Don't Let This Happen to You

[briandg]

I believe that there is cctv or cameras covering all of the grounds of or pd department, and the one and only publicly accessible parking lot.

Our department encourages transactions at this parking lot, only during normal daylight hours.

[briandg]

Just one more point to state.

Should a citizen of my state be involved in a questionable shooting, if he is prosecuted, the burden of proof is on the state. Unless the sub categories have been clearly violated, and even if there were violations of those categories, the citizen is still protected. Prosecution must, as clearly stated in the law, must prove within reasonable doubt, that the shooter was not expecting the use of unlawful force upon himself, or any other person in such danger. Whether or not the attacker intended to cause harm, or whether the shooter misread the situation, it remains the prosecutions burden to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the shooter deliberately misused his rights of defense.

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.

I just don't know how I could make it any more clear. the laws here, and in many states, protect the public from dangerous attackers.

Not that long ago, an unarmed attacker in a stand your ground state beat a guy to death and ate his face. Should an armed individual have allowed him to get in the first punch? Not here. Not there. A crazed individual who runs screaming at a bystander and ignores instructions to stop can be shot with absolute impunity here in my state if the laws are followed.

Is the shooter allowed to drop three rounds in the chest and a couple in the head after he's down? maybe. If he complied with all other laws, the two in the head will be certainly judged to be wrong, but killing him but those first shots would have cleared him as long as he violated no laws. If the attacker has taken three rounds to the chest and still presents a threat, of course he would.

Shooting him in the head could always be prosecuted as desecration of a corpse. That also depends entirely on the laws of the jurisdiction.
Read and learn the laws and act accordingly. innocent lives depend on this right.

[Old Bill Dibble]

I bet there is some footage of uncertain quality. Since the police were not directly involved in the shooting I doubt they will release it until after legal actions are complete.

Frankly, if a person approaches my car with a gun in his hand, I will put him Down. Walking up to me armed with a gun is sure as the sun rises and sets going to fear for my safety. I don't even have to wait until he gets close. If I killl him, it's really simple, I am legally justified in use of lethal force in defense of me or any passenger in my vehicle.

That is a pretty broad statement too. You have means and opportunity but no intent.

[briandg]

That is the LAW IN MY STATE, or did you choose to ignore the entire part, where I even copied a pertinent passage, copied directly from the actual written ordinance, drawn directly from The page put out by the government of this state?.

Are you suspecting that I am some kind of retard that's going to shoot any guy with a weapon? Since you do think that I am some sort of idiot, I will clarify once again.

If I believe that this man who is coming up to my vehicle presenting a lethal weapon that can kill me from across the street intends To cause me harm, I have full rights to prevent the attack, and if I believe that he intends to fire his weapon i will fire mine. The smart thing is going to be retreat, just to save my own life and try not to get hurt in a gunfight.

I'm not stupid enough to shoot a guy who happens to be carrying a deer rifle who has a flat and wants help. how would that make me believe that I was in grave danger? that isn't covered by the law, and I'm not an idiot.

You guys can keep challenging me on this until the apocalypse, suggesting publicly that I'm irresponsible, suggesting that the law of my state just doesn't apply to the people here, that police and prosecutors will take a case to court even if the case is absolutely, clearly a frivolous and impossible case that applies to the laws governing that event.

What is irresponsible is to repeatedly post th a a person must submit to an attack before defending himself, and all of the other posts that make people believe that they will go straight to prison if they defend themselves.

If you don't know the actual laws of that jurisdiction, the wise thing to do would be to withhold advice, and advise people to find out the absolute, clearly written facts straight from the government that wrote them.

[Old Bill Dibble]

I was starting to wonder, then I read your sig line.

That nulls out pretty much everything you wrote. Most of which you wrote is confrontational, makes affirmations about things you could not possibly know (such as what I am thinking), brings up things that I haven't written (like subjecting yourself to an attack) and tries to dismiss what I did write without any cohesive argument at all.

Intent, means, opportunity. It is the same in every state in the US.

[briandg]

You know, that is just the most insulting thing I've ever had thrown in my face at this place.

Your exact words about a broad statement clearly implied hat you believe that I would ignore common sense and legal process. Throw in all the subtext and it's clear enough. want to say, yet again, even if this person is not fully intending to cause any one of the people who are in my car, all that is necessary is that he threaten me to the point that I believe he presents a threat.

Once again, anyone can read the laws and find out that there is nothing to say.

That Sig tag is intended to remind people that making a joke is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. I guess I need to get rid of it if you and other people are young to repeatedly toss it in my face when they want to make me look ridiculous.

I give up. Anyone who wants to continue passing on dangerous and incorrect information and washing off the reality of law can continue to do so.

[OldMarksman]

Possibly is clearly covered by the law.

Not really. "Possibly" does not equate to immediate necessity.

If this person invades the space of my vehicle and that's kind of vague, and he attacks my vehicle violently, I've already got all the legal justification I need.

Ya think so? We were discussing someone beating on your car.

It's my decision whether a guy who is inches away from my face beating on my car with a crowbar, bat, or whatever, presenting me with the concern that in less time than I can draw, he can kill me.

It will be your decision what to do, but not whether it was justified.

According to the law, I don't have to prove diddly or squat if he attacked me in a manner that could have lead to injury and showed any possible intent to harm me.

It is not a matter of what you "have to prove". It is matter of what the triers of fact would have reasonably done under similar circumstances, knowing what you knew at the time.

I can't imagine how a person could even conceivably choose to believe that a violent attack on a vehicle doesn't present as a probable threat to personal safety. It's that simple.

Many people have spent long periods wondering just why others did not see things their way.

I have no idea why people insist on undermining clear understanding of the law. Whatever laws apply, they should be followed.

Are you by any chance suggesting that, should a circumstance arise in which you believe that the use of deadly force would, according to your interpretation, be excused (or deemed "justified", if you prefer), that you should use deadly force?

[briandg]

READ THE LEGAL DEFINITIONS THAT I HAVE POSTED ABOVE. stop telling me about the legal definitions in my jurisdiction as if you have studied them and know exactly what they mean.

[Old Bill Dibble]

Many people have spent long periods wondering just why others did not see things their way.

Sometimes held in places against their will for long periods of time.

Are you by any chance suggesting that, should a circumstance arise in which you believe that the use of deadly force would, according to your interpretation, be excused (or deemed "justified", if you prefer), that you should use deadly force?

That is exactly how that firefighter got in trouble down in Texas. He tried to create the exact circumstance that would justify a shooting according to his (poor) understanding of his state laws and then record it as evidence of how right he was. It did not work out for him at all.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/raul-rod...round-defense/

[Skans]

Back to the OP's scenario and the article. There are several things about the shooter's story that I don't believe:

1. Someone walks up to the vehicle and asks "are you cops?" - ok, lets assume this is correct.

2. Drescher (guy in the car) allegedly told passer-by to "go away" - I don't believe this is what was said. First, the passerby could be a cop himself. Second, no one says "go away". That's just the version the shooter told the cops after they he shot someone. Do you believe it? I don't.

3. These guys were sitting in a van outside of a police station waiting to do a FTF deal to purchase a firearm. Ok, I suppose there is some precedent for this i.e. doing craigs list transactions at the police station, but don't you usually inform the police inside first if it involves a firearm? I think I'd be a little nervous openly handling a firearm in front of a police station without the cops being aware of this. I admit, I could be missing something here, but something's missing IMHO.

4. "Carlsen then threw a traffic cone into the open passenger window of the van." Really? Just because someone said "go away?" I don't think so. Where did the cone come from? how did a traffic cone get through a van window? How close was the guy when throwing the cone? Those things are pretty large. Think about throwing a cone into the window of a car - if you want to get it in the window, you really need to pick it up by the nose, aim and throw it base first, and even then it's unlikely to go inside the window of where someone was sitting. Perhaps the guy threw a cone, but I highly doubt it ever made it inside the window. This is important, because if the cone never made it into the van, then there is no doubt Drescher got out to confront Carlsen out of anger.

5. He says "when [I] got out to put the cone back Carlsen walked quickly toward [me]". Put the cone back? Why? Why not just throw it back out the window? No, what I believe (but cannot prove) happened is that Drescher got out of his car to yell something and/or pursue Carlsen. Then Carlsen turned to confront Drescher and Drescher shot the guy.

[Lohman446]

I wonder if people who have been involved in justifiable shootings ever look back and wonder if they had done that one thing different (not followed that man, called the police at the first encounter, not stepped out of the vehicle) if the shooting would not have had to occur. I wonder if they look back and wish that they had done things differently or attempted another route.

I think the taking of another life, even when justified, has to weigh on a person. I have not ever been in that position and I hope to never be.

[Lohman446]

Skans I think you are missing a point in your discussion even if one accepts the bit of information given at face value. Carlsen threw the cone AND WALKED AWAY (after all how does one walk "aggressively" towards someone if they had not walked away)

Again with the little bit of information given its very easy to interpret this as a move about honor or aggression "no one throws a cone at me and gets away with it"

[Skans]

Carlsen threw the cone AND WALKED AWAY (after all how does one walk "aggressively" towards someone if they had not walked away)

Good point. Carlsen was walking away. But, according to Drescher, he HAD TO get out of the van to put the cone back. I don't think the cone ever made it into the van! There was a passenger in the seat. Cones are big and cumbersome to throw. Even if part of the cone made it through the window, the natural reaction would be for the passenger to use his arms to deflect the flying cone. I contend that the cone never made it inside of the window.

Yes, Carlsen was walking away. And, Drescher (IMHO), didn't exit the vehicle to put the cone back as he claimed. He exited the vehicle for some other reason.

[OldMarksman]

READ THE LEGAL DEFINITIONS THAT I HAVE POSTED ABOVE. stop telling me about the legal definitions in my jurisdiction as if you have studied them and know exactly what they mean.

What?

it is really not a good idea for a person unfamiliar with legal theory to apply dictionary definitions to the written code, and in particular to individual elements of the code taken in isolation without relevant case law.

It is extremely important to not attempt to find interpretations of the law that would permit one citizen to harm another without the all-important condition of immediate necessity.

It is also extremely important to understand that what the actor may have thought at the time time will be judged after the fact for reasonableness by persons who have been instructed by a trail judge.

[briandg]

i'll repeat it one more time.

563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:

(1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:

(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or

(b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or

(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;

(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;

(3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;

(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or

(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.

3. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining. A person does not have a duty to retreat from private property that is owned or leased by such individual.

4. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.

5. 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.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 1993 S.B. 180, A.L. 2007 S.B. 62 & 41, A.L. 2010 H.B. 1692, et al. merged with H.B. 2081)

This is the whole passage from state law.

He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary

Don't get started on reasonably believes again. The shooter alone defines when he felt at such great risk that he had to resort to force, he has to testify as to why he felt that he was in risk of being killed, injured, or having a violent felony committed on either his person or a companion, as long as he is within the boundaries of his castle. It seems to be assumed that there are going to be huge numbers of people too

It is, as was clearly written into law, the prosecutions burden to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the shooter lied to police, and deliberately committed an illegal shooting, a deliberate homicide, and he is still innocent until proven guilty.

Are you an attorney who specializes in case law? This information is provided by the state, it is the law. time after time this law has been upheld.

Maybe you just want to argue, and don't care a whit for the clear and simple law of this state, it doesn't matter to me what you believe.

I have tried to pass factual information on. Instead of reading the laws that state absolutely the situation and circumstances, there have been, over and over, arguments that the law doesn't apply. There have even been statements implying that I'm ready and willing to violate those laws by shooting without full legal justification. There have even been bald faced insults, that my words weren't worth reading because I tried to avoid this very sort of criticism by posting in my signature.

Anyone who continues to play games saying that anyone can go to prison because he shot an attacker, whether there are legal protections in place or not, is doing a grave disservice to the whole of society.

Let them look it up themselves, and don't tell them what the facts are in their individual situation. Right now, over and over and over, the posts in this thread have put unsupported and incorrect information in the hands of every one of the six million people who live in my state.

Have you wondered why I haven't named this state? It's because I don't want someone going on line to look up this information, finding this thread, and believing what is being posted here. I'd prefer that he read the actual law.

[Lohman446]

The shooter alone defines when he felt at such great risk that he had to resort to force

I am not a lawyer. My understanding is that these are almost always based on a "reasonable person" clause and the jury, not the shooter, pretty well gets to define reasonable.

[manta49]

Just because you could have the right to do something doesn't mean its a good right or sensible thing to do. People like that running about with firearms are a danger to the public, what he should have done is what he would have if he was not armed drove off and reported the incident to the police. I doint buy the i was fearful excuse and hopefully the jury wont either and lock him up for good.

[briandg]

bill, what in the name of god does that case have to do with anything, and I mean anything that is being discussed? The guy who had a history of violence and provocation? he went to the neighbors home (not his castle) committing the crime of trespass, aggravated by the presence of his weapon. He provoked the neighbor and instigated the incident, (not covered by law). and didn't even remotely provide justification. The fact that he violated all of those laws, especially the one that involved him walking down the side walk and shooting someone in his own yard is why he was convicted. Pretty clear. he was not convicted because he "stood his ground."

The article even contains incorrect information regarding the zimmerman trial. but despite the error in the text, I'm not going to blow this off as all BS.

[briandg]

Lohman, did you read the laws before you posted? The reasonable belief is, as was clearly stated, decided by the shooter

it is the burden of a prosecutor to prove that it was a clear violation, that he either lied about the event or deliberately chose to violate the law, and that the defendant has, in fact, not committed a justified shooting, but instead committed a felony level crime of second degree manslaughter or whatever other charges apply.

We keep coming back to the same issue. This is the law within this state. Unless you clearly violate some passage of that law, you are protected under that law.

[briandg]

Manta, that is absolutely correct. He chose to handle that situation in a manner that would have provoked the crazy SOB that had already committed the crime of assault and possible battery. That was stupid.

Depending on the legal state in his jurisdiction, he may walk without charges, he may be charged. He seems to meet the test of this set of laws, but I suspect that he did not kill the guy in a justifiable manner, and that the prosecutors may go ahead and try him.

[Lohman446]

Lohman, did you read the laws before you posted? The reasonable belief is, as was clearly stated, decided by the shooter

So if I am an un-diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic and I am convinced that an individual is acting in a threatening manner and presents the threat of imminent injury I would be justified in shooting that individual and there would be no argument against the reasonableness of my belief?

You are making the argument that the shooter, and only the shooter, decided the reasonableness of the belief.

[briandg]

The man may be prosecuted, he may plead off, but it's pretty certain that he will not be let off completely free.

I read as much of the law as I could decipher. He violated the terms of the castle law in several ways.

The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.

There may be other sections that provide legal protection, But I could not find them.

[Old Bill Dibble]

I see where the problem is. You have no understanding of what the "reasonable person" standard is.

Sure the shooter decides what he believes is reasonable at the time of the shooting.

However a jury determines if the action taken was actually reasonable at a trial.

You understand the difference right? These two perspectives may or may not agree. The perspective of the jury is the only one that really counts from a going to prison perspective.

[briandg]

If a paranoid schizophrenic shoots someone in a psychotic episode, and he is determined to not be sound in mind at the time, will that be prosecuted?

probably not, that is why there are numerous laws that cover insanity and temporary incapacitation.

if you had carefully read, you would have seen that the shooter is the person who decides whether he is in fear of serious injury, as codified in this very law. He is the one who decides if he "reasonably believes " that the threat is real. If he acts on it, then, the legal system must prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that he is either lying about his actions based on his belief that he was in danger, or in some other way provide proof that the shooter violated one or the other laws of the state.

The shooter decides whether or not he feels threatened enough to engage in force. Then, if there are genuine doubts or clear violations of the code, it is up to the police whether to pass it to the prosecutor, then up to the prosecutor to determine within reasonable doubt before he can be charged.

[Skans]

The reasonable belief is, as was clearly stated, decided by the shooter

What a "reasonable belief" is or is not will be decided by the Jury, if the State decides to prosecute. I note that the first part of the statute simply defines when someone can lawfully use "physical force". The use of "deadly force" is stated in the negative (a person may not use deadly force...unless...) in another part of the statute. That makes makes this a defense to murder. As a defense, the killer now has the burden of proof to show that he was justified in his belief and in the use of deadly force.

So using the scenario and Missouri law:

1. Is someone siting in a van who experienced someone throwing a plastic cone at the van the initial aggressor?

2. Did the guy who allegedly threw the cone withdraw from the encounter?

3. Was the deadly force used by the guy in the van reasonably believed to be necessary to protect himself against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony? Let's not forget that the dead guy was unarmed.

then, the legal system must prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that he is either lying about his actions based on his belief that he was in danger, or in some other way provide proof that the shooter violated one or the other laws of the state.

No. This is wrong. The State can and will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the van passenger killed the passerby. He's admitted to this - the State's initial burden has been met. Now, the Defendant has the burden of proving his defense, i.e. that the killing was based on a reasonable belief that he was protecting himself from death or serious physical injury. This is HIS burden of proof. And, all the state has to do is sit back and try to poke holes in it.

I think a prosecutor can make a plausible case against the guy in the van, under Missouri law. Who knows who wins, but after spending $100,000+ in attorney's fees, the Defendant will have his answer.