Standard procedure in Texas.I don't think the prosecutor should have even convened the grand jury ...
Standard procedure in Texas.I don't think the prosecutor should have even convened the grand jury ...
How might doing that be justified?
We were speaking of how causing the truck to alter its course would be justified. If there is time and distance to do that in a manner sufficient to prevent being struck, there is time and distance to get out of the way. And such an action by the shooter could not prevent others from being struck.Well, I suppose if keeping from being killed isn’t justification enough nothing will be.
We were speaking of how causing the truck to alter its course would be justified. If there is time and distance to do that in a manner sufficient to prevent being struck, there is time and distance to get out of the way. And such an action by the shooter could not prevent others from being struck.
It could cause other mayhem.
If you were charged with criminal negligence or worse after an out of control truck, the driver of which had been willfully disabled by you, killed or injured other people, I cannot imagine any jury would find that your actions had been reasonable.I disagree and so would many on a jury. That said I know much matters if said case was tried in a liberal safe haven like Portland vs Decatur county TN and if the jury was filled with people like you or me.
It should be noted that "reasonable" has a legal definition, and also has a subjective personal definition. The former is lawful, the latter may or may not be. You can never tell which definition is going to hold in a given juror's mind. It's dependent on the skill of the defendant's lawyer.If they were not reasonable, they were not lawful.
Yes, but this is Legal. So for our purposes, 'reasonable' is what the law says it is.It should be noted that "reasonable" has a legal definition, and also has a subjective personal definition. The former is lawful, the latter may or may not be. You can never tell which definition is going to hold in a given juror's mind. It's dependent on the skill of the defendant's lawyer.
I was taught as an LEO that shooting a person who is 'on the gas' could cause them to die 'on the gas' as easily as stop them. Not a preferred method of stopping a vehicle.I really hate to be that guy, but I really don’t understand this.
A vehicle can’t drive itself, So no one to hit gas means it slows/stops, no one to steer means the vehicle gets off course and hits something and therefore stops.
If I recall correctly in the 2016 Nice truck attack ended only when the driver was shot and killed, so how else would you stop it. Incapacitating the driver seems to me like the only way to stop a vehicle attack, unless you walk around with spike strips.
what exactly am I missing?
Obviously.I was taught as an LEO that shooting a person who is 'on the gas' could cause them to die 'on the gas' as easily as stop them.
You can say that again.Not a preferred method of stopping a vehicle.
Or what a lawyer convinces a juror it is ... I think that activity qualifies as "legal" activity, no? I see you're a lawyer ... it's your job to interpret what the law says in favor of your client's interests, is it not? There's a lot of room for interpretation in the legal definition of "reasonable" and especially when it comes to self-defense.Yes, but this is Legal. So for our purposes, 'reasonable' is what the law says it is.
No. At trial, counsel does not "interpret the law". That's the role of the judge.I see you're a lawyer ... it's your job to interpret what the law says in favor of your client's interests, is it not?
No. It is defined as what a theoretical "reasonable person" would have done in circumstances similar to the case, knowing what the defendant knew at the time.There's a lot of room for interpretation in the legal definition of "reasonable" and especially when it comes to self-defense.
Well, OK, maybe "interpret" is not the right word. What I'm saying is that the letter of the law is one thing, and that the outcome of a jury trial is another thing. The decision made by the jurors is dependent on the case presented by the opposing legal teams. That makes the outcome subjective and impossible to infer from the circumstances at the time of the incident. Which is why my position wrt to the legality of the scenario posed in the OP is that the legality of the action is not the most material with respect to deciding on course of action, it's the uncertainty of being found right in the end, and why the most prudent, and indeed the most reasonable course of action would be for the party involved to just take whatever course of action is necessary to avoid having to use lethal force in the first place.The jurors do not "interpret" that. They decide what they would have done in the circumstances, based on the evidence presented and on the jury instructions that define the law...
..not at all clear to me.What I'm saying is
Sigh. I'll give it one more shot...not at all clear to me.
My question is, in your state (and if anyone knows about NY I’d be interested in that too) would that be a legitimate cause for use of a firearm in defense of yourself or a third party?
Kleanbore said:They decide what they would have done in the circumstances, based on the evidence presented and on the jury instructions that define the law..
Given the outcome, which is likely to be very bad indeed, a couple of jury simulation exercises would provide very good insight into what the outcome would likely be.Therefore the legitimacy of such action in such a scenario cannot be conclusively determined until the outcome of the jury trial.
A lawyer's job is to put his or her client in the best possible position, given the facts of the case and ethical boundaries. That may mean arguing to a judge or jury how the attorney how the attorney believes a statute should be interpreted. I supposed it could be argued that I would have to interpret the statute first, before making such an argument. There's another step in there that hasn't been discussed in this thread, though: Reading through the caselaw and looking at how appellate courts have already interpreted the statute in question. If I were a defense lawyer whose client did A, B, and C, and an appellate court with binding precedential value had already determined that A, B, and C, under very similar circumstances was reasonable, I'd argue to the court that it should direct a verdict in favor of my client. At the opposite end of the spectrum, if that same appellate court had said A, B, and C were definitively unreasonable under very similar circumstances, I'd be playing "Let's Make a Deal" with the other side.Or what a lawyer convinces a juror it is ... I think that activity qualifies as "legal" activity, no? I see you're a lawyer ... it's your job to interpret what the law says in favor of your client's interests, is it not? There's a lot of room for interpretation in the legal definition of "reasonable" and especially when it comes to self-defense.
Reasonable is an 'objective' standard, or at least as objective as anything that can't be boiled down to numbers can be. It's what the Reasonable Person would do, in the same circumstances, with the information available to the defendant at the time. It's not what Juror 9, or Spats McGee would do. I wandered through Google results for a little and found some instructions that were given in federal court in Rhode Island that provide a good example, but bear in mind that these are from a civil case:....It is defined as what a theoretical "reasonable person" would have done in circumstances similar to the case, knowing what the defendant knew at the time.
Source: https://www.rid.uscourts.gov/sites/rid/files/juryinstructions/civil/07-435T Theroux v. Estrada.pdfNow, let me define the term negligence for you because that's obviously central to this case. Negligence is a failure to use reasonable care under circumstances where there is a legal duty or obligation to do so. And reasonable care is that degree of care that a reasonably careful or reasonably prudent person would have used under the same or similar circumstances. Negligence may consist of doing something that a reasonably prudent or reasonably careful person would not have done under the same or similar circumstances, or it may consist of not doing something that a reasonably prudent or reasonably careful person would have done under the same or similar circumstances. In other words, a person is deemed to be negligent if that person fails to exercise the same degree of care that a reasonably prudent or reasonably careful person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances.
That's kind of true for every jury trial. You never really know what a jury will do. There's a reason that every trial lawyer that I know will plead a client to a misdemeanor, rather than risk a trial on a felony, given half a chance..... Therefore the legitimacy of such action in such a scenario cannot be conclusively determined until the outcome of the jury trial....
My response: since "legitimate cause" is dependent upon the "reasonable" action (both quoted terms have hard definitions) of the defendant, but what is reasonable under the circumstance is dependent upon whether a jury decides if it was reasonable or not,
If you were charged with criminal negligence or worse after an out of control truck, the driver of which had been willfully disabled by you, killed or injured other people, I cannot imagine any jury would find that your actions had been reasonable.
If they were not reasonable, they were not lawful.
Morally wrong? Think about it.Again, I just hope people understand how morally wrong you are .
Guilty as charged....That diverted the discussion into how to define reasonable in the courtroom.
... and so, regardless, we reach the same conclusion.I cannot see the scenario resulting in legitimate use of force under the full five elements, except under potentially unique details of the specific circumstance.
Yes indeed.As pointed out in this thread several times, the situation of a car in the middle of a group of protesters raises serious questions about both imminence and avoidance, as well as reasonableness given the likelihood of the car momentum even without the attacker being in control is still a danger to others.
This is a point which is commonly overlooked. Just because a Self-Defense Shooter isn't required to retreat in a given jurisdiction does not mean that a jury cannot consider whether the failure to retreat was reasonable.....And in jurisdictions in which avoidance is not legally required, failure to avoid, when avoidance is safely possible will, in most such jurisdictions, enter into the assessment of reasonableness.