Specifically about using deadly force in self-defense.

It is staggering how few gun owners and carriers have read their state's self defense laws. Let me lay down a few bullet points on self defense.

1. Read your state's laws and know their specific language.

2. Know that the specific language was chosen purposefully.

3. The words feel, felt, and feelings don't appear in any state's law that I know of. The word fear appears in very few. Reasonable belief and reasonably believe appear in all of them that I have read. There's an important reason for that.

4. If you ever use deadly force in self defense it is going to suck in countless ways. You really do want to avoid it as much as you can. It can be expensive.

5. When you use deadly force, you need to know that your definition of reasonable no longer matters. Law enforcement and jurors get to decide what is reasonable from that point forward.

6. Your social media postings WILL become known. Lot's of keyboard bravado here and elsewhere on the worldwide web. If your day comes, you'll get to explain to the court how it was harmless, idle chest thumping all 207 times you did it on the net, and not an indication of your true mindset.

7. Using deadly force is not a casual undertaking.

Post up your state's self-defense laws if you wish. Louisiana's are worded somewhat oddly.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/DocViewer.aspx?DocKey=PE%2fPE.9&Phrases=Deadly%7cForce&HighlightType=1&ExactPhrase=False&QueryText=Deadly+Force

FLORIDA:

Justifiable use of deadly force is defined in Florida Statute Section 776.012(2):

A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

"Stand your ground" means that you no longer have a duty to run away before using deadly force if you are in a place you have a right to be and if you aren't engaged in criminal activity.

A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

Florida Statute Section 776.013 deals with justifiable use of force in a person's home or vehicle.

A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended to likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

the person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, or had removed or attempted to remove another from, a:

dwelling

residence

occupied vehicle, and

the person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

However, this presumption does not apply if:

the person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person, or
the person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened, or
the person who uses or threatens to use defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity, or
the person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

Bullet #4 & #7 are the reason hope to never have to resort to deadly force.

I take my council from God...

...and

I take this lawyer's advice 100%



Carry on...

Muffin, back during the Zimmerman incident, I read FL law. IIRC it is housed under two legal umbrellas. Something about preventing a forcible felony. It's been a while, so I may be wrong on that.

Edit: You edited while I was responding.

Great post.

#8. Read #3 and #5 again. And again.

Some communities make a distinction between subjective reasonableness and objective reasonableness.
Law enforcement, prosecutors, and the jury must conclude that you really did believe your storybof the circumstances (that you are not just lying) and that you really believed deadly force was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm. AND, they must agree that it actually was reasonable in the eyes of society, which they represent.

This is based on first hand experience or feelings/guesses?

Now days no matter what the laws say shooting someone makes that someone a part of your life for the rest of your life.

Just the way it is.

self defensive rules . # 1 stay out of bad areas where bad people live
# 2 always watch you back and your families back too
# 3 keep your hand gun loaded, extra clip and learn how to use it well
# 4 sharp knife might help also
# 5 make sure you have good insurance and one heck of a good attorney
# 6 forget all this crap and run like hell ! " being judged is better than being buried "

I was a Police Officer in the 14th largest city in the US for 33 years. I always knew what the state of Ohio laws said about self defense. I was bound by Oath and Duty to get involved in crimes committed in my presence, even when off duty. Now that I'm retired, and seeing the political climate in this country, I have to put the blinders on unless it's something really serious (Active shooter etc). I was just talking to my wife about a local Deputy who was just indicted for 2 counts of murder for an on duty shooting while working on a task force. I've really had to re-evaluate my ideas on using my concealed handgun. I will never allow some miscreant to harm me or my family because of the fear of arrest and prison. I still like to think that I'm Col headed enough to quickly evaluate a situation and act accordingly. I have always supported a citizen's right to carry and defend themselves or their family.

Ron

Great post.

This should scare the hell out of everyone.

"AND, they must agree that it actually was reasonable in the eyes of society, which they represent."

We need to recognize that our society as hunters, shooters and strong 2A proponents doesn't mirror much of the rest of society.

8. Who has prosecutorial jurisdiction? (In other words, do you live in a conservative/constitutional area, or a liberal schidthole that has a Soros DA? )

9. What color are you? What color is the person/persons you had to use deadly force against? Beyond that, if you are the same color, were the ones shot or dead a card carrying member of BLM or Antifa, or otherwise liberal...?

It is a shift of gears for sure. Going from 33 years of having a duty to involve yourself in dangerous situations to an environment where involving yourself in dangerous situation can bring on a legal hell, takes a decided mindset shift.

You know Barry, that is certainly an unfortunate evolving reality.

You are absolutely correct Paul. It can cause stress to a guy like me if I let it. Trying hard not to.

Ron

you should check out Andrew Banca. I don't know if he still is or not but he was giving his book away during the Rittenhouse trial if you paid for shipping. So many people responded it crashed his website

He has a statement

Carry A Gun
So You're
Hard To Kill

Know The Law
So You're
Hard To Convict

yea he is trying to sell stuff but he is all over the internet giving advice

https://lawofselfdefense.com/

and


https://lawofselfdefense.com/rioters

There was a time when you could reliably count on the DA treating you fairly and in good standing when involved in a self-defense shooting. Those days went out the door in the last century.

Now, regardless of the circumstances, you are the criminal and must move mountains to prove you're innocent. Criminals have more rights than law abiding citizens today.

The Wyoming Criminal Statute:

W.S.1977 § 6-2-602
§ 6-2-602. Use of force in self defense; no duty to retreat
Effective: July 1, 2018
Currentness


(a) The use of defensive force whether actual or threatened, is reasonable when it is the defensive force that a reasonable person in like circumstances would judge necessary to prevent an injury or loss, and no more, including deadly force if necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury to the person employing the deadly force or to another person. As used in this subsection, “necessary to prevent” includes a necessity that arises from an honest belief that the danger exists whether the danger is real or apparent.


(b) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to himself or another when using defensive force, including deadly force if:


(i) The intruder against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, another’s home or habitation or, if that intruder had removed or was attempting to remove another against his will from his home or habitation; and


(ii) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring.


(c) The presumption set forth in subsection (b) of this section does not apply if:


(i) The person against whom the defensive force is used has a right to be in or is a lawful resident of the home or habitation, such as an owner, lessee or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;


(ii) The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or


(iii) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a peace officer or employee of the Wyoming department of corrections who enters or attempts to enter another’s home or habitation in the performance of his official duties.


(d) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter another’s home or habitation is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.


(e) A person who is attacked in any place where the person is lawfully present shall not have a duty to retreat before using reasonable defensive force pursuant to subsection (a) of this section provided that he is not the initial aggressor and is not engaged in illegal activity.


(f) A person who uses reasonable defensive force as defined by subsection (a) of this section shall not be criminally prosecuted for that use of reasonable defensive force.


(g) As used in this section:


(i) “Habitation” means any structure which is designed or adapted for overnight accommodation, including, but not limited to, buildings, modular units, trailers, campers and tents, but does not include the inmate housing area of a jail, state penal institution or other secure facility under contract with the department of corrections to house inmates;


(ii) “Home” means any occupied residential dwelling place other than the inmate housing area of a jail, state penal institution or other secure facility under contract with the department of corrections to house inmates;


(iii) “Deadly force” means force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury.


(Note that the common law still applies to the extent that the above statute does not apply to the situation. See W.S.1977 § 6-2-601)
The Wyoming civil statutes:


W.S.1977 § 6-1-204
§ 6-1-204. Immunity from civil action for justifiable use of force; attorney fees
Effective: July 1, 2018
Currentness


(a) Except as provided by W.S. 6-1-103(a), a person who uses reasonable defensive force pursuant to W.S. 6-2-602 is immune from civil action for the use of the force.


(b) In a civil action filed against a person related to the person’s use of defensive force, the person may file a motion with the court asserting that the person used reasonable defensive force under W.S. 6-2-602. Upon the filing of the motion the court shall hold a hearing prior to trial and shall grant the person’s motion if he proves by a preponderance of the evidence that he used reasonable defensive force under W.S. 6-2-602.


(c) A court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for any loss of income and all other expenses incurred by a person in defense of any civil action arising from the person’s use of reasonable defensive force pursuant to W.S. 6-2-602 if the court finds that the defendant is immune from civil action under subsection (a) of this section.

W.S.1977 § 6-1-103
§ 6-1-103. Civil recovery for criminal act; conviction as evidence in civil suit
Currentness


(a) Nothing in this act prevents a party whose person or property is injured by a criminal act from recovering full damages.


(b) No record of a conviction, unless it was obtained by confession in open court, shall be used as evidence in an action brought to recover damages.

First off, I hope to go to my grave a fat, old, and happy man, having to never use a weapon in self defense of myself or a loved one.

Having said that, I do have a policy with U.S. Law Shield in case the above does not happen.
I have taken a few classes in the last several months about what the laws in TN are.

One thing I took from one of the classes (taught by a Pro 2nd amendment lawyer) was "If you can avoid a shooting, you should". I took that to heart.

And the prosecution will twist that into you are a trained killer with the intent to kill.

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

They may try, but it's pretty easily defensible.

OF COURSE rioters can be shot... just do it quietly and from a few hundred yards.

This ain't rocket science fellas.

I see the U.S. Law Shield policy no different than car insurance or home owners insurance. I have both and hope I never have to use it. I think it is only a responsible thing to consider if you carry. IF you were involved in a shooting, you stand to loose everything you and your wife have ever worked for, much like being involved in a auto wreck without insurance.

Get a Lane...

Tell that to the McMichael's.

I've read stories of Israelis shooting calves and knees of rioters to take them out. They consider that humane. That would just get lawyers rich here

Their actions, when examined in the light of GA law, is what spelled doom for them. When their actions rose to the level of felony false imprisonment, under GA law, they forfeited their right to self defense. That's another part of the reason I implore people to read their self defense laws.

Hopefully you never have to use deadly force either. You have started thread topics on a right wing site discussing it in detail. That will definitely be used against you.

The prospect of a civil trial in our (liberal) state scares me almost worse than having to use a gun in self-defense.
Our juries tend to be lead by emotion and not facts.

I'm familiar with the tactic, but from a better source closer to the issue, they are Mossad, and clandestinely gut shoot the dangerous ones with suppressed .22lr.

That gets the others to thinking they may not want a dose of that...

Absolute #1 rule in Texas if you have to shoot some one. Tell 911 nothing more than there has been a shooting at XXXX address then hang up. #2 Call your lawyer. The YouTube video Cashisking posted is required watching by all gun owners.

Most, if not all of here are, "White Supremacists". by the daffyinasion of the left.

As I said, you pull the trigger, you cannot depend on the law for defense any longer. If the events of the McMichael's shooting had occurred 20 years ago, it would never have seen the light of day in court and it is not because we are a now a more enlightened society either. Activist DA's, AG's, and judges changed all that. Whites with a gun are now the terrorists and criminals.

If I were the one calling the shots, I would invest heavily in getting the National Guard up to speed on riot control, and take the decision to use them out of the hands of governors and into the hands of police chiefs (with some caveats)

I learned after I turned 18 that its generally better to walk away from a conflict than engage in it. It's never worth the risk and subsequent legal problems so if you can avoid a fight its usually better to do so. Unfortunately there are some things that must be dealt with to keep innocent people from being hurt. The legal system is letting a lot of violent and dangerous people out. People are finding themselves in more frequent situations where they have to defend themselves.

A few years back I got my elk with a bow right at the first of the season so after that day I went several more days just to call and help a friend get his. I carried my 45-70 guide gun loaded with 350g Hornady flat nose bullets loaded to about 2100 fps because there were lots of grizzlies where we were hunting. I talked with a state game warden one day while out and he asked what the gun was for. I said bear defense and he recommended I leave it home and carry bear spray instead. He said if you shoot a griz even in obvious self defense the feds are going to fly in in helicopters, make a huge event out of it and ruin your life and bankrupt you in court because grizzlies are federally protected. This was during the Obama regime about 2014.

It seems like today criminals are federally protected like grizzlies are. Even if you have to defend yourself to obviously save your life or another the feds are coming and they're going to do all they can to ruin you. Especially if it was your bad luck to have to defend yourself against a highly protected class.

I don't really bow hunt much in high grizzly areas and I don't shop in downtown Portland anymore. Not so much from fear of not being able to protect myself but more from fear of what would happen to me if I did protect myself.

Bb

You do not appear to understand GA self defense law.

This seems crystal clear to me.

(b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:

(2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony;

The McMichaels were committing the felony act of false imprisonment when they used deadly force. The law clearly establishes that they cannot do that. Is that not clear to you under the language of the law?

You cannot depend upon the law protecting you when you operate outside of the constraints of the law.

And you have bought into the BS narrative the prosecution presented. Attempting a Citizens Arrest is not false imprisonment. Arbery had two choices: 1. Comply and wait for the police or 2. Attack those who were attempting a citizens arrest. He choose poorly.

And as I said, 20 years ago this wouldn't have made the news. There are thousands of similar cases that never were prosecuted. We live in different times.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for Arbery - https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/...facts-the-jury-will-probably-never-hear/

If nothing else, you help make my point that after you pull the trigger, the "reasonable" standard no longer belongs to you.

I question into the hands of Police Chiefs, most of whom are appointed by Mayors.

We’ve quite a recent history of how stand down orders have been issued by Police Chiefs and the Mayors that appoint them.

Jmo

This is more or less factual everywhere; at a minimum, half the country (ie, a jury of your peers) doesn't think that you have a right to self defense via deadly force in ANY situation, regardless of the letter of the law.

Best hope is to never be involved in such a circumstance by avoiding allowing yourself of family from being in a high risk situation.

MM

after seeing the Governors pick and choose when to use them for political purposes, I would hope that a police chief - with criteria - would at least be motivated to do his job in protecting the city and the citizens. If a police chief lets a city burn when he can call in the national guard and he doesn't, that's on the citizens for electing a liberal nut job, especially when chances are the rioters are out there because of what one of his policeman did.

I recognize a chief answers to the mayor, but again, my logic was, you establish criteria when the national guard can be deployed, and if that criteria is met, then the police chief can do it, (and maybe include a mayor and governor, but not limited to)

Its not perfect but I just think they are underutilized and often its because of them being a political football.

A good chief answers to his oath and to his loyalty to the law.

Your last paragraph makes my point better than I said it.

But you’re absolutely right about using the NG. Presently they are worthless for riot control.

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.

Agreed to all above...

A police chief answers to his boss. Period.

This goes back to the need to know the law. GA law at the time did not allow the McMichaels to effect a citizens arrest on Arbery in the way that they did based upon what Arbery had done. That's why they were charged and convicted on felony false imprisonment charges. Arming yourself for self defense carries with it terrible responsibilities. Arming yourself to effect citizens arrest, more so yet.

I'm not sure I agree with that based on what I've heard from lawyers studying the case, not to mention, Georgia felt the need to repeal/change the law after a detailed review of what the McMichaels did.

But I'm not an expert, I just listen to people that I believe are experts and their evaluation of it. And I've heard them say it should have never went to trial and their reasons why

It is actually quite terrifying how much faith you have in your fellow man or Politicians.

My old boxing coach was a great man... I remember making some panty waste Kumbaya comment once and he just hammered me... "Your fellow man is a FOOL to be avoided at all costs... friends... and family sometimes... can be trusted."

Don't need to read state laws when the time comes.

well, its not so much faith as it is during riots I don't think citizens should ever be put in the position to solely defend their property or life. The reason I said police chiefs is because a governor can get away with letting a city burn to appease the liberals, but a police chief cannot. If there is a check box of criteria on when to deploy the national guard, and a police chief does not, the assumption is there is going to be hell to pay afterwards if the city burns. Now there may be a much better way, and admittedly my suggestion may have major holes - but I can't get past the police standing around watching rioters burn down a neighborhood in Kenosha, and if it was because they were outnumbered, then I'd want a process to help anticipate and even up the odds other than a governor trying to show how woke he is and relying on a 17 year old taking up arms.

Here's what the law said:

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

Arbery was trying to escape. What felony did he commit?

At the time they had the legal right to make a citizens arrest if they reasonably thought a crime was committed, therefore the right to detain


https://www.npr.org/2021/10/26/1048...w-in-the-trial-over-ahmaud-arberys-death

Some years ago we had a real bad ass move into town.All of a sudden there is a rash of homes broken into,cars stolen or messed with.I called up the County Sheriff to complain .He told me,you own a back hoe,take care of it.Did`nt have to.He got killed in a car crash.

Attempting to take away a firearm from another person carries with it a potential terrible result.

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.

LOL, that's awesome

With the cost of diesel fuel nowadays... I just keep a jug of molasses handy.

I just started watching Yellowstone last night. That sounds like it came straight from the show.

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

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.

No idea... the only thing we watch on the TV are YouTube Cat Videos...

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......

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.

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.

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.

Depends on what state you are in. If you are in Texas, blow them away. Anywhere else, you better check your local laws.

LOL...

You watch a lot of TV don't you...

News mostly

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.

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

“Reasonably believes”



https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_161.209


ORS 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]

Took you for a Cagney & Lacey kinda gal...

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

I'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

Is that what you are into? You like your women to have adams apples?

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.

So if y’all do a citizen’s arrest at gunpoint on somebody that just slugged his woman companion and slugged her again when she got up, what do you when said villain laughs at you and walks away?? He just committed assault. Shootem? Wave bye-bye?? File charges for escaping custody? Or perhaps he walks toward you. Are you ready to risk everything you own or ever will as well as a prison term for someone you don’t know? Enquiring minds…….

“Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.”

John Stuart Mill

Let's connect some dots. The old GA citizens arrest law only allowed them to detain him if he had committed a felony. The GA law I posted shows that burglary only rises to the felony level IF

...without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant dwelling house of another...

Let's focus on the "intent to commit a felony or theft" therein." He did not commit a theft. So for them to legally hold him, they would have had to, through some factual means, establish his intent. They obviously could not have possibly known his intent.

Good question.

I believe that just about any LEO can warn the public about involvement in domestic disputes.

Are you going to contribute meaningfully to the substance of this thread? If not, go fist yourself immediately.

you seem to be focused on the actual theft part and leaving out intent.

I've already explained intent - he has a criminal background of theft, he has been accused of theft in the area prior that day.

The crime of burglary occurs as soon as the defendant unlawfully enters or remains in the structure with the intent to commit a theft or some other crime, even if the intended crime or theft never occurs. Say a person sneaks into a home, but before he can take anything, the homeowner returns and the person flees. Despite not stealing anything, the person still committed the crime of burglary. If the theft or other crime is completed, additional charges can be filed. Intent to commit a crime can also be formed after unlawfully entering the premises. (Dillard v. State, 753 S.E.2d 772 (Ga. App. 2013).)


,
the challenge here is criminal trespass versus burglary. If he didn't intend to steal, then he committed a misdemeanor. But that puts the onus on the citizen to determine intent, which can be based on circumstantial evidence and their belief a felony occurred.

The reason I said he was guilty of at least second degree burglary is because of the questioning of whether a home under construction is actually a dwelling. Under Georgia law

A person commits second-degree burglary by entering or remaining in any building, structure, railroad car, watercraft, or aircraft (that is not a dwelling) with intent to commit a felony or theft.

I don't think the issue in this case is whether he committed a felony worthy of a citizens arrest. According to people in the neighborhood, he committed multiples of them in the past. The questions are, (1) did the McMichaels have first hand knowledge of - which they have video evidence of him entering a home, and 2, were they allowed to detain him for a felony committed days earlier, which according to the intent of the law when it was created, they did.

Curious. How many times did you use deadly force or been involved in a deadly force incident or even a ag assault in your life/career?

Ever appear in court and testify as a witness or as a defendant in a use of force matter? How about an inter Amal agency use of force incident?

Just curious because you keep citing different use of force laws.

You just read the last comment, don't you? Is it an ADHD thing? They have drugs for that. You should wear a flesh colored helmet in your picture.

Leaving out intent? I literally addressed it in each of those four sentences.

The onus was on the McMichaels to establish intent if they were going to effect a citizens arrest. They didn't. They couldn't have. That's why the should not have tried to detain Arbery and that's why they were found guilty of false imprisonment.

no you didn't, you literally said "He did not commit a theft"

and I explained a theft does not have to occur to commit a burglary. Theft and Burglary are not the same thing. So you are right by definition but focused on the wrong thing, He committed burglary

This thread rules.

LOL

You don't want to enter any situation with "citizen arrest" on your mind.

Write that down.

This thread is not about me. It's about thoroughly understanding the whole of a decision to use deadly force in self-defense. If you take exception to anything I have said, use your considerable experience to substantively refute it. If not, go fist yourself with your intellectual equal Jim.

based on what other lawyers have said, they absolutely could based on the evidence and past activities. He was a known thief. They could reasonably suspect he had committed a burglary. I'll leave it at that.

I wonder how many here have ever used a firearm in self-defense?

Are you being purposefully obtuse? I dissected both elements. There are two ways for his actions to have risen to the felony level. One was to have committed a theft. He did not commit a theft. The other was intent. I touched in intent in four of the four quoted sentences. You said I was "leaving out intent."

What relevance would that have?

Deadly force is not an option when you are arresting someone for theft.

The subject is self-defense. Specifically deadly force.

They didnt use deadly force until the suspected thief tried to disarm one of them.

Actually, there was no theft the day before. No burglaries had been reported in the neighborhood for almost 2 months prior to him being killed. His criminal background for theft was shoplifting a tv back in 2017 from walmart. Numerous people were caught on video entering the house, not just Aubry. There were couples and kids caught on camera also. The only people videoed taking anything from the residence were boys from the neighborhood. If he is guilty of criminal trespass or burglary then so is everyone else that walked through that house. Its actually quite common for people to come in off the street and walk through a house under construction. Also, what in a house under construction would he have taken? If you are going to steal tools then you need a vehicle to haul them away in. What did they think he stole from a house under construction that he could fit in his shorts? Was he so well endowed that they saw something swinging in his shorts and they thought it might be a hammer? Tools had been left at the residence with a camera pointing at them. They were obviously trying to catch someone stealing. No one leaves their tools out like that unless they are begging for them to be stolen. Ask anyone who works on houses.

My guess is if a cop stops you for something and you yry to take his gun youre gonna get popped.

We have seen a certain group do this kinda thing when being arrested.

Over and over.

I haven't touched on the self defense, only the justification for a citizens arrest

I'm not sure where I cited a theft the day before, or even 11 days before. Its about a suspected felony occurring they were aware of. As for other people going in and out of houses, below may be the difference as to why Arbery was singled out

On August 21, 2018 Arbery was observed, and body camera recorded, in a neighbor’s backyard looking into her car windows. When police approached Arbery afterwards to give him a trespass warning he falsely claimed that he had simply been “running in the street.” He then became aggressive and confrontational with the officers, threatening that he would “whip the officer’s ass” if they didn’t leave him alone. He was not arrested.

On October 23, 2018 Arbery was confronted trespassing inside a mobile home by local Deputies. Arbery fled when approached by police. When later caught, he falsely claimed that he “was just out running.”

In 2019 and 2020 Arbery was repeatedly seen attempting to enter neighboring homes through their windows. Whenever confronted in the act, Arbery would “take off running.”

Also in 2019 and 2020, local convenience store owners began to refer to Arbery as “the jogger” for his repeated conduct of running up in front of convenience stores, going through stretching motions, and then entering the convenience store to seize items and then running quickly back out to flee with the stolen merchandise.

Oh.

A cop is not executing a citizen's arrest.

Deadly force is not an option when arresting somebody for theft.

A citizen performing a citizen's arrest should not be brandishing a firearm, or any other implement that would be reasonably perceived as deadly.

Write it down.

who is arguing that point? maybe you should point it out to them instead

I am not debating any aspect of this subject.

I'm simply stating what everyone that carries, needs to know.

Write it down.

Do not brandish firearms or any other implement that could be reasonably perceived as deadly if you are going to affect a citizen's arrest.

on that I would agree with you

There is a lot of bad info on this thread which,as usual, obscures the good info.

Job#1 Defend you and yours against imminent jeopardy of death or great bodily injury. All else is bullschidt and outside of the realm of expertise of most. Few people actually bother to learn the relevant law or how it relates to real life. Few practice w/their weapon of choice let alone the arts of awareness, avoidance and de escalation.

As much as it hurts to say, the best advice on this thread is that provided by Deflave.


mike r

Not chasing down a suspect. Not attempting a "citizen's arrest."

You are just a citizen carrying a long arm or wearing a sidearm legally.

Define "brandishing" and define accepted legal carry methods in your area.
Sidearm in secured holster?
Longarm at sling arms?
Longarm at port arms?
Longarm at shoulder arms?

When the situation changes to a person attempting to disarm you, are you ready to defend yourself regardless?

You're welcome.

there is an episode of Gunsmoke

In the episode, a peace loving man was just living his life with his wife out on their ranch. A man and his son decided they wanted the land and since he wouldn't sell it to them, they began harassing him to the point it escalated to them shooting up his house trying to chase him off.

Dillon and Chester tried to get him to pick up a gun and fight back but he wouldn't.

At some point it got so bad they shot up his home and almost killed his wife and his wife was frustrated with him that he wouldn't fight back to protect their home.

A few days later he told her it was time for him to finally get around to putting up her clothes line he'd been promising her for so long. He told her he was going to put it up a little high so that when she washed sheets they wouldn't touch the ground.

Wouldn't you know it, the father and son came by that night to shoot up the place again and they broke both their necks on that new clothes line that was neck high on a horse.

All kinds of things could have happened to Arbery , a man running around breaking into construction sites.

of course the risk is it could happen to a kid too. You'd really have to put some thought into that clothesline.

ribka, pretty much sums up a good plan.

🦫

Awesome reference...

There is also this one Cat Video on YouTube that is germane... I'll see if I can find it. BRB

you do that, take your time

Are you fully vaccinated?

LOL

#epic

LOL

I carry everyday and pray everyday that I never have to draw my pistol.

From a practical standpoint do not go to stupid places at stupid times with stupid people. This will keep you out of trouble almost all of the time.

From an attorney's website in Louisiana. Number one is important to pay special attention to:

To justifiably use self-defense by law, four elements must be proven:

1) The attack must be unprovoked.
2) There must be an imminent injury or death.
3) There must be a reasonable degree of force used against you or a loved one.
4) There must be a reasonable fear of injury.

Louisiana statutes:

R.S 14:19. Use of force or violence in defense

A.(1) The use of force or violence upon the person of another is justifiable under either of the following circumstances:

(a) When committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or a forcible offense or trespass against property in a person's lawful possession, provided that the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent such offense.

(b)(i) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40) when the conflict began, against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person using the force or violence reasonably believes that the use of force or violence is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

(ii) The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply when the person using the force or violence is engaged, at the time of the use of force or violence in the acquisition of, the distribution of, or possession of, with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law.

(2) The provisions of Paragraph (1) of this Section shall not apply where the force or violence results in a homicide.

B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of force or violence was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:

(1) The person against whom the force or violence was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

(2) The person who used force or violence knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.

C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using force or violence as provided for in this Section and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.

D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used force or violence in defense of his person or property had a reasonable belief that force or violence was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a forcible offense or to prevent the unlawful entry.



RS 14:20. Justifiable homicide

A. A homicide is justifiable:

(1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.

(2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing.

(3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle.

(4)(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40) when the conflict began, against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

(b) The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply when the person committing the homicide is engaged, at the time of the homicide, in the acquisition of, the distribution of, or possession of, with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law.

B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle when the conflict began, if both of the following occur:

(1) The person against whom deadly force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

(2) The person who used deadly force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.

C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force as provided for in this Section, and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.

D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used deadly force had a reasonable belief that deadly force was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a violent or forcible felony involving life or great bodily harm or to prevent the unlawful entry.

Added by Acts 1976, No. 655, §1. Amended by Acts 1977, No. 392, §1; Acts 1983, No. 234, §1; Acts 1993, No. 516, §1; Acts 1997, No. 1378, §1; Acts 2003, No. 660, §1; Acts 2006, No. 141, §1; Acts 2014, No. 163, §1.

The laws on use of deadly force are so ambiguous, and confusing, in most States, that it shouldn’t be a shock to anyone who believes what most people are calling a good shooting, from the evidence, but finds it being prosecuted to the max by the DA.

As for protecting someone else from serious or deadly force ~ aside from a friend or family member. You better know the full circumstances of the situation, by seeing the start or the confrontation, not coming into it during the middle or end. You can easily end up shooting the good guy.

Maybe that’s why society has become a place where cell phones get pulled out before a firearm...If you don’t know the entire situation, maybe being a great witness is a good idea.

With the above said...I’ll face a jury for a friend or loved one. Not for a stranger, unless I know 100% what is happening before my eyes.

YMMV

🦫

And again, the prosecution was successful in quashing Arbery's criminal past and the fact that Arbery was targeting the neighborhood for many months and had an arrest record detailing his criminal past. The McMichael's had prior knowledge of this, had strong suspicion that Arbery was the perp and in the face of the facts was within their rights to attempt a Citizen's Arrest - which at the time was perfectly legal in Georgia.

Unfortunately for the McMichael's they picked the wrong decade to exercise their rights to protect themselves and property and unfortunately had a moron videoing the episode.

...and she may be a stranger with a knife trying to rob him.

Bruce

At the end of the day, it all comes down to the DA. They can make or break the outcome of ANY and EVERY shooting - righteous or otherwise.

That and the media surfing on the backs of social media idiots who are trying to sway public and political opinion on what is a crime versus a legal shoot.

🦫

Yeah keep all that horseschit bouncing around the inside of your head while your heart rate is sitting at 160.

LOL

In The Gravest Extreme by Massad Ayoob is a good read on this subject.

Some of you might have read 260 Remington's account in another thread about his home invasion when he actually had to fire his firearm when the kid pointed a handgun at him. It ended as well as it could have under the circumstances, but it still cost him 10K in lawyers fees to defend himself in civil court. If you haven't been in that situation yourself like I have, you don't think clearly at a time like that. When I was talking with the detective at 2:00 in the morning, he said that I would have been fully justified in using deadly force against the three assailants who came in and intended to rob our house. He said the Castle Doctrine would apply in my case. Easy for him to say, but he wouldn't have been the one paying the lawyer. I got 14 stitches, the justice department paid my hospital bill and the kid paid $1,400. in restitution. The kid got 4 years in jail, years of probation and a record after the police dog caught one of them. The judge told him that he was lucky when he ran when they heard me racking the slide on my 1911. Thank God that I didn't need to shoot, but I would have and it wouldn't have ended nearly as well for either of us.

If you're listening to anything Massad Ayboob has to say, you're about 10K steps in the wrong direction.

They were idiots. Real simple. Made a stupid decision and now they're paying the price. Should've minded their own [bleep] business, unless the guy was robbing their house.
Good rule of thumb, Anything you're doing in public, go ahead and assume you're being recorded.
Another good rule of thumb, don't bring a pistol to a fist fight. That wasn't a situation that would ever demand deadly force, so why go it into it in a manner that could lead to it. Kick his ass or get your ass kicked, if you're not up for either outcome, stay in the truck.

Yea Deflave don't be up on the law ànd and don't read experts opinions. You seem to have the one sentence jabs. Since you have all the answers why don't you inlighten us on this Subject. Oh and lets not forget. LOL

Ask a question and I will answer.

Who are you referring to?

The McMichael's

Simplicity is a prerequisite of reliability. Define your goal, family protector or defender of the universe. Have a plan that you can actually execute w/out fail, practice the plan until you have proved that it works to accomplish your goal.

Ignore Clausewitz, Tyson and Ayoob. Failure to plan is planning to fail. Practice, practice, practice. He who hesitates is lost.


mike r

Oh.

Yeah, don't do that.

LOL

Please post the Statue from your, or any State that requires any police officer to get involved in a crime being committed in their presence.

Good advice Mike although knowing the legal ramifications and being read on "experts" can't hurt. But an experts addvice shouldn't interfer with your own situation practice is essentiel the use of deadly force to protect ones family is a legal/moral and personal décision. Good thread Mike.

Our resident Southern Florida Oracle has spoken.

Referring to Mike r response.

I can't speak to anything Ayboob ever said (and you should be embarrassed by including his name with the other two) but I believe you are taking Clausewitz and Tyson's quotes greatly out of context.

Can't figure out the reply button but wants to have conversations about taking a human life in the defense of another.

Interesting.

.

You and Flave BBQ together ?

🦫

Who wants to know, the vaccine police?

Oh, I forgot, you are the vaccine police.

"LOL"

Very profound délavé oh an lol

My point is that you are a dumb fugk.

Write that down.

DYING to read your question.

LOL

He's from Wisconsin.

He doesn't know what BBQ is.

LOL

It's a damn shame when the law stands in the way of a good fuggking modern day lynching isn't it.

Lol

My point is, blow me.

If you had $10K and a penis, I just might.

LOL

Write that down.

If you want to have a serious discussion about self defense you may want to review the definition of the word "lynching."

If ever the time comes, laws will be the last thing on your mind

Well I resisted viewing this thread all day.
No way in f_uckin hell will I ever need self-defense instructions from some dweeb in spandex shorts riding a bicycle.

Quite refreshing to see DeFlave stepped in for counsel.

I love Flave.

It's a figure of speech you dolt. I'd never let you suck my dick.

Kingston says you're a nibbler.

Yep. Those have become important issues in recent times.

If the laws don't provide the framework for your response, what does?

Kingston also said that COVID was a deadly virus.

Just like your dumb fugking ass.

LOL

What kind of dumbass would think I typed that out while riding a bicycle?

So you admit it.

Friggin nibbler.

I love watching a COVTARD try to discuss anything.

LOL

I wrote it down $10,000 I wouldn't do it for any amont of money.

Raise your hand when you want to discuss self defense in the United States.

Deflection and name calling = liberal
I agreed with the threads I mentioned. Your are the last person I would get advice from. Maybe concentrate on quality instead of quantity. Why don't you address the comments.

Which comment would you like me to address?

Kingston is not a nibbler. Especially if it’s bacon.


🦫

Délavé you said if you listen to or read Ayoob in one post that you are taking 10 steps back in the wrong direction. Then in you said you couldn't speak to anything said by Ayoob. Case closed.

Tag

I also didn’t have to wait until Omitron to know COVID was a bunch of fugking horse schit.

Stick to CNN, you fat girl.

LOL

Haha case closed you deflectining name calling liberal.

Your love for Massad Ayboob most definitely closes your take on all things self defense.

You fat girl.

LOL

Ayoob thinks your choice of ammo will make you guilty or innocent depending on Ayoobs point of view.

LMAO

Exactly.

But let's memorize all his "quotes."

LOL

The man's a fugking moron.

When speed is of the essence this dudes tactics are as fast as a snail.

Pretty sure he’s talking Zombie apocalypse scenario. It’s what all the old boomers prepare for. Completely plausible.

Movies.

Délavé I have not read Ayoob my point is condeming someone for reading it when you haven't yourself, is pretty rich thus credibility gone. I love Ayood don't even know who he is quit sad. Let the deflection and name calling begin.

OK good job.

Go back to being a dumb fugk.

He's referring to emotion.

Most do.

Not nearly as much as you love your right hand.

My right hand ain't scared of infection.

Unlike a COVTARD.

LOL


You fugkin' clam.

He was able to "put enough targets on round."

Covtard. Is that all you got.

You fugkin little bitch.

Polesmokes getting horned up now.

And Flavor hadn’t even said anything yet about ass 2 mouth.

LOL

🦫

The last fight I was in, I killed a man. he got his mand caught in my hip pocket, and I drug him to death.

Paul. your knowledge of law enforcement, violent crime , use of force , the law, mule deer hunting, dog parks is unquestionable . I bow to your expertise

Paul how many times have you had to use deadly force in your personal or professional life as an LEO?

I'm not a cop.

I'm not in the business of arresting people, or "detaining" them.

I have almost zero authority to legally detain someone,
using a gun to do so is tenuous at best.
Trying to do it physically is better only in that they are less likely
to end up dead. And a gun looks worse in court.

A cop can pretty much detain anyone, anytime. Handcuffed.
If he makes a mistake, they are innocent, he cuts them loose.
No repercussions. If they resist or run, and get hurt. Their actions
provide reason for the cops hurting them. Again cop is cleared.

I make a mistake. Espscially if someone gets hurt.
I'm toast. If I get my ass beat down trying, it's my problem.


Self defense, defending another. That's one thing.
Whether it's physical or otherwise, sure.
But if the defender tries to leave, I'm letting him.
Except in the gravest situation...

This thread is not about me. It is about using deadly force in self-defense. Add something of value, or go fist yourself with Jim.

Mike and Deflave get it.

Ayoob has no business commenting on use of force in the US.
He's a bloody dumb [bleep]

Hardly. deflave's juvenile bullshit just gets old.


"You're a covtard, LOL." It's like being in fifth grade again, only this time it's lasted well over a year.

Paul you should stick to subjects you are an expert in like stalking 20 year old women in dog parks and lecturing cops when using deadly force to save their lives or mule deer hunting in the backward urban swamps of Louisiana.

lmao

Nice string of remarkably substance free posts from someone with extensive real world experience on the subject. LOL.

I am not easily embarrassed but would be if I considered tyson to be of any consequence or commented on Ayoob w/out having read his drivel, which I am sure you have done.

Goal oriented [commander's intent] planning and training performed by modern era practitioners have rendered much of Clausewitz obsolete. Sun Tzu is more relevant and also fits the context

There are almost as many self defense experts here as there are covid experts.

lol,ptl



mike r

Would luv to get your input on elk hunting and arrests, use of force as a 20 year LEO vet lol

You sure do have a sensitive vagina for a tough old school former cop. Difficulty focusing on the task at hand as well.

We all know what you'd really like is his cock buried deep in your fat old Jew Nersey phaggot ass.

Blackie did you manage to stumble out of your moldy, mouse turd infested single wide to actually hunt this year?

let's see some pics

lol

Never have I seen such masterful use of the quote button. I have no doubts you were similarly masterful in the execution of your law enforcement duties.

Does your tranny girlfriend know you're hitting on other guys at the campfire there "padre" ? LMFAO

Paul you should start a thread on heterosexual bike riders

lol

Looks like the night shift finally showed up.

Make sure you read all the reports I left from this afternoon’s shift.

There’s some good stuff in them about DeFlave, me, Jackmountain and others of course...Oh, and a lot about bacon.

LOL

🦫

This one really fugged up post...

I’d hate to see Ribka’s pop-up ads after doing a google search for “gay biker pics”😳

So much bacon, and no grease?

LOL

ElkTurdBurglar will be along shortly to tell y’all your all wrong.
And how there’s some super secret law only he knows about that makes it legal to murder everyone.

Then he’ll discuss domiciles, burglary, and trespass while playing grab ass in great detail.

After he calls everybody Closet Commie Brown Shirts. 🤪

He’s out researching all of Beaver’s former quotes as we speak. 😜

South Carolina ....


SECTION 16-11-440. Presumption of reasonable fear of imminent peril when using deadly force against another unlawfully entering residence, occupied vehicle or place of business.

(A) A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or another person when using deadly force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to another person if the person:

(1) against whom the deadly force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if he removes or is attempting to remove another person against his will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(2) who uses deadly force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring or has occurred.

(B) The presumption provided in subsection (A) does not apply if the person:

(1) against whom the deadly force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle including, but not limited to, an owner, lessee, or titleholder; or

(2) sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship, of the person against whom the deadly force is used; or

(3) who uses deadly force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(4) against whom the deadly force is used is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle in the performance of his official duties, and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using force knows or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter is a law enforcement officer.

(C) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be, including, but not limited to, his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.

(D) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.

(E) A person who by force enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle in violation of an order of protection, restraining order, or condition of bond is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act regardless of whether the person is a resident of the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle including, but not limited to, an owner, lessee, or titleholder.

HISTORY: 2006 Act No. 379, Section 1, eff June 9, 2006.

SECTION 16-11-450. Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil actions; law enforcement officer exception; costs.

(A) A person who uses deadly force as permitted by the provisions of this article or another applicable provision of law is justified in using deadly force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of deadly force, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known that the person is a law enforcement officer.

(B) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of deadly force as described in subsection (A), but the agency may not arrest the person for using deadly force unless probable cause exists that the deadly force used was unlawful.

(C) The court shall award reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of a civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (A).

HISTORY: 2006 Act No. 379, Section 1, eff June 9, 2006.

#1 ... true, always avoid stupid places at stupid times with stupid people. It never ends well.
#2 ... always watch your family's back ... as well as your own. Situational awareness is key at all times.
#3 ... it is a magazine or a mag ... not a clip.
#4 ... if you carry a knife as a self-defense tool and you are ever forced-to use it ... you'd better know how to use it. Same holds true for the hot sauce or any other less than lethal tools you may choose to carry. I carry hot sauce and an automatic knife as part of my EDC in addition to my firearm and an extra mag. And I practice deploying all three.
#5 ... USCCA or any of those orrrrrrrrrr .... have a good 2A attorney's card in your wallet, that's good advice. Keep in mind that any of the CWP Insurance outfits will pay most of your legal fees up to a certain point ... otherwise you may be mortgaging your house even if yours was a righteous shoot. It's worth looking-into these ...

• Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network
• CCW Safe
• Firearms Legal Protection
• Second Call Defense
• United States Concealed Carry Association
• U.S. Law Shield

#6 ... i think maybe, perhaps, you meant to type, "'tis better to be judged by twelve than carried by six" ... maybe? Either way, your sentiment is so true friend.

Tennessee self defense statute, how much more convoluted could it be?:

39-11-611. Self-defense.
(a) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) “Business” means a commercial enterprise or establishment owned by a person as all or part of the person's livelihood or is under the owner's control or who is an employee or agent of the owner with responsibility for protecting persons and property and shall include the interior and exterior premises of the business;
(2) “Category I nuclear facility” means a facility that possesses a formula quantity of strategic special nuclear material, as defined and licensed by the United States nuclear regulatory commission, and that must comply with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 73;
(3) “Curtilage” means the area surrounding a dwelling that is necessary, convenient and habitually used for family purposes and for those activities associated with the sanctity of a person's home;
(4) “Deadly force” means the use of force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury;
(5) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, that has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed for or capable of use by people;
(6) “Nuclear power reactor facility” means a reactor designed to produce heat for electric generation, for producing radiation or fissionable materials, or for reactor component testing, and does not include a reactor used for research purposes;
(7) “Nuclear security officer” means a person who meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix B, who is an employee or an employee of a contractor of the owner of a category I nuclear facility or nuclear power reactor facility, and who has been appointed or designated by the owner of a category I nuclear facility or nuclear power reactor facility to provide security for the facility;
(8) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides, either temporarily or permanently, or is visiting as an invited guest, or any dwelling, building or other appurtenance within the curtilage of the residence; and
(9) “Vehicle” means any motorized vehicle that is self-propelled and designed for use on public highways to transport people or property.
(b)
(1) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in conduct that would constitute a felony or Class A misdemeanor and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.
(2) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in conduct that would constitute a felony or Class A misdemeanor and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if:
(A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death, serious bodily injury, or grave sexual abuse;
(B) The danger creating the belief of imminent death, serious bodily injury, or grave sexual abuse is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and
(C) The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.
(3) For purposes of this subsection (b), a person is not engaged in conduct that would constitute a felony or Class A misdemeanor or in a place where the person does not have a right to be if the person is engaged in the activity or in the place due to the person's status as a victim of human trafficking. The person must prove the person's status as a victim of human trafficking by clear and convincing evidence. The person may provide clear and convincing evidence of the person's status as a victim of human trafficking through testimony.
(c) Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, business, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest, when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, business, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
(d) The presumption established in subsection (c) shall not apply, if:
(1) The person against whom the force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, business, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder; provided, that the person is not prohibited from entering the dwelling, business, residence, or occupied vehicle by an order of protection, injunction for protection from domestic abuse, or a court order of no contact against that person;
(2) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to remove a person or persons who is a child or grandchild of, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;
(3)
(A) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, the person using force is engaged in conduct that would constitute a felony or Class A misdemeanor or is using the dwelling, business, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity;
(B) For purposes of subdivision (d)(3)(A), a person is not engaged in conduct that would constitute a felony or Class A misdemeanor or using a dwelling, business, residence, or occupied vehicle to further unlawful activity if the person is engaged in the activity or using the dwelling, business, residence, or occupied vehicle due to the person's status as a victim of human trafficking. The person must prove the person's status as a victim of human trafficking by clear and convincing evidence. The person may provide clear and convincing evidence of the person's status as a victim of human trafficking through testimony; or
(4) The person against whom force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in § 39-11-106, who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, business, residence, or vehicle in the performance of the officer's official duties, and the officer identified the officer in accordance with any applicable law, or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(e) The threat or use of force against another is not justified:
(1) If the person using force consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other individual;
(2) If the person using force provoked the other individual's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) The person using force abandons the encounter or clearly communicates to the other the intent to do so; and
(B) The other person nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the person; or
(3) To resist a halt at a roadblock, arrest, search, or stop and frisk that the person using force knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, unless:
(A) The law enforcement officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, search, stop and frisk, or halt; and
(B) The person using force reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to protect against the law enforcement officer's use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(f) A nuclear security officer is authorized to use deadly force under the following circumstances:
(1) Deadly force appears reasonably necessary to prevent or impede an act, or attempted act, of radiological sabotage at a category I nuclear facility or nuclear power reactor facility, including, but not limited to, situations where a person is attempting to, or has, unlawfully or forcefully entered a category I nuclear facility or nuclear power reactor facility, and where adversary tactics are employed to attempt an act of radiological sabotage, such as, but not limited to:
(A) Use of firearms or small arms;
(B) Use of explosive devices;
(C) Use of incendiary devices;
(D) Use of vehicle borne improvised explosive devices;
(E) Use of water borne improvised explosive devices;
(F) Breaching of barriers; and
(G) Use of other adversary or terrorist tactics which could be employed to attempt an act of radiological sabotage;
(2) Deadly force appears reasonably necessary to protect the nuclear security officer or another person if the nuclear security officer reasonably believes there is an imminent danger of death, serious bodily injury, or grave sexual abuse;
(3) Deadly force appears reasonably necessary to prevent the imminent infliction or threatened infliction of death, serious bodily injury, or grave sexual abuse or the sabotage of an occupied facility by explosives;
(4) Deadly force appears reasonably necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of special nuclear material from a nuclear power reactor facility or of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive device or special nuclear material from a category I nuclear facility; or
(5) Deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to apprehend or prevent the escape of a person reasonably believed to:
(A) Have committed an offense of the nature specified under this subsection (f); or
(B) Be escaping by use of a weapon or explosive or who otherwise poses an imminent danger of death, serious bodily injury, or grave sexual abuse to nuclear security officers or others unless apprehended without delay.

It is important to understand that government holds a monopoly on force, we are taxed to pay for "protection" that is not really offered.

“Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.” (DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989)

Warren v. District of Columbia-“well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection.”

Governmental agencies have sovereign and qualified immunity, they can not be prosecuted for NOT protecting you. Go to Wal Mart, get mugged in the parking lot and seek payment from your local Police department to have false teeth put in if yours get knocked out and see how that works out. If your car is stolen from your driveway does the Sheriff write you a check?

This was proved most recently in FL at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, where a federal judge ruled the government agencies " had no constitutional duty to protect students who were not in custody." If you are not in custody of the police, they have no affirmative duty to protect you.

4. If you ever use deadly force in self defense it is going to suck in countless ways. You really do want to avoid it as much as you can. It can be expensive.

beats being dead. What a dumbass

There were three sentences in the quote. Which one is inaccurate?

TCA Code

38-3-102. Duties of sheriff.
(a) The sheriff is the principal conservator of the peace in the sheriff's county. It is the sheriff's duty to suppress all affrays, riots, routs, unlawful assemblies, insurrections, or other breaches of the peace, to do which the sheriff may summon to such sheriff's aid as many of the inhabitants of the county as such sheriff thinks proper.
(b) It shall be the duty of the sheriffs, in their respective counties, by themselves or deputies, to patrol the roads of the county, to ferret out crimes, to secure evidence of crimes, and to apprehend and arrest criminals.

Sum total of statutory requirements of police in Tennessee, suspect it is very similar in other States. Notice the glaring lack of "affirmative duty to protect life and property of any individual".

What Every Gun Owner Needs to know About Self-Defense Law

https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/Hayes_SDLaw.pdf

Use of Deadly Force.

http://www.useofforce.us/

Is this always the best strategy? Many SD Attorneys say, "no".

Here is one example.

https://www.ammoland.com/2014/03/lo...-police-without-my-lawyer/#axzz2v6SRsY3l

Basically ,

Be the first to call 911.

Get your claim of self-defense into the evidentiary record as soon as possible. You were attacked, you were in fear for your life, you were forced to act in self-defense.

You’ll want to make sure that you advise the responding officers of any evidence that might otherwise be overlooked.

After these three things are covered, Then you clam up and tell the officers that you will cooperate and make a full statement after your lawyer is present.

I agree. There are some things that need saying right away, and one is that you were forced to shoot to save your life, and another is to point out evidence of your need to defend yourself, e.g., that knife laying on the ground in those weeds. Save the details for after you've consulted an attorney and he is present.

Stealing à horse was at one time à death sentence. Now we have to be extremely careful when defending ourselfs. Not the correct conséquences for most crimes. As seen with rap sheets on criminals on the street and pre exisisting phycological problems that aren't addressed.

I would say it's based on common sense and the real world vs. the internet forum tough guy gunslinger.

Dealing with horse thieves in the "old days." Doesn't work quite that way anymore.

[url=https://postimages.org/][/url

L.W.

This thread is about self defense.

Does CHLINSTRUCTOR threatening to MURDER me when off of his property fall under self defense?

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...52/re-texas-shoot-out-video#Post16684652

You need to grow some harder bark Elky.

Cool picture, I would think twice about stealing à horse in some states now days.There are places where it can still get pretty western. It's many years ago there was a bar in Miles City that had a dirt floor pretty rough place.

As sure as the sun rises every day over the mountain tops, you can be assured 'ole smokee will steer a thread towards male-on-male sex in a thread.

Only one way ta find out.

Empiricist scum!

lol

Right outta the Raul Alinsky playbook you commie brownshirt mentally sick deranged wacko.

LMAO !
Told y’all the Chief Campfire Liar ElkTurdBurglar would be along soon. Like a Moth to a Flame.
He’s got the right to be silent.
Unfortunately all those spooky voices inside his little pea brain won’t let him. @BatschittCrazy.com 🤪🤪🤪

ElkTurdBurglar off his Psych Meds And On Another Psyco Rant:



🤪🤪🤪

It’s not my fault you were diagnosed in the 5th grade.

LOL

Diagnose this.

Smokee won't last a year.......The COVTARD SHOT creating ADE/VEI gonna make him buy the farm.....shot's a killin' machine. freaking destroying the vascular systems......making people think stupid schit....

NeverElk Slayer.

STFU before I find you and cram my dick into your mouth.

LOL

You fat fugk.

No fat here.

I'm in my prime....

This thread would not have been complete without Elktruckballspewpew

Incorrect. You are a pork chop without question.

Elky had great physical strength, was fit, ate healthy and didn`t even look his age at all.

You Britney do have a fûckable bod....But it’s your brain that’s salad dressing.

🦫

BrittneyPinochioPewPew is off his meds again…😂

LOL

fugger can hit a maple 3 wood 300 yards, what'd you expect?

I knew Paul had a husband.

Yep. WAY Off. So many voices in that pointy little head. Telling him to do SO Many mean things.

Quick. Someone Red Flag his Red Ryder B.B. Gun.
Before he shoots his eye out.

@BatSchittCrazy.com. #PosterChildforPsycMeds

🤪🤪🤪

Was it all the pictures of him in spandex that gave it away?

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".

ElkTurdBurglar running off to check Flave and PaulBarnard’s Post History:



🤪🤪🤪

What is your average speed in a 100 mile ride?

Here we have BrittneyPinochioPewPew…

LMAO. Poor little Window Licking Retard. Bless your little Paranoid Schizophrenia riddled brain.

Here’s what everyone here sees when your talking Scooter:



The only difference is that the Monkey is smarter and more entertaining. 🤪🤪🤪

#needsmorePsycDrugs

LMAO ! Your killing me!

Stealing that one Sc.

🦫

I saved it and it seemed appropriate at this time…

Speaking of licking windows, when I do it the windows taste salty. Are they supposed to taste salty?

And he calls me scooter…..

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA.

SUPER SUPER LOW I.Q.

Uh oh 😕. The grammar police are out … PewPew

Yea. We’re all laughing at your window licking Retarded Dumbass. Scooter. But your too Fuqking Stupid to figure it out. The Campfire laughs at your Batschitt Crazy Rants every single time.
Now off for your Meds. Increasing the Prozac and lithium might help. But I seriously doubt it. I’m guessing the Doctors all say your Fuqked. Not mention just plain ole Batschitt Crazy. 🤪🤪🤪



🤪🤪🤪

That’s the Psycho Grammar Police Squad.
I’m sure the local Police gave him a plastic badge and whistle, like they do when the kids on the Short Bus visit the Police Station. 🚌 🤪🤪🤪

He got 1 right.

ROFLMAO

He doesn't know he's being laughed at either. That's the funny part.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA.

Don't tell him. You'll spoil the entertainment.

Elky lives in bizzaro world.
Lol

Elkslayer, you could boost your credibility here greatly by posting pic's

He’s too busy being the Official Campfire Spellcheck Retard.

The sad part is he actually thinks he’s funny. And actually believes all the Bullschitt he posts.

Master Elkhunter, “Professional” Elk Guide, Long Distance Golf Driving Champ, Legal Eagle Eggspurt, the list is endless.

Truthfully, He’s only good at two things. Lying & Batschitt Crazy. Definitely wins those two titles hands down. 🤪

I’ve asked a couple of times what color the sky is there.

Here’s the only answer I get:

A bedroom window, maybe 🤔

🦫

South Dakota

22-18-4.1. Deadly force--Defense of person.

A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if the person reasonably believes that using or threatening to use deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself, herself, or another, or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this section does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground, if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is:

(1) Not engaged in a criminal activity; and

(2) In a place where the person has a right to be.

It’s a big deal to several people that me on ingewnore

E = df²

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

And forum self defense expert! Pew pew mutherfuggkkerz

It would have been interesting seeing how number two would be applied during a riot when a curfew was effect.

Interesting thought, neither party is legal then.

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.

Nothing......NADA.....Zip.

Show us the TX statute that proves brandishing a firearm meets the element for "PROVOCATION" in Texas.

BrittneyPinochioPewPew is apparently off her meds again…

Yeah, I guess the multi-millionaires didn't invite him over tonight either.

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.

And as has been said, post the statute that proves "BRANDISHING" meets the element of "PROVOCATION".

No where in the above is PROVOCATION discussed, nor brandishing a firearm meets the element of "PROVOCATOON"

And (a) above does not fit either, because just the act of walking out a door with a gun held down at your side does not "recklessly endanger" anyone.

You have to prove the act of brandishing a firearm meets the element of Provocation.

Guess what? You can't, because their is no statute, because brandishing a firearm in TX does NOT meet the element of Provocation, and without that you can't have a Murder charge.

Next attempt.