Judged by Twelve

[SnowBlaZeR2]

I'll revisit this thread later if it isn't locked. Kleanbore/Jeff, I don't have time to reply in full, but would like to with a comprehensive post.

No, I'm not being argumentative just to be argumentative. Some inaccurate and misleading comments were made, and I thought it might be beneficial to discuss those comments further to ensure accuracy.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by SnowBlaZeR2:

I'm not going to do that [(provide us with some examples of legal justifications for the use of deadly force which support your claims)].

Then you should stop continuing to repeat vague and unsubstantiated assertions to the effect that the fundamental tenets of self defense law set forth in the quotation from Massad Ayoob would somehow not form the basis for the outcome of a defense of justification based on a claim of a disparity of force.

If you want to know the laws, you can look them up.

Some of us do that all the time, but when we do so we need to exercise caution.

From the ST&T Forum rules:

In this Internet age, many people have found it is easy to search for and read the state criminal codes. A warning is in order: trying to interpret a particular law in isolation by using lay dictionary definitions can lead to erroneous conclusions. Case law—decisions rendered by high courts in the interpretation of the laws—and relationships among other pertinent laws and constitutional principles can have as much to do with the real meaning of the law as the words in a single statute.

For this reason, we strongly discourage the rote cutting and pasting into posts of state legal codes to support one’s position in a discussion here, and we advise against the reliance on same to justify the lawfulness of a particular course of action.

Such reliance is particularly dangerous when it comes to justifying the use of deadly force. The use of a weapon, and even its display by a civilian in many circumstances, is normally an unlawful act. Relying upon a layman’s interpretation of the code to justify the use of a weapon is usually not a good idea. Probably the safest philosophy is that a deadly weapon should be used only when it is immediately necessary and when there is no alternative.

If you think things are the same in Texas as they are in Maryland...well, let's just hope you don't think that.

Of course there are differences.

Also from the rules:

In general, deadly force may be lawfully employed only when it is immediately necessary to defend oneself or a third person in the case of imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

In some jurisdictions, deadly force may be used to prevent specific serious felonies; these vary among jurisdictions.

In most jurisdictions, deadly force may not be used to protect property.

The threatening display of a weapon by a civilian is unlawful except under extenuating circumstances, which vary by jurisdiction.

It is unlawful to shoot a fleeing felon except under the rarest of circumstances.

While a citizens arrest, or its equivalent, is sometimes allowed under certain circumstances, there are limitations in criminal law, and little or no protection in civil law for anyone other than a sworn officer. The civilian may employ deadly force when it is immediately necessary to protect and defend, but not to enforce the law.

We have already discussed differences regarding "castle doctrine", the duty to retreat, burdens and standards of proof, and the use of force to defend third parties.

None of the above are relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[Officers'Wife]

SnowBlaZeR2,


I can point to a shooting that happened here several years ago where the owner of a trucking/ag supply company shot three people in the back who were running away from his storage yard after stealing anhydrous ammonia to make meth with. This shooting was not at all a justified use of force by Illinois law. They presented no threat to the shooter, stealing anhydrous is not a forcible felony and they were running away. NO CHARGES WERE FILED AGAINST THE BUSINESSMAN!

When I was 17 an employee went to connect the fill tube to an old fashioned anhydrous applicator. Ammonia thieves, had used a pipe wrench to open the valve early and when Ian turned the valve the fitting snapped. More by luck than skill he was pulled out of the spray area but still suffered a lot of lung damage.

Now consider if that "harmless" theft had taken place in town with the wind blowing towards an occupied area. It could be such a thing the prosecutor considered the extreme risk these... gentlemen... put the public at large in and reacted accordingly. While it's very true that a broken anhydrous pipe is going to freeze solid before emptying the tank, a lot of potentially deadly product is going to escape before it happens.

Perhaps his "message" was meth, I'm not familiar with the case or the prosecutor and am loath to say. I would rather think he had the understanding of just how dangerous a stunt the thieves had pulled.

 

[Jeff White]

Now consider if that "harmless" theft had taken place in town with the wind blowing towards an occupied area. It could be such a thing the prosecutor considered the extreme risk these... gentlemen... put the public at large in and reacted accordingly. While it's very true that a broken anhydrous pipe is going to freeze solid before emptying the tank, a lot of potentially deadly product is going to escape before it happens.

There was no release of anhydrous although it has happened when these idiots try to steal it. I asked the SA why he didn't charge the property owner and he said that he wanted to send a message. He also said that we shouldn't take that as a license to shoot because he expected us (the police officers in the county) to know better.

 

[Officers'Wife]

There was no release of anhydrous although it has happened when these idiots try to steal it. I asked the SA why he didn't charge the property owner and he said that he wanted to send a message. He also said that we shouldn't take that as a license to shoot because he expected us (the police officers in the county) to know better.

My apologies, I have a special hatred for the ... gentlemen that steal anhydrous for the reasons mentioned. As I said, I'm not familiar with the case only have my preferences of what the priorities should be.

 

[Jeff White]

I share your hatred of them. I have two friends I worked with who lost a lot of their lung capacity when there was an anhydrous release from a mobile meth lab in the trunk of a car they pulled over. The ones who halfway know what they are doing modify 20 lb propane bottles but I've seen it in plastic gasoline cans, thermos bottles any kind of container. For some reason they usually don't kill themselves when they steal it though.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I'm not going to do that. As I've said countless times, that is not anyone's responsibility but your own. If you want to know the laws, you can look them up. If you think things are the same in Texas as they are in Maryland...well, let's just hope you don't think that.

There is more than one conversation going on here.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Put 'er in reverse and back the truck up here!

The OP started this out about a man who had just recently been tried and convicted and ended his opening post with "two things that seem to be evident from an ST&T standpoint".

From there we started discussing the aspects of some laws with respect to self defense and deadly force, including the fact that the states differ on some aspects.

At post #48, you enter the conversation to discuss the differences between this court case and another one.

Somewhere in the general vicinity of post #62 the discussion about the differences in state laws started coming up more heatedly.

And at no time during all of this have I, or anybody else, said that all jurisdictional laws are the same across the board or that understanding the basis behind the laws can be used to supersede local laws.

We ALL recognize that there ARE differences in the legal details from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But regardless, they ALL have the same general basis.


If YOU wish to argue against that, then YOU need to provide us with some circumstances in which the jurisdictional laws differ from what we are saying are the basis upon which such laws are derived.

This is how such discussions progress into something meaningful.

Kleanbore brought up one such example, that in which Texas allows the use of deadly force with respect to property.


I'm not asking for such information from you in post #72 to be argumentative. I really want to know what you have to support your point of view on this matter. Then we can discuss the specifics with respect to your example instead of bickering back and forth around generalities that aren't getting us anywhere.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

A great reminder to know Your States Laws.

 

[AKElroy]

Posted by xxjumbojimboxx:If it is a fight, there is no case for self defense.

It may be an uphill battle, but a significant disparity of force can justify the use of a weapon in self defense.

Very true. A few years back I worked out at a local gym every morning with two buddies. One is an FBI Special Agent, the other a pharmaceutical sales rep. By far the strongest and largest of the three of us is the sales guy. He is a large, powerful guy.

Fast forward to a shooting we had locally a number of years back where the local PD shot a 17 year-old kid that charged the cop with a screwdriver. I commented to the FBI guy that the PD needed better training. He disagreed strongly, and suggested that deadly force would very likely be necessary for someone Mike's size (pharma rep) whether he was armed or not were he to decide to inflict great physical harm. We saw that exact scenario play out in Ferguson. He made this point while asking how I might fare taking on Mike if he were really determined to harm me. He was ripping through a 20 rep set benching 250lbs like it was nothing.

I agree with the statement regarding fighting as well. A fight is to settle dispute, and it is mutually agreed to. An attack can be a savage, no holds barred event, devoid of any rules. Head pounding, eye gouging, throat-ripping are not typically witnessed in a fight. They might be in an attack, and I would use the force necessary to stop it.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I read this and the first point that struck me was the one Jeff made in his initial post. This was so unnecessary. This is exactly the type of case the court system is made to handle. The wife of the shooter had an excellent case against a person with lots of assets to seize. She should have called her lawyer rather than her husband.

My second thought was that even with a stand your ground law, you must be in a public place where you have a right to be (as Officer's Wife alluded to). While the wife may have been manager of the farm, that doesn't grant the husband the same rights.

The other big thing I noted is that every shot has to meet the same legal justification (AOJP). Shot#1 can be legally justified and shots #2&3 not. That is especially important with unarmed assailants as juries, rightly or wrongly, still often view getting your head kicked in as a sporting engagement.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

*Edit*

Never mind.

 

[Fred Fuller]

I think that's probably enough on this one.