|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 4,859 Likes: 6
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 4,859 Likes: 6 |
Dead guy was turned and walking away when he was shot. You can see him hunch his shoulders when he’s got his back to the shooter.
It was a bad shoot, for a lot of reasons. But the guy on the ground was likely dazed from slamming into the concrete, and his perceptions at that point of fine details of the position and movement of the attacker were likely not perfect, but all that is due to having been attacked by the black guy, so it's on him. It's not on the dazed victim sprawled on the concrete, desperate to save himself from being kicked to death while down (a very common mode of murder, by the way). Your analysis would only apply if the defender hadn't already been mentally stunned by an unjustified attack, which he perceived (in a stunned state) as only the first stage in a sustained attack. Once the attack has already begun in earnest, you don't slavishly stick to the same analysis as you would if the deadly force were used to prevent the initial attack making contact. Different circumstance. Mental state is completely different at the point you're sprawled on the ground, just having made hard contact with it as a result of an illegal assault. At that point, the law doesn't necessarily require to you be thinking and perceiving on all four cylinders. Well, yes, the law does. The standard is "what would a reasonable person do in that circumstance" - sprawled on the ground with your attacker walking away from you. Seriously, it's pretty much impossible to make a claim of self-defense when you shot a person in the back. The only way that passes muster is if he's shooting at you while running away. If you're not in imminent danger, your need to defend yourself goes out the window. Someone who is walking away from you is no longer an imminent danger. If he turns and advances again, fill him full of lead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 46,965
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 46,965 |
Dead guy was turned and walking away when he was shot. You can see him hunch his shoulders when he’s got his back to the shooter.
It was a bad shoot, for a lot of reasons. But the guy on the ground was likely dazed from slamming into the concrete, and his perceptions at that point of fine details of the position and movement of the attacker were likely not perfect, but all that is due to having been attacked by the black guy, so it's on him. It's not on the dazed victim sprawled on the concrete, desperate to save himself from being kicked to death while down (a very common mode of murder, by the way). Your analysis would only apply if the defender hadn't already been mentally stunned by an unjustified attack, which he perceived (in a stunned state) as only the first stage in a sustained attack. Once the attack has already begun in earnest, you don't slavishly stick to the same analysis as you would if the deadly force were used to prevent the initial attack making contact. Different circumstance. Mental state is completely different at the point you're sprawled on the ground, just having made hard contact with it as a result of an illegal assault. At that point, the law doesn't necessarily require to you be thinking and perceiving on all four cylinders. He landed on his azz, not his head, which does not appear to work well anyway.
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,087
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,087 |
There are IMO two distinctly separate things that require scrutinizing in this case.
The shooter was absolutely assaulted and there's not even any ambiguity about this observation as it's on video. After the shooter was knocked to the ground the aggressor actually continued to approach and if the person had fired at that point we possibly would have never heard of the incident because the threat of further violence would be considered real. That's not what happened though.
On seeing the assaultee produce a weapon he immediately began backing away. This is actually the best scenario for all parties. Violence is stopped, nobody is shot and the aggressor could even be charged with assault as he should be. What happened is the person fired a fatal shot anyway after the person has already retreated and is actually starting to turn away.
After watching the video I would have been nothing short of stunned for there not to have been a conviction.
If there's one thing I've become certain of it's that there's too much certainty in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,834 Likes: 2
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,834 Likes: 2 |
The attacker wasn't shot in the back,he was shot in the chest.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,849
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,849 |
It wasn't his mission in life, but he was there when it happened, and said something to the miscreant. That's worth a 20 year prison sentence? Let's be clear, he didn't get 20 years for saying something, he got 20 years for shooting and killing someone who had their back turned to him.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,793 Likes: 23
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,793 Likes: 23 |
Well, yes, the law does. The standard is "what would a reasonable person do in that circumstance" - sprawled on the ground with your attacker walking away from you. Nope. "In like circumstances" takes into consideration the defender's mental state, if diminished by the attack of the deceased. So the correct and complete statement of the law would be that "a reasonable person, in like circumstances (including state of mind, if a diminished state of mind was caused by an illegal attack by the deceased), would have perceived a threat of imminent serious bodily injury or death."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 60,576 Likes: 26
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 60,576 Likes: 26 |
Making a good case for red flag laws there......seeing how he was so "diminished".
I am MAGA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,793 Likes: 23
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,793 Likes: 23 |
Making a good case for red flag laws there......seeing how he was so "diminished". How so? If I blindside you with a haymaker, you will have a diminished state of mind, and your judgment won't be to its usual level of precision. How does that have anything to do with Red Flag laws as regards you?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 60,576 Likes: 26
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 60,576 Likes: 26 |
Ha!
What if you say something mean?
Diminished! Bang bang!
Yep....real comforting.
I am MAGA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,793 Likes: 23
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,793 Likes: 23 |
It wasn't his mission in life, but he was there when it happened, and said something to the miscreant. That's worth a 20 year prison sentence? Let's be clear, he didn't get 20 years for saying something, he got 20 years for shooting and killing someone who had their back turned to him. Essentially, according to the analysis of many here in this thread, by their own words (e.g., "He deserved to go to jail because he didn't mind his own business about the handicapped parking spot, so he started it"), he deserved to be sentenced because he started it by confronting the miscreant. Therefore, the reasoning goes, no matter that he was then assaulted (which assault many here applaud), he had no right to self-defense. The people arguing this way are not even reaching the analysis of justification after the assault, since they've already determined he was in the wrong from the start, thus he is, legally speaking, denied the defense of self-defense (so they imply), due to lacking "clean hands."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,793 Likes: 23
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,793 Likes: 23 |
Ha!
What if you say something mean?
Diminished! Bang bang!
Yep....real comforting. Bizarre argument, you have there. I thought more of your intellect before today.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 16,710 Likes: 3
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 16,710 Likes: 3 |
IMO, the only reason the dead guy turned to walk away was because shooter guy drew his weapon.
BUT he WAS starting to walk away when he got shot. That's what makes it a bad shoot. Had dead guy turned back around and came back at shooter guy AFTER the weapon was drawn and got shot, then it would be a good shoot.
The deer hunter does not notice the mountains
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve" - Isoroku Yamamoto
There sure are a lot of America haters that want to live here...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,465
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,465 |
Dead guy was turned and walking away when he was shot. You can see him hunch his shoulders when he’s got his back to the shooter.
It was a bad shoot, for a lot of reasons. But the guy on the ground was likely dazed from slamming into the concrete, and his perceptions at that point of fine details of the position and movement of the attacker were likely not perfect, but all that is due to having been attacked by the black guy, so it's on him. It's not on the dazed victim sprawled on the concrete, desperate to save himself from being kicked to death while down (a very common mode of murder, by the way). Your analysis would only apply if the defender hadn't already been mentally stunned by an unjustified attack, which he perceived (in a stunned state) as only the first stage in a sustained attack. Once the attack has already begun in earnest, you don't slavishly stick to the same analysis as you would if the deadly force were used to prevent the initial attack making contact. Different circumstance. Mental state is completely different at the point you're sprawled on the ground, just having made hard contact with it as a result of an illegal assault. At that point, the law doesn't necessarily require to you be thinking and perceiving on all four cylinders. Well, yes, the law does. The standard is "what would a reasonable person do in that circumstance" - sprawled on the ground with your attacker walking away from you. Seriously, it's pretty much impossible to make a claim of self-defense when you shot a person in the back. The only way that passes muster is if he's shooting at you while running away. If you're not in imminent danger, your need to defend yourself goes out the window. Someone who is walking away from you is no longer an imminent danger. If he turns and advances again, fill him full of lead. The Din-Doo was shot in the chest not in the back. Watch the video, even the news anchor says he was shot once, in the chest.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 60,576 Likes: 26
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 60,576 Likes: 26 |
Ha!
What if you say something mean?
Diminished! Bang bang!
Yep....real comforting. Bizarre argument, you have there. I thought more of your intellect before today. Oh dear. You are a bit catty this morning. No, by all means....keep beating the diminished drum. It might work once to get a guy off a murder rap. After that it will play right into the hands of the opposition. The opposition who predicted that every confrontation would end in gunfire...... You know....since every one is so diminished.
I am MAGA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,465
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,465 |
IMO, the only reason the dead guy turned to walk away was because shooter guy drew his weapon.
BUT he WAS starting to walk away when he got shot. That's what makes it a bad shoot. Had dead guy turned back around and came back at shooter guy AFTER the weapon was drawn and got shot, then it would be a good shoot.
We was NOT walking away, he was facing the shooter. That's what I saw in the video. He turned and staggered away AFTER he was shot.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,793 Likes: 23
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,793 Likes: 23 |
Oh dear. You are a bit catty this morning.
No, by all means....keep beating the diminished drum.
It might work once to get a guy off a murder rap.
After that it will play right into the hands of the opposition.
The opposition who predicted that every confrontation would end in gunfire......
You know....since every one is so diminished.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 60,576 Likes: 26
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 60,576 Likes: 26 |
Good one.
Did you get "blindsided"?
Dont shoot bro.
Last edited by Jim_Conrad; 10/11/19.
I am MAGA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 14,256 Likes: 2
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 14,256 Likes: 2 |
It wasn't his mission in life, but he was there when it happened, and said something to the miscreant. That's worth a 20 year prison sentence? If you're going to go around confronting people you best know how to use your fists first, a chickenchit that pulls a gun and fires over getting shoved to the ground should have kept his fu-king mouth shut, remind you of any spooky popo's? Thank you gunner. You are going to go around confronting people, EVEN IF they are illegally using the handicapped spot, and your first line of defense is pulling a gun? No, you better know how to use your fists.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,793 Likes: 23
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,793 Likes: 23 |
As an aside, it's amazing how news reports ALWAYS get it wrong on what Stand Your Ground laws do. They think that they permit deadly force self-defense. No. That's already well established law. Has been for over a century. All Stand Your Ground laws do is remove from the accused the obligation to credibly assert that he had no safe means of escape. That's it. Some states require you to credibly assert, when lethal force was applied in self-defense, that you had no safe means of escaping. Stand Your Ground removes that obligation. It literally does nothing else. All the other aspects of lethal force self-defense law are the same as they've always been.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,793 Likes: 23
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,793 Likes: 23 |
Good one.
Did you get "blindsided"?
Dont shoot bro. You've lost it.
|
|
|
|
|
582 members (1minute, 1234, 007FJ, 160user, 1936M71, 10Glocks, 59 invisible),
2,102
guests, and
1,258
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,778
Posts18,495,852
Members73,977
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
