

I'm still wondering why the hypothetical guy with a flat is walking around with a deer rifle looking for help. I would steer clear of that guy.....

[TheGunGeek]

Briandg,

Okay, it looks like my prior post was misunderstood to some degree. Let me start by stating that the comments/opinions were intended as a literal interpretation only, not for expanded possible circumstances, are based on my understanding of the laws of my State only (I’m not a lawyer), and obtained from attending legal seminars, classes, and readings.

Now that this is out of the way, some detail:

“The Castle Doctrine in FL would only protect you if the person was forcibly trying to enter your vehicle. Throwing a traffic cone inside doesn't apply. Let's say someone is beating on your car with a bat. It still doesn't apply until the person penetrates the vehicle with a part of their body.”

According to FL Chapter 776 (1)(a)&(b), I believe this is accurate. This was also covered in a legal seminar and the same conclusion was relayed by the attorney giving the presentation. Castle will protect you if the person is forcibly entering your vehicle. If the person is vandalizing the car when you’re inside but they’re not trying to enter, then Castle wouldn't apply. This isn't to say in some circumstance you wouldn't have a justifiable homicide ruling. You just wouldn't be covered by the Castle presumptions.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/.../0776.013.html

“Firearms aren't and shouldn't be the only defense option. I always advocate the additional carrying of mace as a non lethal option. Even then, you have to use sound judgment or you'll be charged with assault.”

Using mace is essentially the same as punching someone. You just can’t spray someone with mace without justifiable cause. If you do, it’s assault, and you can be charged. Now if in the course of defending yourself you can legally respond physically or with a firearm, the use of mace is justified. Carrying mace gives you another tool to choose from, and it's something I always recommend to everyone.

My opinion on the original case as it’s known now is still the same. In the situation in the original post, the shooter would have far less issues legally if mace was deployed, and or de-escalation was attempted against the unarmed individual instead. A person is dead, there is a homicide. The only question is whether or not it will be determined as justifiable. Even if it’s ultimately ruled justifiable, the family, girlfriend, etc. can still sue in civil court where the hurdle is much lower. I agree that everyone should be knowledgeable about the laws of the State they carry in, and all the potential consequences. This all needs to be thought about carefully in advance. If something happens, you will likely only have seconds to make a good decision.

[Ricklin]

Briandg
Please listen to those on tbis thread that are Atty's. I can make you a 100% guarantee. Those who choose to represent themselves have a fool for an Atty. Insisting you can interpret the laws implies tbat you are representing yourself. Pay particular attention to the standard of a reasonable person.

You do not get to decide if you acted reasonably......

[Old Bill Dibble]

If you don't get it at this point Briandg then we simply are going to have to agree to disagree.

Honestly I believe that Frank's answer is about an exhaustive and correct answer as we are going to get here. I am not attorney, nor am I qualified to give legal advice anywhere but I am a LEO and barring proof to the contrary I imagine that I have more education, training and practice in criminal legal matters than you. It is something I do every day. I in no way qualify as an expert and will always consult with an attorney on legal matters whenever I have a question or don't understand something fully. This keeps me out of hot water.

You can go your own way, a lot of people do just that, if you do go your own way then don't be surprised when things don't turn out the way you expect.