Biden defense flops

[Glenn E. Meyer]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...8.html?hp=l5_4

Well, that was to be expected. The dude fired shots in the air. He then claimed that's what Shotgun Joe suggested. Didn't work out for him.

Don't take tactics lessons from Joe. If he became president, he might just shoot some MinuteMan ICBMs in the air to scare Putin.

[Doyle]

Well, this is kind of misleading because his conviction wasn't for anything relating to the discharge but instead for "disrupting police" when he didn't surrender promptly.

[rickyrick]

Discharging of the firearm charge was dropped...

What else were they to do, since the vice pres said so lol

[PigFarmer]

I agree with Rickyrick, the gun charge was dropped so I'm not willing to say the defense of "VP Biden told me to" failed.

I would also like to know if this ended in a plea or if it went to trial. That would also be big in determining if it "failed" as a defense.

[Grits]

I cringe everything I think this guy is only a heart beat away.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by PigFarmer

I would also like to know if this ended in a plea or if it went to trial. That would also be big in determining if it "failed" as a defense.

According to this story in a Vancouver, WA newspaper, Barton was convicted in a jury trial of obstructing a police officer, a misdemeanor offence carrying a maximum sentence of a $5,000 fine and/or up to 364 days in jail. An earlier linked story explains that he had plead not guilty.

According to the news stories, deputies arrived on the scene to find an array of people inside and outside of several vehicles, and officers (understandably IMHO) ordered everyone to show their hands to demonstrate that all were unarmed. Barton reportedly refused to comply.

Although I don't know much about this case other than what I've read in a couple of news stories, it sounds to me like Mr. Barton was incensed that police didn't immediately let him off with a thank-you note once he invoked the magic phrase "home defense", and this whole incident would have been over without the brouhaha had he simply cooperated with police.

The gun charge was likely dropped because prosecutors felt he may have a legitimate claim of self-defense. However, that wasn't the problem; the issue was how he behaved once police showed up.

[BarryLee]

the issue was how he behaved once police showed

Sadly this seems to be more and more common as people get much of their advice from unreliable sources like Mr. Biden. Maybe people should simply learn to cooperate with police and then file a complaint later if one is warranted.

[Tom Servo]

It looks like Barton's trying to make this about the Vice President's notoriously bad advice. The conviction has nothing to do with that.

While it may be fun to chortle and guffaw at the idea, it's not accurate.

[Dreaming100Straight]

It looks like Barton's trying to make this about the Vice President's notoriously bad advice. The conviction has nothing to do with that.

How so was it notoriously bad advice to tell your wife to firer a couple of blasts off of the balcony if intruders are coming in the house and she is alone? Depending on just where the intruders were at, it may very good advice if she has time ample time to reload and end the threat if they don't turn tail. It certainly gets the attention of law enforcement and if she is on a balcony and they have not yet came in the house, I assume she has time to reload.

What the idiot did in the news story was he went outside of the house and confronted the would be car thieves over property. Even then it may have been permissible to fire in the air under the law of that state. I don't know. One thing I do know is you are comparing apples to oranges. Firing into the air out of fear for one's life compared to firing to preserve property.

[rickyrick]

Many states, use of force is justifiable to protect property. Even in your front yard.

I don't think it wise to fire any firearm into the air as a warning. Should always be a clear target... Such a variety of projectiles could be loaded into a shotgun... I doubt every person following such advice would be able to tell or even know the differences in loadings.

[Doyle]

Many states, use of force is justifiable to protect property

Actually, just the opposite. Texas seems to be unique in that it allows use of force to protect property.

Other states which have statutes regarding use of force generally limit it to protection of life.

[rickyrick]

Thanks for clarifying... Sometimes where I spent most of my life interferes with my view on reality...lol..
Texas does allow use of force to protect property and many other activities such as criminal mischief at night. Most cities I've been to prohibit the discharge of a firearm inside city limits...

But I wouldn't advise discharging a shotgun as a warning anywhere.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by rickyrick

Many states, use of force is justifiable to protect property. Even in your front yard.

Actually' y'all are both oversimplifying the matter.

In most states, including many so-called anti-gun ones, it is lawful to use force to prevent the imminent commission of a felony offense or to detain someone who has committed a felony offense; needless to say, some classes of property crimes are felonies. Force is also generally allowable against a person committing criminal trespass, particularly when the person using the force owns or legally controls the land, home, or business being trespassed upon, and/or there is reasonable cause to believe that the trespasser has criminal intent. The conditions under which the force may lawfully escalate to deadly force vary, but it's allowable in most places under certain conditions.

The WA Criminal Code has this to say about the matter, my emphasis underlined:

RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force — When lawful.

The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:

(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;

(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;

(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;

(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;

(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.


[1986 c 149 § 2; 1979 ex.s. c 244 § 7; 1977 ex.s. c 80 § 13; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.020.

In short, it's lawful under certain conditions to WA to use force (a) to detain someone who has committed a felony, (b) to prevent "a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property," albeit with the condition that "the force is not more than is necessary," or (c) "to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property".

I don't know enough to comment on whether any of the actions Mr. Barton undertook rose to the level at which deadly force would be considered defensible in protection of his property. However, it's clear that some level of force is legally justifiable in WA under certain circumstances when defending property. The fact that prosecutors dropped the gun charges against Mr. Barton implies that there was some possibility - however remote - that the requisite conditions for lawful use of deadly force to protect property may have been met.

Finally, the unique thing about TX law is that it's lawful under certain specific circumstances to use deadly force to RECOVER stolen property, even when the suspect is already fleeing, and when there is no particular indication that the theft rises to the level of a felony.

Mandatory disclaimer: I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. This is not legal advice. Caveat emptor and YMMV.

[raimius]

Considering the law of gravity is still in effect, I don't recommend firing any firearm into the wild blue. That whole "Be sure of your target and what is behind it" thing goes out the window if you fire randomly.

...what goes up will come down...