PP, its gonna sound like I'm picking on you today. I swear I'm not, but you have stated some thoughts that aren't accurate, and frankly come across as kinda hot-headed. You can tell me to go to hell, also, but I suggest you might want to retink your position. . . .
PlayboyPenguin said: if they started in on a friend or mine or worse yet my better half I am afraid I still reserve the right to confront them and, if they insist on making it something physical, pound some sense into them.
Just because I own a gun does not mean I have to become a doormat for every loud mouth out there.
The armed person in the room has moral imperative to be the MOST self-controlled, polite person present. Why? Because he has the means and ability to take the life others.
You don't have to take a beating. But - we don't engage in fights under the auspices of "pounding some sense into them." I know you used it as an expression, just be clear about how that sounds to others.
PlayboyPenguin said: He (the shooter) went outside for scenerio A (a first fight), the other guy changed it to scenerio B (a gun fight). The lighter guy carries all the blame except for the bad shooting. . . . . Got back earlier from dinner with our realtor and our lawyer. . . . .
The next time you two go out, ask him about the concept of "mutual combat". Ask him about its ramifications on the claim to self defense.
PlayboyPenguin said: Who sets this standard? if someone walks up to me and shoves me on the ground and spits on me am I to get up and walk away???
Well, the law sets guidelines about such things, but in reality, the prosecutor in your area will determine if the initial evidence supports a charge, and those whose duty it is of finding facts and deciding guilt in any subsequent trial will. It certainly is not your, nor my, opinion. You roll those dice, you take the gamble that you might loose.
The claim of self defense is an affirmative defense. You are not disputing your actions, but rather stated you have reason under the law (either statute or common) that you had met criteria that permitted you to justifiably commit the act of harming or killing another. There are circumstances that preclude you from using the claim of self defense. Again, that conversation with your attorney might be a little more enlightning if you ask about what those are.
I suggest you take, or re-take, a class that addresses the legal aspect of carrying a weapon by a reptutable instructor. Most all cover AOJP now in some fashion. The concept of Preclusion addresses your specific attitudes and statements about what you feel is right or not. I assure you that those who have the duty of evaluating your actions will be looking to the evidence and asking you questions towards establishing whether you could have safely avoided shooting someone. The newly passed laws in several states suggest to remove the burden of satisfying that concern, under limited and defined circumstances, but I do not believe Oregon to be one of them.
Specific to this article:
We have no evidence here this man left the resturaunt either to engage in a fight outside, or not. So I won't say he has to go to prison, or that he's free and clear. The media reported it in such a fashion to remain vague, but did use words designed to impress that the shooter may have contributed to the escalation. I'm going to bet they have NO clue, but put such a spin on the story. Otherwise, they'd have been less ambiguous.