Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Let's Have a Discussion About Self-Defense

If he wasn't FOS that is. But, well, we know...

Hey Ms. Paul, I know you don't believe in a person's RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, but people have a right to defend them self whether FTF or STS (Screen-To-Screen).

I had to post here in your thread to prove CHLINSTRUCTOR IS A MENTALLY DERANGED CYBER STALKER spreading lies about me.

I find it hilarious that everyone here who thinks Carruth did not have a RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS to DEFEND HIS LIFE IN HIS OWN DOMICILE is 100% too damn dumb to pull up the TX Statute that proves BEARING ARMS meets the element for PROVOCATION.

Two days, and nobody on this site has the horsepower between their ears to support their position.

No Statute....No Proof for Muder..... = NO BILLED

Show us the TX State Statute that proves brandishing a firearm meets the element for "Provocation".

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-22-05.html

(a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.

(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:

(1) one or more individuals;  or

(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.

(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.

Brandishing a firearm, as stated in (a) and (c), is a crime, entitling the victim to self defense.

Provocation is just another onea your bullshit fantasy terms.

Moron.

So, you lost on the law, now you're pullin bullshit outta your ass bout the facts.

What a surprise.

I'm making a case with facts, and "proving" "specifically" how the law applies.

You are making a case by twisting the facts, and twisting the law.

Coming from you, not surprised.

Paul Spandexman Biker, a cop accusing someone when he has zero evidence....kinda like using a throw down.

Yeah, Ms. Paula, me accusing you of having used a throw down, without any evidence, is just as mentally crazy as what you are doing, yet you do.

Not completely germaine to the trial but thought some might be interested in some Self Defense information from a legal standpoint. This is a bit wordy but I found it interesting

the law of self-defense revolves around five fundamental principles

Innocence
Imminence
Proportionality
Avoidance
Reasonableness


Principle 1: Innocence — To justifiably act in self-defense you need to be the innocent party not the aggressor. You can’t engage in provocation or mutual combat. You can’t bait someone so as to create the necessity to act in self-defense (here Branca cites the example of Byron Smith, about whom I have written).

Principle 2: Imminence — Black’s Law Dictionary to define imminent danger:

“Immediate danger, such as must be instantly met, such as cannot be guarded against by calling for the assistance of others or the protection of the law . . . such an appearance of threatened or impending injury as would put a reasonable and prudent man to his instant defense.”

Practically speaking, a good way to craft a counter-narrative of innocence on this principle (as well as for decision-making in the situation itself) is the “AOJ Triad.” AOJ stands for Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy, three criteria that put the legal principle of immediate danger into practical terms. (there is a Massad Ayood reference)

An attacker must have the ability to inflict death or grave bodily harm (e.g., a weapon, size or strength, special skills), as well as the opportunity (e.g., proximity to you), and must put you in jeopardy as a reasonable threat (e.g., the bank security guard is armed and close to you but does not represent a threat).

Principle 3: Proportionality — Deadly force may be used in self-defense as long as it is proportional to the threat. If there is the threat of death or grave bodily harm, deadly force is warranted.

How do you assess whether you are facing a deadly force attack? Guns and knives are usually considered deadly weapons, but a number of other “weapons” that are potentially deadly under the right circumstances: a pillow (smothering), sidewalk (smashing), fists (a lethal blow), hands (choking), plastic bags (suffocation), baseball bats (pounding).

In the case of Trayvon Martin, it was Martin’s fists and the sidewalk that posed a threat of death or grave bodily harm to George Zimmerman. So, the key when one is confronting any weapon is to be able to articulate a clear and convincing narrative of innocence based in part on proportionality.

You cannot continue to use deadly force once a threat has been neutralized. We have seen this in several high profile cases, including: Oklahoma pharmacist Jerome Ersland who is in jail for murder; Florida gas station shooter Michael Dunn who was found guilty of attempted murder for shooting into a car as it was driving away; and the aforementioned Byron Smith of Minnesota (found guilty of murder) who fired a “finishing shot” into each of his victims after he had disabled them.

Principle 4: Avoidance — The principle that you should avoid using lethal force if at all possible seems simple on the surface, especially tactically.

The legal principle of avoidance seems simple as well. A person has a duty to retreat prior to using lethal force in self-defense. In plain language, you have to try to avoid the threat first. But this is actually the principle that I have the hardest time getting straight. In fact, different states establish different standards for avoidance, and even within a single state the standard for avoidance varies by place, and in some cases, circumstance.

In some cases, there is a high bar for avoidance. In 2013 in 17 states there is a “duty to retreat” prior to using lethal force in self-defense. In 2021 that number is down to 10. It is important to note that this duty to retreat applies only if the defender can do so in complete safety, e.g., if you are in your car and can readily drive to safety. There are also a good number of reasons why a person could not retreat in complete safety, such as if the attacker has a firearm or the victim is injured.

From this “duty to retreat” baseline, various laws gradually lower the bar. Even states with a duty to retreat still uphold the Castle Doctrine, a common law principle (that some states have enshrined in black letter law to prevent any misunderstanding) which suspends the duty to retreat in one’s home (“castle”). It is important to note, however, that this does not typically apply to other people who have a right to be in the home also, as is often the case in domestic disputes.

The bar in some cases is lowered further by extending the Castle Doctrine to the property around one’s castle and/or to temporary “castles” (curtilage, cars, RVs, hotel rooms), as well as to one’s business. There is a huge amount of variability here from state to state.

Historically, “True Man” doctrine, and more recently “Stand Your Ground” (SYG) laws, lower the bar of avoidance even further. In states that have adopted these laws, a person has “no duty to retreat” anywhere that person has a legal right to be, provided the person is not engaged in illegal activity and is not the aggressor in a conflict. You can’t be engaged in a drug deal, provoke the other party, shoot the other party, and then claim self-defense on the basis of SYG.

The bottom line is that Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws both suspend the need for avoidance as part of the overall equation of lawful self-defense. They DO NOT suspend any of the other 4 principles. They are not a “license to kill” and do not allow a person to legally “shoot first and ask questions later.”

In some SYG states, even though retreat is not required, a prosecutor can claim that a reasonable person would have exercised retreat prior to using lethal force in self-defense. That is, not retreating fails the principle of reasonableness

Principle 5: Reasonableness — Lawful use of deadly force in self-defense must be “reasonable.” A person must reasonably fear death or grave bodily harm. A person does not have to actually be in danger of death or grave bodily harm. The danger needs to be apparent not actual, though it cannot be purely speculative. For example, if a child points a toy gun at you, you cannot reasonably shoot that child. But if someone robs you at gunpoint with what turns out to be a toy gun, you may be able to shoot that robber.

This 5th principle encompasses the other four:

1st Principle: Was your belief that you were defending an innocent person a reasonable belief?
2nd Principle: Was your view that the danger was imminent a reasonable view?
3rd Principle: Was your estimate of the degree of force threatening you, and the degree of force you used in response, reasonable?
4th Principle: Was your decision that there was no safe way to retreat a reasonable decision?

If the answer to any of these questions is “no,” your use of deadly force was not lawful.

Of course, this begs the question: what is “reasonable”?

Objective reasonableness concerns what a reasonable and prudent person, in the same or similar circumstances, knowing what you know, and being in the particular mental state you were in, would do.

Subjective reasonableness means you must genuinely believe yourself to be in fear of death or grave bodily injury and therefore to be using deadly force legitimately. Although at first it would seem that anything objectively reasonable would also be subjectively reasonable, here are a couple of cases in which a person’s words and/or actions were not those of a subjectively reasonable person.

The case of Byron Smith in Minnesota is one. The audio recording of his interaction with his victims was damning, clearly suggesting he was subjectively not in fear of death or grave bodily harm when he fired his last shots. And the fact that he did not call the police until the next day was also suggestive of guilt.

The case of Michael Dunn in Florida is another. Having unloaded his handgun’s magazine into another car at a gas station — including many rounds as the car was driving away — Dunn himself left the scene. This could have been judged reasonable if he feared the attackers might return, but instead Dunn drove to his hotel, walked his dog, ate pizza, watched a movie, learned on TV that he had killed Jordan Davis, drove home the next day, and never contacted the police. Although an objectively reasonable person might have been justified in using lethal force in self-defense against Jordan Davis, Michael Dunn’s behavior resembled the actions of a guilty man and spoke loudly to the subjective un-reasonableness of his use of lethal force.

Here is a list of states that do *NOT* have a stand your ground law. They require duty to retreat if your life is in danger. Notice California is not on that list? Yes, California , Oregon and Washington either thru legislative or case law are SYG states.


Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Nebraska
New Jersey
New York


Even these states listed above have exclusion as to when you can use deadly force - such as in the workplace or during a robbery.

Arkansas, North Dakota, Ohio , Rhode Island and Wyoming have passed SYG laws in the last 3 years



Notice California is not on that list? Yes, California , Oregon and Washington either thru legislative or case law are SYG states. California is a "soft" SYG state.

In a hard stand your ground state, the fact that you did not retreat from or attempt to avoid a situation cannot be used against you AT ALL in court (if stand your ground applies to the circumstances you were in).

On the other hand, in a soft stand your ground state, you have no legal duty to retreat, so you can’t be convicted just because you don’t meet the element of avoidance. However, the prosecutor is still able to use the lack of retreat to make you seem unreasonable and undermine the element of Reasonableness

I mentioned this on the other thread

the jury needs to believe there was a necessity to shoot the man. A self defense lawyer is going to have to prove that at 10 feet away he was aggressively going after and endangering the shooter. Even with a Texas jury, that is going to be a hard row to hoe.

I may be wrong, I'm often wrong, BUT

I don't see it as a 'hard row' as you say, given the 'trespasser' had already made physical contact, and then THREW the man OFF his PORCH and was then standing between him and his house, actually in or on his house/porch.

I may be wrong, I'm often wrong, BUT

I don't see it as a 'hard row' as you say, given the 'trespasser' had already made physical contact, and then THREW the man OFF his PORCH and was then standing between him and his house, actually in or on his house/porch.