|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 23,554 Likes: 1
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 23,554 Likes: 1 |
I just started watching Yellowstone last night. That sounds like it came straight from the show.
have you paid your dues, can you moan the blues, can you bend them guitar strings
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,683
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,683 |
There’s a movement here in AK to include language in our self defense statutes
If they look sketchy, smoke Em. You can’t be too careful.
God I love this place
I'm pretty certain when we sing our anthem and mention the land of the free, the original intent didn't mean cell phones, food stamps and birth control.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24,273 Likes: 10
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24,273 Likes: 10 |
Situational awareness, situational awareness, situational awareness
Funny the campfire lawyers on here ( have never been a situation involving deadly force) quoting and interpreting subsections of states' deadly force laws. Sure you remember what subsection to remember when the time comes. lol
Were you in fear for your life or a family member's life?
Where were you and what were you doing when presented with the threat? Arbury comes to mind
Could you have reasonably retreated from the threat? Did you attempt to remove yourself from the threat? Why not?
Did you use deadly force after the threat was no longer present?
Was deadly force justified?
Officer I was in fear for my life ( family member's life). I want to speak with my attorney. No, I want to speak with my attorney first. Thank you
pretty basic. Take a local good quality self defense, liability course if you don't understand ( 1/2 the Members on here) . Have good liability insurance. Go to range at least 4 to 5 times a year. if possible shoot in low light conditions. Run sprints, do push ups before you shoot. Try it
Of course local politics will also affect use of deadly force regardless of the laws. If they are not constitutionally friendly move to a region where they are . Typically lower crime areas.
Last edited by ribka; 12/03/21.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 21,807 Likes: 8
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 21,807 Likes: 8 |
I just started watching Yellowstone last night. That sounds like it came straight from the show. No idea... the only thing we watch on the TV are YouTube Cat Videos...
If you are not actively engaging EVERY enemy you encounter... you are allowing another to fight for you... and that is cowardice... plain and simple.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 17,821
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 17,821 |
Posting disclaimers is BS too.
Its really simple.
Dont shoot people unless you have to.
Unfortunately people dont and its created a mess where obvious self defense is argued otherwise.
Media has an agenda for sure.
When violent felons chase a guy with weapons and he has to on his back defend himself, the attackers white and the victim white.......and hollywood and news programs call it racists......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 17,821
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 17,821 |
Hell Alec Baldwin points a gun at somebody and pulls back the hammer......but he didnt do it.
Gets a TV special show about it too.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 10,596 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 10,596 Likes: 1 |
Listening to Barnes talk about it, he said a pretty astute statement - first, ask yourself if you really believe citizens have a right to perform a citizens arrest? If you see a rape going on , do you not do anything and call the police? so if you assume a citizen has the right to perform a citizens arrest, then put a police uniform on the McMichaels.
Someone calls them and says they believe a felony is happening, the suspect is described and known in the neighborhood as someone suspected of committing past felonies, they arrive and once confronted about being detained until it can sorted out by proper authorities , flees. When confronted, he goes after a weapon and is shot.
No police officer would be going to trial over that.
also, as he explains it, the Georgia Law as it relates to escaping a felony goes back to the civil war era. The prosecutor essentially made up the the idea the law says you have to see a felony occurring to perform a citizens arrest. Attempting to or actually escaping felony has no time limit under the law. The escape part was specifically written to address slaves escaping and it has nothing to do with escaping a felony that just happened.
Finally, I guess there is some ambiguity but the use of a firearm , in this case, one that isn't concealed and is legal, would be used for self defense. While I'm sure wink wink nod nod they only used it for self defense in the attempted detaining of Arbery, the stand your ground laws and open carry are pretty clear in Georgia.
If it weren't for that video, I think many people agree they wouldn't have been prosecuted.
There are a lot of different concepts discussed in this post, and I thought I would add some context. I don't know anything about the specifics of the particular case under discussion, and these points are just general. 1. In regards to the rape hypothetical above, the actual law of self-defense under applicable law also may apply to defense of others. So, the good Samaritan's options may be more numerous than just effecting a citizen's arrest. They may allow the Samaritan to use the same force against the offender as the rape victim could use. Check your local law. 2. If someone is going to rely on some right such as a citizens arrest or detention of another, in addition to the law of self-defense, one must know the exact circumstances under which they can arrest or detain under their state's law. If the law refers to particular felonies, the citizen must know the elements of the felony on which the citizen is relying. I have seen a LOT of people who detain people for alleged crimes that do not meet my state's requirements for a detention. That made the persons attempting the detention the aggressor in those circumstances (under my state's law) and entitled the person detained to resist with reasonable force, which could go all the way up to resisting deadly force with deadly force. A state with a stand your ground law ups the ante for the person attempting to detain. Is it really worth it under the facts of a particular circumstance? 3. With respect to the reference to police, under the 4th Amendment (state law may vary and limit this, but I doubt that many do), police can lawfully detain temporarily on the basis of reasonable suspicion, which is a much lower standard than the probable cause standard applicable to custodial arrests and a trip to jail. The citizen relying on a citizens arrest statute must know the level of probability required to detain before attempting to detain for the crime in question. A common situation dealing with a reasonable suspicion standard involves loss prevention and shoplifting, but it may not apply to anyone other than a store employee. Others require a felony committed in one's presence or probable cause to believe that a felony has been committed. This may explain why the police in a particular jurisdiction can do more than a non-commissioned citizen. 4. Even where a citizen's arrest may be effected, generally the level of force must be reasonable. If you see a person shoplifting a pack of gum and you point a gun at him, absent other circumstances, the force likely is going to be viewed as unreasonable and the person attempting the stop may be deemed the aggressor. All of these are reasons why a person should be very familiar with the laws applicable to them before taking action in an ambiguous situation.
"Don't believe everything you see on the Internet" - Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,956
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,956 |
this idea that rioters cannot be shot for burning and looting is certainly a media narrative.
This "riots are the voice of the unheard" horseshit is justification in their eyes to become anarchists OF COURSE rioters can be shot... just do it quietly and from a few hundred yards. This ain't rocket science fellas. A sniper shooting a rioter. You would be hunted down, your picture would be posted all over the place, you would be labeled as a psycho, you would spend the rest of your life in prison, and your family would have to change their name and move out of state.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,956
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,956 |
this idea that rioters cannot be shot for burning and looting is certainly a media narrative.
This "riots are the voice of the unheard" horseshit is justification in their eyes to become anarchists Depends on what state you are in. If you are in Texas, blow them away. Anywhere else, you better check your local laws.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 21,807 Likes: 8
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 21,807 Likes: 8 |
this idea that rioters cannot be shot for burning and looting is certainly a media narrative.
This "riots are the voice of the unheard" horseshit is justification in their eyes to become anarchists OF COURSE rioters can be shot... just do it quietly and from a few hundred yards. This ain't rocket science fellas. A sniper shooting a rioter. You would be hunted down, your picture would be posted all over the place, you would be labeled as a psycho, you would spend the rest of your life in prison, and your family would have to change their name and move out of state. LOL... You watch a lot of TV don't you...
If you are not actively engaging EVERY enemy you encounter... you are allowing another to fight for you... and that is cowardice... plain and simple.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,956
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,956 |
this idea that rioters cannot be shot for burning and looting is certainly a media narrative.
This "riots are the voice of the unheard" horseshit is justification in their eyes to become anarchists OF COURSE rioters can be shot... just do it quietly and from a few hundred yards. This ain't rocket science fellas. A sniper shooting a rioter. You would be hunted down, your picture would be posted all over the place, you would be labeled as a psycho, you would spend the rest of your life in prison, and your family would have to change their name and move out of state. LOL... You watch a lot of TV don't you... News mostly
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 23,554 Likes: 1
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 23,554 Likes: 1 |
Listening to Barnes talk about it, he said a pretty astute statement - first, ask yourself if you really believe citizens have a right to perform a citizens arrest? If you see a rape going on , do you not do anything and call the police? so if you assume a citizen has the right to perform a citizens arrest, then put a police uniform on the McMichaels.
Someone calls them and says they believe a felony is happening, the suspect is described and known in the neighborhood as someone suspected of committing past felonies, they arrive and once confronted about being detained until it can sorted out by proper authorities , flees. When confronted, he goes after a weapon and is shot.
No police officer would be going to trial over that.
also, as he explains it, the Georgia Law as it relates to escaping a felony goes back to the civil war era. The prosecutor essentially made up the the idea the law says you have to see a felony occurring to perform a citizens arrest. Attempting to or actually escaping felony has no time limit under the law. The escape part was specifically written to address slaves escaping and it has nothing to do with escaping a felony that just happened.
Finally, I guess there is some ambiguity but the use of a firearm , in this case, one that isn't concealed and is legal, would be used for self defense. While I'm sure wink wink nod nod they only used it for self defense in the attempted detaining of Arbery, the stand your ground laws and open carry are pretty clear in Georgia.
If it weren't for that video, I think many people agree they wouldn't have been prosecuted.
There are a lot of different concepts discussed in this post, and I thought I would add some context. I don't know anything about the specifics of the particular case under discussion, and these points are just general. 1. In regards to the rape hypothetical above, the actual law of self-defense under applicable law also may apply to defense of others. So, the good Samaritan's options may be more numerous than just effecting a citizen's arrest. They may allow the Samaritan to use the same force against the offender as the rape victim could use. Check your local law. 2. If someone is going to rely on some right such as a citizens arrest or detention of another, in addition to the law of self-defense, one must know the exact circumstances under which they can arrest or detain under their state's law. If the law refers to particular felonies, the citizen must know the elements of the felony on which the citizen is relying. I have seen a LOT of people who detain people for alleged crimes that do not meet my state's requirements for a detention. That made the persons attempting the detention the aggressor in those circumstances (under my state's law) and entitled the person detained to resist with reasonable force, which could go all the way up to resisting deadly force with deadly force. A state with a stand your ground law ups the ante for the person attempting to detain. Is it really worth it under the facts of a particular circumstance? 3. With respect to the reference to police, under the 4th Amendment (state law may vary and limit this, but I doubt that many do), police can lawfully detain temporarily on the basis of reasonable suspicion, which is a much lower standard than the probable cause standard applicable to custodial arrests and a trip to jail. The citizen relying on a citizens arrest statute must know the level of probability required to detain before attempting to detain for the crime in question. A common situation dealing with a reasonable suspicion standard involves loss prevention and shoplifting, but it may not apply to anyone other than a store employee. Others require a felony committed in one's presence or probable cause to believe that a felony has been committed. This may explain why the police in a particular jurisdiction can do more than a non-commissioned citizen. 4. Even where a citizen's arrest may be effected, generally the level of force must be reasonable. If you see a person shoplifting a pack of gum and you point a gun at him, absent other circumstances, the force likely is going to be viewed as unreasonable and the person attempting the stop may be deemed the aggressor. All of these are reasons why a person should be very familiar with the laws applicable to them before taking action in an ambiguous situation. fair points, I would say in the Georgia law as it was written at the time, while it states that a person has to have immediate knowledge of a felony, its still left up to their ...evaluation....lets say of a felony occurring, and as stated by Barnes (who may not be the end all of course)l, due to the escape clause written to address slavery, while the prosecution presented the law saying you described - in their presence, that isn't the bar the law was intended to address. He stated the prosecution actually admitted they were arguing against the law to the jury when they were presenting their case. The judge initially agreed with the prosecutions interpretation but walked it back and decided to read it to the jury as is, without additional commentary. According to Barnes, the law as written allowed for example a neighbor to call McMichaels to tell them that Arbery was in the neighborhood, and if they were aware of him committing a felony burglary from 2018 or 2019, they could perform a citizens arrest of him By then the damage was done however because the jury had heard the prosecutions supposedly wrong interpretation of the law.
Last edited by KFWA; 12/03/21.
have you paid your dues, can you moan the blues, can you bend them guitar strings
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,576 Likes: 17
Campfire Ranger
|
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,576 Likes: 17 |
As I understand it Burglary.
1. he has a criminal record of past theft
2. he has a history of attempted burglary in the area and this is documented
3. he was seen trespassing in a dwelling, which even under construction, still applies to at a minimum second degree burglary
4. You can be arrested for burglary even if you didn't steal anything if it is believed you had intent,. which had been established with his criminal record and past complaints.
if you argue they didn't have immediate knowledge of a felony in that case, they had immediate knowledge of past felonies, which the escape applies in the citizen's arrest. That's why Georgia expedited changing the law afterwards.
If you are going to involve yourself in making citizens arrests, you really should brush up on the law. https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2014/title-16/chapter-7/article-1/section-16-7-1
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,189 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,189 Likes: 1 |
“Reasonably believes” https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_161.209ORS 161.209 Use of physical force in defense of a person Except as provided in ORS 161.215 (Limitations on use of physical force in defense of a person) and 161.219 (Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person), a person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. [1971 c.743 §22] ORS 161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209 (Use of physical force in defense of a person), a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is: (1)Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or (2)Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or (3)Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23] ORS 161.225 Use of physical force in defense of premises (1)A person in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises. (2)A person may use deadly physical force under the circumstances set forth in subsection (1) of this section only: (a)In defense of a person as provided in ORS 161.219 (Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person); or (b)When the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of arson or a felony by force and violence by the trespasser. (3)As used in subsection (1) and subsection (2)(a) of this section, “premises” includes any building as defined in ORS 164.205 (Definitions for ORS 164.205 to 164.270) and any real property. As used in subsection (2)(b) of this section, “premises” includes any building. [1971 c.743 §25] ORS 161.229 Use of physical force in defense of property A person is justified in using physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission by the other person of theft or criminal mischief of property. [1971 c.743 §26]
Obey lawful commands. Video interactions. Hold bad cops accountable. Problem solved.
~Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla~
Member #547
Join date 3/09/2001
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 21,807 Likes: 8
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 21,807 Likes: 8 |
this idea that rioters cannot be shot for burning and looting is certainly a media narrative.
This "riots are the voice of the unheard" horseshit is justification in their eyes to become anarchists OF COURSE rioters can be shot... just do it quietly and from a few hundred yards. This ain't rocket science fellas. A sniper shooting a rioter. You would be hunted down, your picture would be posted all over the place, you would be labeled as a psycho, you would spend the rest of your life in prison, and your family would have to change their name and move out of state. LOL... You watch a lot of TV don't you... News mostly Took you for a Cagney & Lacey kinda gal...
If you are not actively engaging EVERY enemy you encounter... you are allowing another to fight for you... and that is cowardice... plain and simple.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 760
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 760 |
It's going to cost you $5-10,000 regardless of whether you are cleared or not, unless its very very clear you had no option. if its murky probably $100,000
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 23,554 Likes: 1
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 23,554 Likes: 1 |
As I understand it Burglary.
1. he has a criminal record of past theft
2. he has a history of attempted burglary in the area and this is documented
3. he was seen trespassing in a dwelling, which even under construction, still applies to at a minimum second degree burglary
4. You can be arrested for burglary even if you didn't steal anything if it is believed you had intent,. which had been established with his criminal record and past complaints.
if you argue they didn't have immediate knowledge of a felony in that case, they had immediate knowledge of past felonies, which the escape applies in the citizen's arrest. That's why Georgia expedited changing the law afterwards.
If you are going to involve yourself in making citizens arrests, you really should brush up on the law. https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2014/title-16/chapter-7/article-1/section-16-7-1I'm not sure where anything I said was wrong based on your link, secondly I'm going by what other lawyers are saying, Please be specific as to where you think I am wrong in my example
Last edited by KFWA; 12/03/21.
have you paid your dues, can you moan the blues, can you bend them guitar strings
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,956
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,956 |
this idea that rioters cannot be shot for burning and looting is certainly a media narrative.
This "riots are the voice of the unheard" horseshit is justification in their eyes to become anarchists OF COURSE rioters can be shot... just do it quietly and from a few hundred yards. This ain't rocket science fellas. A sniper shooting a rioter. You would be hunted down, your picture would be posted all over the place, you would be labeled as a psycho, you would spend the rest of your life in prison, and your family would have to change their name and move out of state. LOL... You watch a lot of TV don't you... News mostly Took you for a Cagney & Lacey kinda gal... Is that what you are into? You like your women to have adams apples?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 50,169 Likes: 1
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 50,169 Likes: 1 |
this idea that rioters cannot be shot for burning and looting is certainly a media narrative.
This "riots are the voice of the unheard" horseshit is justification in their eyes to become anarchists Depends on what state you are in. If you are in Texas, blow them away. Anywhere else, you better check your local laws. You are correct, for the most part. Law enforcement has a different standard in Texas as civilians (Yes, I said it...look up the definition.) LE can only use deadly force in the defense of themselves or another threatened with death or serious bodily injury. The moral to this story is that you can do it...we can't.
The only thing worse than a liberal is a liberal that thinks they're a conservative.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2021
Posts: 10,819 Likes: 2
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2021
Posts: 10,819 Likes: 2 |
this idea that rioters cannot be shot for burning and looting is certainly a media narrative.
This "riots are the voice of the unheard" horseshit is justification in their eyes to become anarchists Depends on what state you are in. If you are in Texas, blow them away. Anywhere else, you better check your local laws. You are correct, for the most part. Law enforcement has a different standard in Texas as civilians (Yes, I said it...look up the definition.) LE can only use deadly force in the defense of themselves or another threatened with death or serious bodily injury. The moral to this story is that you can do it...we can't. How would that apply to an off duty LEO? Is he/she considered as just a normal citizen with State granted rights when off duty? I realize that’s sort of splitting hairs by asking.
|
|
|
|
|
67 members (7mm_Loco, 300_savage, 99Ozarks, 6MMWASP, Akhutr, 7 invisible),
1,692
guests, and
781
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,626
Posts18,492,908
Members73,977
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
