As a criminal justice graduate, I have no issues whatsoever with legal jargon. Quite simply, the laws you quoted didn't back up the claims you have previously made. You have quoted law, certainly enough, but nothing which indicates anything about a paper trail being necessarily in a self defense shooting where shooter and dead guy known one another. I've read and reread the posted section of law, and it doesn't say...or even HINT at....any such thing. Theres a bit about disparity of force, meaning one cannot use more force than is necessary in order to resolve the situation, but that has nothing to do with your original claim. Simply quoting random snippets of law doesn't provide proof of anything, other than your lack of understanding, apparently
My Neighbor shot his step son: developing story.
- Thread starter USAF_Vet
- Start date
- Status
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
BulletBender, I am very familiar with what the law here in PA says about use of force. It* does NOT say specifically any of the things that you have claimed it does. No mention of family or assailants known to the victim. Nothing in the quoted section that really gets into the area of subjects we might call "threat threshold." (Or "threat distance.")
(* -- Nor does Michigan law, which would be more relevant to the case we're discussing here, nor, I'm betting, does the law wherever YOU live, which should be informing the statements you are making.)
I have no argument with any of these statements:
I think you are pretty confused, and are in a hole which digging further is not going to get you out of. Stop. Review your actual source material, and get a better handle on things. Then come back and re-enter the discussion if you wish, with a clearer understanding.
Please -- I've asked very nicely and directly -- please answer these questions:
(* -- Nor does Michigan law, which would be more relevant to the case we're discussing here, nor, I'm betting, does the law wherever YOU live, which should be informing the statements you are making.)
I have no argument with any of these statements:
...but they are a far cry from what you were saying previously. You have tried to change your arguments mid-stream to avoid admitting that your previous statements were not at all true.
You really, really do need to dig up that book you've got packed away and figure out what it really said -- which things it says are law, and which are simply principles which may guide your actions under some circumstances.xxBulletBenderxx said:
I think you are pretty confused, and are in a hole which digging further is not going to get you out of. Stop. Review your actual source material, and get a better handle on things. Then come back and re-enter the discussion if you wish, with a clearer understanding.
This is distressingly so.
Please -- I've asked very nicely and directly -- please answer these questions:
If that material did come from an state agency or department, or acceditied training group of some sort we can probably locate it and read along with you to help figure out what they were really saying.Me said:
Last edited:
XxBulletBendeRXx
Member
Give it up... I quoted the PA laws that would be applicable to those in Central PA as well.
Not much else to do on my part. Best of Luck!! B.B.
XxBulletBendeRXx
Member
LOL... Apparently I do have to run out and get the JUMBO ones... LOL..
JRH6856
Member
Look in the mirror when you say that. That's the guy who needs it.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I'm starting to feel like I'm picking on you and I don't want you or anyone else to think that. I really don't know how to put this any other way: Can you answer the questions I asked, or not?
Me said:
Your signature says, "I spent the time in class. Studied, and learned the laws, now its my duty as a responsible citizen to carry all day every day." Surely you remember what class that was, who taught it, using what curriculum, or at least what state you were in?
allaroundhunter
Member
Sam, we understand you are not picking on him. I am getting as frustrated as you are with this considering BB's lack of evidence to back up his statements. Sometimes I don't mind not having evidence, but when it comes to legality of using a weapon for defense, I don't like being misinformed, and I don't like others to be misinformed.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
BB, you're "out west?" The "Wild West?" Ok...so that's gotta be somewhere like AZ, NV, NM, maybe?
If you're in NV, the statutes defining justifiable homicide are here:
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-200.html#NRS200Sec120
Here's AZ's: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00404.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS
Same sorts of things appear (and don't appear).
No mention of any statutory description of "threat threshold" nor of modifiers to the facts you must prove to establish "self defense" based on who the attacker was.
I'm having a little trouble locating an online resource for NM's laws. I've gotta run for a while, but if someone else can find them, that would be great!
If you're in NV, the statutes defining justifiable homicide are here:
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-200.html#NRS200Sec120
Here's AZ's: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00404.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS
Same sorts of things appear (and don't appear).
No mention of any statutory description of "threat threshold" nor of modifiers to the facts you must prove to establish "self defense" based on who the attacker was.
I'm having a little trouble locating an online resource for NM's laws. I've gotta run for a while, but if someone else can find them, that would be great!
JRH6856
Member
That is hard to avoid when most people are offering opinions of the law without any reference to the State that opinion derives from. xBBx is apparently quoting PA law to support his absolute statements regarding how PA law applies in Michigan. Does anybody remember just when Pennsylvania annexed Michigan? If that didn't happen, then what xBBx has to say regarding PA law is irrelevant to this thread and I don't know why we should care what he has to say about it.
allaroundhunter
Member
XxBulletBendeRXx
Member
I was quoting PA law cause it would apply to those living in PA. And the one with the questions reguarding the laws, says they live in Central PA. This is why I find it irrelevent to quote laws in a state way out west. Cause they would not apply in Michigan and neither would PA laws.
However they would help the Central PA posters questions reguarding the laws of that home state. Not mention its quite ammusing to me to quote the laws in the state of PA being that seems to be the place where all the questions are coming from...
allaroundhunter
Member
I assure you, Sam is well aware of the PA laws. This thread concerns Michigan laws...btw, you still haven't quoted where you got the "threat threshold" ideas from, and regardless of what state it is, I am curious to see them.
XxBulletBendeRXx
Member
Dont worry you are fine.. In order to be able to pick on someone they would have to allow it. And well I am above that, waaaay above that. That is why I choose THE HIGH ROAD. We all want to be right, and well In one case or another we all are.
As far as disclosing my location I would rather not being that this is the INTERNET and my anonymity and privacy are much more important to me than trying to prove what is right and what is wrong in regaurds to where I am located. In the user options it say I have the option, and well my option has been choosen.
Again I appreciate your concern for not wanting to pick on me but like I said I would not allow it in the first place so it is void and a non-issue as far as I am concerned...
Derry 1946
Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2011
- Messages
- 516
I think it's fair to say at this point there is no there there. I am unaware of any jurisdiction in which the relationship of the attacker to the defender is inherently material. Sam, your effort to get clarity on what may be a source of misinformation is laudable. To the extent the thread veered in the direction of which posters can or cannot understand statutes (versus pamphlets, philosophies, opinions, wishes, preconceptions, etc.), I can only say that legal interpretation is no more the province of the untrained or the amateur than brain surgery. In each case, anyone might attempt it, but only someone with training is likely to have successful outcomes.
Last edited:
DAP90
Member
New Mexico 30-2-7 (Justifiable homicide by citizen) is the appropriate statute I think.
The full list on handgunlaw.us is:
30-2-5 Excusable homicide.
30-2-6 Justifiable homicide by public officer or public employee.
30-2-7 Justifiable homicide by citizen.
30-2-8 When homicide is excusable or justifiable defendant to be acquitted.
The link below is the amended version of the bill. It appears to be the final version but I can’t guarantee that.
http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/09 Regular/bills/house/HB0701.html
I found some versions online that don't match. This version appears to be on an official website and can also be found elsewhere.
Not that it really matters given the way this is going.
Edit: This might be a newer version introduced in 2011. Second link down on the link (First session of 2011)
http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/_search_...2906:vevuemy34pq&cof=FORID:11&q=30-2-7&sa=Go!
Last edited:
JRH6856
Member
I call TROLL!
USAF_Vet
Member
Well I see my thread has taken an interesting tangent. In any case, this one can be fined in the Asked and Answered category. So far, no new developments to comment about. My neighbor is still home, no charges have been filed. The DA is still reviewing the case, but it looks like based on the facts, the evidence and the statements given by all involved, this is a case of self defense.
Regarding the medical marijuana, while Federally illegal, I don't see the state doing anything about it, certainly not turning him over to the Feds for what the state considers legal. And I think the Feds have better things to do than come after a disabled man who defended himself, who also happens to have a bit of weed.
ETA: Does anyone remember something Obama said early on about the DOJ not pressing Federal charges on people within states who have legalized weed?
Regarding the medical marijuana, while Federally illegal, I don't see the state doing anything about it, certainly not turning him over to the Feds for what the state considers legal. And I think the Feds have better things to do than come after a disabled man who defended himself, who also happens to have a bit of weed.
ETA: Does anyone remember something Obama said early on about the DOJ not pressing Federal charges on people within states who have legalized weed?
billdeserthills
Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 201
How about if BB has an aircard for internet access?
Derry 1946
Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2011
- Messages
- 516
USAF Vet: Here is a link referencing some such statements:
http://www.mpp.org/assets/pdfs/library/HolderObamaStatements.pdf
JRH6856
Member
Or is just spoofing his IP.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Several points:
1) The PA code you cited did not support what you'd claimed. Nothing about threat threshold, nothing at all -- in any way -- about how relationships between assailant and victim might change what the defender has to prove to establish a self-defense case.
2) The subject of this thread is an incident which took place in Michigan. As I might have pointed out about seven times.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Yes, and let me apologize for helping to push this off-topic. Thought we'd quickly straighten out a point of confusion, and that seems to have been a bridge too far.
If you're satisfied that this has run its course, I'll close it.
- Status