Castle Doctrine, Someone Else's Castle

[davidsog]

I can just see an airline pilot faced with the choices Sullenberger faced on January 05 2009 using some of the logic here.

NTSB:

Why did you crash into downtown Manhattan?

Sullenberger:

My intent was to have a safe outcome so I simply aimed for the largest building I could find and flew the airplane into it knowing the passengers had a chance of survival.

What really happenend:

NTSB:

Why did you ignore the ATC suggestions to land at LGA, JFK, or EWR?

Sullenberger:

Because my intent was for all the crew and passengers to survive so I placed the aircraft down in the area most likely to return that result.

[davidsog]

Pennsylvania Statutes Title 18 Pa.C.S.A. Crimes and Offenses § 505. Use of force in self-protection

Is not for Police Officers...You are using 505.

You need 508:

508. Use of force in law enforcement.

(a) Peace officer's use of force in making arrest.--

(1) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, he is justified in using deadly force only when he believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or such other person, or when he believes both that:

(i) such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and

(ii) the person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony or is attempting to escape and possesses a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict serious bodily injury unless arrested without delay.

(2) A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless he knows that the warrant is invalid.

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs...8&div=0&chpt=5

[MTT TL]

Nothing you have posted changes the fact that shooting someone is the application of deadly or lethal force. Intent has nothing to do with it. Doesn't matter who you are or your reasons for doing it. Again your perspective is rather unique and does not inhabit our legal system as a concept.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Davidsog

Negative Ghostrider.

There is a reason why you have a bowling pin on an FBI standard silhouette.

Why? There are plenty of places you can shoot someone are that not likely to result in death.

David, you are sidestepping the definition of deadly force you offered from the CFR.

Originally Posted by you , earlier

In fact, it is defined in the CFR's....

Emphasis added.

Originally Posted by Davidsog

Absolutely it is lethal intent.

Shooting someone is an act, not an intent.

Originally Posted by Davidsog

That tidbit was told to me by LEO's during a CQB training exercise when we asked about their intense focus on lethality.

I once had a PO tell me that the shell casings he found outside a building were his basis for concluding that there were shootings inside the building. I don't think he was lying under oath, just that he hadn't given the matter sufficient thought before speaking. POs are people with all the virtues and vices of people generally, so it may not be prudent to attribute accuracy or even correct understanding of what he'd been taught to what some LEOs told you.

[rickyrick]

LEOs give terrible legal advice.

I had one LEO tell me that if you had to shoot someone on your property to drag the person into the house afterwards... just to be safe.

I also was told by a LEO that a problem I had would take a long expensive court battle to fix... the officer had mis-identified me as a violent felon on parole during a traffic stop; which was an awkward situation to be in because I was also in the possession of a couple of firearms, but a five minute phone call to the DA’s office cleared it right up on my own.

[davidsog]

Again your perspective is rather unique and does not inhabit our legal system as a concept.

I hardly think my perspective is unique, you just do not recognize it. Every LEO organization and military unit in the nation uses stimulus response training when they wish to overcome our instinctive inhibitions against killing our own species.

That is the intent of stimulus response training.

[davidsog]

LEOs give terrible legal advice.

Certainly

The LEO's that mentioned that were not deputy Fifes or patrolman. They were quite high up on the LEO food chain with almost everyone having graduated law school before joining their organization.

[44 AMP]

... having graduated law school ...

Which means they have a piece of paper to hang on their wall stating that they didn't flunk out. Doesn't mean squat, beyond that.

Like engineers, DOCTORS, and many other professions, a diploma is not a guarantee of competence, let alone excellence. We (as a society) expect it to be, we assume it is, but reality is, it's not.

It's like a driver's license. All it really means is that they passed the required tests, at the time they took them.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by davidsog

Is not for Police Officers...You are using 505.

You need 508:

No, we don't need Section 508. The question that was asked in the opening post of this discussion was

Originally Posted by Mainah

can you claim the Castle Doctrine if you walk into the wrong castle: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...trine-defense/

The question had nothing to do with law enforcement.

[JohnKSa]

Negative Ghostrider.

There is a reason why you have a bowling pin on an FBI standard silhouette.

Why? There are plenty of places you can shoot someone are that not likely to result in death.

Aiming for the bowling pin is intent to kill. LEO are trained using stimulus response training to aim for the bowling pin.

Aiming for the bowling pin is aiming for the area considered by experts most likely to result in the rapid cessation of violent criminal activity.

Justified deadly force is not about killing people or intending to kill people, it is about preventing violent criminal activity in certain limited circumstances.

It is accepted that the use of deadly force may result in the death of the attacker, but the death of the attacker is not the goal, it is just a possible and accepted "side effect" of the use of deadly force.

The law acknowledges that you may, under certain circumstances, need to use deadly force to prevent serious violent crimes from taking place or from being completed, but it does not give you the right to kill. Everyone understands that death may result, but while the attacker’s death is acceptable as a possible consequence, it is not the goal—the goal is preservation of innocent life. Keeping the proper goal in mind will help insure that you never overstep the justification in the law. Deadly force laws are put in place to save innocent life, not to legalize killing.

I’ve heard it said that the distinction between the use of deadly force and legalized killing is simply semantics, but that misses some important points. Our goals drive our actions and our speech. It is a tremendous mistake to fall into the mindset that the attacker's death is the goal for several reasons.

First of all, it creates a situation where the defender may take unnecessary risks to kill the attacker when the situation could actually be resolved with less danger to the defender. It can also generate a tendency for the defender to take actions that may later call his motives (and therefore the legality of his actions) into question. Remember the defender’s motive/mindset can be an important component of justifying self-defense. Finally, an improper mindset can increase the chances that the defender will make what appear to be self-incriminating comments to others. That can happen before or after the incident.

It's important that this not be misinterpreted to mean that defenders should shoot to wound.

One of the common requirements for the justification of deadly force is the realization by the defender that there is no other reasonable option for preventing the crime in question. If the defender, by his actions makes it clear that he does not believe that the situation was really a life or death scenario (by intentionally missing, or by intentionally trying NOT to cause a serious or life-threatening injury—i.e. attempting NOT to use deadly force), those actions may be legally interpreted as evidence that the defender did not believe that deadly force was the only reasonable option for resolving the situation.

That would, by definition, eliminate the justification for using deadly force and could classify the behavior of the shooter as criminal. In a widely publicized case in Florida, a woman fired a warning shot and was jailed as a result (although she did win the right to a retrial). The courts ruled that she could not claim self-defense because her actions and statements made it clear she hadn’t intended to use deadly force. Since she clearly didn’t feel that deadly force was warranted, therefore she had no legal justification for firing the gun in a situation that endangered bystanders.

You should shoot to stop the attack (not to kill and not to wound), but only if shooting is the only reasonable way to resolve the situation. If you find yourself wondering if you should shoot, if you can get away with “winging” the criminal, or if you should just aim near the attacker to scare him instead of aiming at him, you should almost certainly hold your fire.

Deadly force should be viewed as a last resort. Shooting someone, or even shooting at (or in the general direction of) someone is legally considered deadly force. That is true even if you aim to wound. Aiming close to someone but intentionally missing is almost certainly a criminal act since it implies that there was no intent by the defender to use deadly force and therefore eliminates the ability to claim justifiable self-defense to defend against the charges which will be brought against the shooter.

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=557919

[davidsog]

Aiming for the bowling pin is aiming for the area considered by experts most likely to result in the rapid cessation of violent criminal activity.

Exactly.

From PAGE 1

davidsog said:

Yes. If you are going to use lethal force then being fast and effective is in the interest of public safety.

If you look at the police qualification and what they are training the lizard brain to do....It is to apply lethal force quickly and effectively.

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...1&postcount=14

That is followed by two pages of claims the use of deadly force is not about the intention of using deadly force.

[davidsog]

That would, by definition, eliminate the justification for using deadly force and could classify the behavior of the shooter as criminal. In a widely publicized case in Florida, a woman fired a warning shot and was jailed as a result (although she did win the right to a retrial). The courts ruled that she could not claim self-defense because her actions and statements made it clear she hadn’t intended to use deadly force. Since she clearly didn’t feel that deadly force was warranted, therefore she had no legal justification for firing the gun in a situation that endangered bystanders.

This is where some of the legal logic presented falls off the track.

The case in Florida is a great example. Here the law says since you did not intend to use deadly force the perception of threat was not there to claim self defense.

I agree with that.

The flip side to that same logic is when the decision is made that deadly force is appropriate, the mindset MUST be the INTENT is to apply lethal force quickly and effectively. You most definitely must by law intend to apply actions that will likely result in death.

[cjwils]

" the mindset MUST be the INTENT is to apply lethal force quickly and effectively. You most definitely must by law intend to apply actions that will likely result in death."

You apply lethal force in order to stop the threat. That does not mean you intend to kill. You must understand that your goal is to stop the threat. Lots of people shot by handguns (and sometimes by rifles) do not die. What if you apply lethal force, and the bad guy goes down, stopping the threat, but he is not dead. Do you walk up and administer a coup de grace? I think not.

[MTT TL]

Originally Posted by davidsog

I hardly think my perspective is unique, you just do not recognize it. Every LEO organization and military unit in the nation uses stimulus response training when they wish to overcome our instinctive inhibitions against killing our own species.

That is the intent of stimulus response training.

I am not sure where you get this badly flawed idea from. I can't imagine you have served in the military or law enforcement in any type of capacity that invovles the application of deadly force whatsoever.

You really are badly confused about the whole intent of dealy force thing. However I am more than willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Simply post a legal reference or case that supports your position. Since there are none that I know of this might take a while.

LEOs give terrible legal advice

Do they ever. The only people that give even worse advice than that are just about everyone else other than lawyers and judges. I saw some dude put on facebook the other day that you were now allowed to carry up to a pound of marijuana in your vehicle everywhere in the country. Although my understanding is that LEOs are not qualified to give legal advice and find it strange in this day and age that any LEOs would give anyone legal advice with all the liability issues surrounding such a thing. So if they are giving legal advice you really should not listen to it.

Because:
1 - they are dumb enough to try to give you advice when they don't know what they are talking about.

And

2 - Are likely violating their LEA policy when doing so.

So I would never ask one for advice and ignore it if it were offered freely as it is probably going to be wrong and represent their personal opinion and not one of the agency that they represent.

[davidsog]

I am not sure where you get this badly flawed idea from. I can't imagine you have served in the military or law enforcement in any type of capacity that invovles the application of deadly force whatsoever.

You really are badly confused about the whole intent of dealy force thing. However I am more than willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Simply post a legal reference or case that supports your position. Since there are none that I know of this might take a while.

Well, proves your flawed instincts....

So EXACTLY what is so flawed about the fact stimulus response training is used to overcome our natural instincts not the kill?

Specifics is nice instead of emotional appeals.

Operant conditioning techniques program into officers' behavior an automatic response to stimuli. This combination of training enables officers to respond successfully to deadly threats regardless of their inborn aversion to using force against other human beings.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publicatio...aspx?ID=179726

On Killing was hailed as a landmark study of the techniques the military uses to overcome the powerful reluctance to kill, of how killing affects soldiers, and of the societal implications of escalating violence.

https://www.killology.com/publications

It is required reading at SWCS....

So my statement:

I hardly think my perspective is unique, you just do not recognize it. Every LEO organization and military unit in the nation uses stimulus response training when they wish to overcome our instinctive inhibitions against killing our own species.

That is the intent of stimulus response training.

The fact you have no idea what I am talking about is well...expected.

[davidsog]

You must understand that your goal is to stop the threat.

Absolutely. You must also understand that by application of stimulus response training and the decision to use lethal force....

The courts ruled that she could not claim self-defense because her actions and statements made it clear she hadn’t intended to use deadly force.

Your intention is to bring death. If the threat stops before that happens....

Then the application of deadly force ENDS and a new phase begins.

We shift into a different mode moving down the force continuum to an appropriate level to effect arrest.

To suggest that the intention to not kill is part of the deadly force application process and not something else is to water down and make the application of deadly force confusing. It will result in dead officers and soldiers too. Yeah...certain units in the Military Inventory are target selective. Every time you pull the trigger, there is a "shoot or do not shoot" evaluation.

[MTT TL]

I guess you keep conflating the issue of stimulus response because your actual position of "shooting people not being lethal force" is completely unsupportable.

So one more time just be clear and concise please support that position with any kind of case law or legal opinion whatsoever. Other than your own opinion which like I said is pretty unique.

[davidsog]

I guess you keep conflating the issue of stimulus response because your actual position of "shooting people not being lethal force" is completely unsupportable.

You do realize that is not what I said at all. You are completely confused.

I said that if the intention was not to be lethal, then LEO would not be trained to shoot the bowling pin. They are trained to target the most lethal areas with most likely chance of achieving a hit in those lethal areas. They achieve this thru stimulus response training that ensures the lizard brain in the absence of conscious thought will act appropriately and shoot with deadly intent into the most lethal areas of the human body they are targeting.

It is simply a medical fact being shot in the shoulder or arm results in fewer gunshot deaths than being shot center mass in the chest or pelvic girdle.

So as I said earlier, your point is valid but unsound.

[44 AMP]

The military trains soldiers to kill, in combat. For them, it is the most efficient method, preserving our troops and not having to spend resources caring for wounded prisoners.

If you kill the enemy, enough, you win. That's the goal.
This is NOT the goal of our Police, or the goal of the private citizen defending themselves.

Do not confuse the two, they are separate, and pointing out that our DI's trained us to "Kill, kill, KILL!!!" has NO bearing on the use of deadly force for citizen defense, or even police duties.

We use deadly force, because the precise level of force needed to stop an attack is unknown, and unknowable, and even if it were known, there is no way to use "just enough" and have it work, 100% of the time.

So, we opt for deadly force, knowing it can kill, because it has often stopped threats short of killing, and also because killing DOES always stop the threat.

Either way, the threat is ended, THAT is the goal.

If the bad guy happens to die as a result (a reasonably foreseeable result) that's their tough luck.

"Play stupid games, win stupid prizes" is pretty apt, sometimes...

[MTT TL]

That isn't what you said. You can change it now if you like but what you wrote was:

Originally Posted by davidsog

Negative Ghostrider.

There is a reason why you have a bowling pin on an FBI standard silhouette.

Why? There are plenty of places you can shoot someone are that not likely to result in death.

Aiming for the bowling pin is intent to kill. LEO are trained using stimulus response training to aim for the bowling pin.

Please note that seven other posters interpreted what you wrote exactly the same way I did. And it seems I am the one confused? Well you are half right.

I'll accept you walking back your statements in good grace, since we both know that what your wrote is not supportable.

[MTT TL]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

The military trains soldiers to kill, in combat. For them, it is the most efficient method, preserving our troops and not having to spend resources caring for wounded prisoners.

If you kill the enemy, enough, you win. That's the goal.
This is NOT the goal of our Police, or the goal of the private citizen defending themselves.

Do not confuse the two, they are separate, and pointing out that our DI's trained us to "Kill, kill, KILL!!!" has NO bearing on the use of deadly force for citizen defense, or even police duties.

We use deadly force, because the precise level of force needed to stop an attack is unknown, and unknowable, and even if it were known, there is no way to use "just enough" and have it work, 100% of the time.

So, we opt for deadly force, knowing it can kill, because it has often stopped threats short of killing, and also because killing DOES always stop the threat.

Either way, the threat is ended, THAT is the goal.

If the bad guy happens to die as a result (a reasonably foreseeable result) that's their tough luck.

"Play stupid games, win stupid prizes" is pretty apt, sometimes...

And double tap to all of the above.

The military shoots at man shaped targets in basic training and all throughout. No bowling pins.

[davidsog]

The military trains soldiers to kill, in combat. For them, it is the most efficient method, preserving our troops and not having to spend resources caring for wounded prisoners.

For the Regular Forces...yes. Not all the Military is this simplistic. In fact, we went thru what many Departments will experience once the lines of lethal force get blurred.

We put too much emphasis on non-lethals and target discrimination. Guys got killed in the house. I distinctly remember their being one cartoon target that when used with the flashlight pasty was very hard to distinguish from a gun barrel under a taclight down the hallway.

Guys would hesitate and really take their time because a bad shoot could mean the end of your training.

Well, that taught them to really hesitate in combat and several paid the price. The reality is people act accordingly in the circumstances they are in.

In other words, those in the fight, get in the fight....

Those not in the fight get away from the fight. Hands Kill.

Once we changed our mindset our casualties decreased without a subsequent increase in bad shoots. We still maintained our perfect record up as of the time I left.

So yeah, as others have said...words and terminology is important. Just not in the fashion they are using them.

[davidsog]

The military shoots at man shaped targets in basic training and all throughout. No bowling pins.

Again, LEO's shoot at bowling pins.

[davidsog]

Please note that seven other posters interpreted what you wrote exactly the same way I did. And it seems I am the one confused? Well you are half right.

You have taken two concepts I said and put them at cross purposes resulting in something I DID NOT say.

What is so hard understand or are you so arrogant as to insist your version is correct?

[MTT TL]

Originally Posted by davidsog

Again, LEO's shoot at bowling pins.

Great but you wrote:

I hardly think my perspective is unique, you just do not recognize it. Every LEO organization and military unit in the nation uses stimulus response training when they wish to overcome our instinctive inhibitions against killing our own species.

You have taken two concepts I said and put them at cross purposes resulting in something I DID NOT say.

By directly quoting you? How does that work?