Could be, but the shooter's actions before that may have been the real start.It looks to me like this is what started the incident.
Unfortunately, the victim cannot express his opinion.
Could be, but the shooter's actions before that may have been the real start.It looks to me like this is what started the incident.
Could be, but the shooter's actions before that may have been the real start.
Unfortunately, the victim cannot express his opinion.
Three quarters of a second from slap to shot. Subtract from that the shooters reaction and draw time.
Look: if you have a gun and someone is trying to disable you, you can certainly explain the immediate need for deadly force.if you can't justify that the situation had created a genuine fear for your life or the life of a third party, the gun stays holstered
Where do you get that number? There was enough time for him to back away to around 8-10 feet and spray the pepper mace, and for that mace to cross the distance between them.
Look: if you have a gun and someone is trying to disable you, you can certainly explain the immediate need for deadly force.
The quesion was about what may have happened before the apparent slap.Three quarters of a second from slap to shot. Subtract from that the shooters reaction and draw time
Under most circumstances it is not, because it does not meet the definition by itself.pepper spray is not deadly force.
The quesion was about what may have happened before the apparent slap.
Was the shooter advancing upon the vicim? Was the "slap" a defensive move?
I comprehend it; I don't agree with it. "Unlawful attack by pepper spray"? Any attack that produces physical injury is unlawful. Not all unlawful attacks justify lethal force.Did you comprehend Post #9?
Please support your thesis of "ability to take the gun" as a legally justifiable basis for lethal force. Simple ability to do something is not enough. There has to be demonstration of intent, means and imminency.The point, legally speaking, has to do with the ability of the person who has sprayed someone who has gun to then take it and use it--as discussed in Post # 9.
Do you understand that?
From the frame counter and the speed a Nikon D5 takes continuous shots. Please go back and read my post above. There is a link to a Nikon D5 performance test.
Do you know how many frames were fired, at what rate, and if the photographer kept her finger on the shutter release the whole time? I question your calculations.
The initial frame of the slap was Frame #: 2633, Capture time: 3:36:52 PM, The frame of the shot was , Frame #: 2641, Capture time: 3:36:53 PM. The camera captures at least 12.1. frames / sec. so if we divide 8 frames by 12.1 frames / sec we end up with just under 2/3 of a sec.
All of the links you need for the data are in the posts linked above. The rest is just arithmetic.
As far as whether that camera button could be modulated to affect the capture speed, you would need a professional photographer with Nikin D5 experience to tell you that,. However, I don't see a motive there for the photographer to do that at that moment since he didn't know how it would effect any evidence.
From the frame counter and the speed a Nikon D5 takes continuous shots. Please go back and read my post above. There is a link to a Nikon D5 performance test.
So, if the armed person would have been privileged to use force to defend himself in a particular circumstance, he would have been privileged to use deadly force to defend against an unlawful attack by pepper spray.
I'd like more explanation of this.
Theres been a fair amount of discussion on this forum about excessive force in response and need of belief of imminent threat of death; not just "he could of might of maybe hypothetically".
That comment seems to go against quite a bit of history on THR.
I don't think I've ever seen here that of you're justified to use force that also means that you are also justified to use deadly force.
In fact, excessive force was a big part of the Zimmerman case; was deadly force justified. The defense painted that being hit by a boy with skittles wasn't enough for Zimmerman to use deadly force. The defense argued that it because Zimmerman believed his life was in imminent danger because it more than just being hit, his head was being pounded into concrete.
See Post # 9.
That's not conjecture. It is legal precedent.
So, if the armed person would have been privileged to use force to defend himself in a particular circumstance, he would have been privileged to use deadly force to defend against an unlawful attack by pepper spray.
....In Brooks v. State, 314 Md. 585, 600, 552 A.2d 872 (1989), the Court of Appeals stated:
For an instrument to qualify as a dangerous or deadly weapon under sec. 488, the instrument must be (1) designed as “anything used or designed to be used in destroying, defeating, or injuring an enemy, or as an instrument of offensive or defensive combat.” Bennett v. State, 237 Md. 212, 214-15, 205 A.2d 393 (1964); (2) under the circumstances of the case, immediately useable to inflict serious or deadly harm (e.g., unloaded gun or starter's pistol useable as a bludgeon); or (3) actually used in a way likely to inflict that sort of harm (e.g., microphone cord used as a garrote).456 We hold that pepper spray may become a dangerous weapon, within the meaning of the Brooks factors, when it is used as an offensive weapon to injure and overcome the intended victim. The temporary blinding of an individual qualifies as serious harm, and one of the primary purposes of pepper spray is to provide personal protection in defending against criminal assaults. It is the use to which the object is put that determines whether a particular object is a dangerous or deadly weapon. A jump rope, for example, has a perfectly benign use and purpose, but it may be a deadly weapon if used to hang someone. Likewise, an umbrella may be a suitable weapon for poking out an eye. The trial court properly left for the jury to decide as a factual issue whether pepper spray was a dangerous or deadly weapon. . . . Handy v. State, 126 Md. App. 548, 553, 730 A.2d 710, 712 (1999), aff'd, 357 Md. 685, 745 A.2d 1107 (2000)
....Our research has uncovered no California decision holding substances such as pepper spray, tear gas and/or mace are dangerous or deadly weapons as a matter of law on the ground they are designed to incapacitate victims by affecting the person's vision and respiratory system. Nor have we found any published California decisions that found such substances were dangerous weapons as used in the particular circumstances of the case....
Some courts in other jurisdictions have found chemical substances did not qualify as dangerous weapons because of the peculiar circumstances of the case.....
In United States v. Lancaster,18 the court found the trial court did not commit clear error in finding no great bodily injury occurred from the defendant's use of mace.....
The Harris court's view of these chemicals' potential to cause harm has been echoed by the vast majority of courts that have considered the issue. Most courts have found tear gas, mace or pepper spray to be dangerous or deadly weapons capable of inflicting great bodily injury. For example, in United States v. Neill,.... The Ninth Circuit concluded the pepper spray had been used as a dangerous weapon....
In United States v. Bartolotta,.... The Eight Circuit found the defendant had used mace as a dangerous weapon in committing the crime....
In United States v. Robinson,....The Seventh Circuit found this sufficient evidence to uphold a sentence enhancement for inflicting bodily injury....
In United States v. Dukovich... The Eleventh Circuit held tear gas is a dangerous weapon as a matter of law....
In People v. Elliott, the court found the pepper spray the defendant used in committing the bank robbery constituted a dangerous weapon....
In People v. Norris,.... The court found the chemical spray constituted a dangerous weapon.
In Pitts v. State,... The court noted, “Unquestionably, mace is a substance which is designed as a defensive weapon, but may be used in such a manner as to cause great bodily harm.”
Whether appellant used the spray as a dangerous weapon capable of inflicting great bodily injury was a question for the jury to decide....
The evidence in the present case also establishes appellant intended to, and did, use the chemical spray to immobilize and temporarily disable his victims in order to escape with the loot. Evidence of these circumstances in combination supports the jury's reasonable deduction appellant used the chemical spray as a dangerous weapon in committing the robberies. Accordingly, the enhancements imposed for having used the chemical spray as a dangerous weapon in committing the robberies in counts 3, 4 and 6 need not be reversed for insufficient evidence....People v. Blake, 117 Cal. App. 4th 543, 556–59, 11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 678, 688–90 (2004), as modified (Apr. 16, 2004)
Mind you, most of these are from criminal cases, but they may provide some guidance. Also, bear in mind that your respective states may distinguish between a "dangerous" weapon and a "deadly" weapon....In this case, the jury, being properly instructed on what constitutes a dangerous weapon, could reasonably have concluded that the pepper spray used by defendant constituted a dangerous weapon.... People v. Morgan, No. 294591, 2010 WL 4774479, at *2 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 23, 2010)
That's what I saw, as well.... Put simply, the shooter is not in any immediate danger - and he has ample room to increase that distance if the spray is annoying or debilitating... Based on that factor alone (and the fact that any prosecution will be able show the actual distance involved with photographic evidence to support their assertion....) this young man is in a world of trouble - and he's responsible for his actions...
There can be more to it than whether the spray itself would be considered likely to cause great bodily harm.Lethal force against a spray would not be seen as justifiable use, at least not in my state, because the spray alone is not capable of producing death or great bodily harm
Nor should you.I don't think I've ever seen here that of you're justified to use force that also means that you are also justified to use deadly force.
I have not mentioned disparity of force at all.I'd like clarification as to why @Kleanbore comment seems to go against all of the past THR discussions about disparity of force.
Okay, let's ty to explain itI comprehend it [(Post #9)]; I don't agree with it. "Unlawful attack by pepper spray"? .... I'd like more explanation of this
Ya know, I was just wondering the same myself this morning before I checked for new posts. What's missing here is what happened before the camera started rolling. That may be material to whether or not the shooter was justified in using lethal force.Who acted as the initial aggressor is not clear from the photos. At appears to me that the security guard may have been. But that will depend upon evidence and testimony we do not yet have.