mljdeckard
Member
I think that his statement that he fired a warning shot will become a discussion of why you should shut your piehole after a defensive shooting.
My Neighbor shot his step son: developing story.
- Thread starter USAF_Vet
- Start date
- Status
Ed N.
Member
Heck, there's probably enough of them already monitoring THR anyway.
Even if the feds don't get it online, if the stepson survives there's some likelihood he'll make sure the feds know about the pot.
Carl N. Brown
Member
ATF position on Medicinal Marijuana in Open Letter to gundealers 26 Sep 2011: http://www. atf.gov/press/releases/2011/09/ 092611- atf-open-letter-to-all-ffls-marijuana-for-medicinal-purposes.pdf
I can't find a link for the medicinal alcohol history:
Appel, Jacob M. "Physicians Are Not Bootleggers: The Short, Peculiar Life of the Medicinal Alcohol Movement." The Bulletin of the History of Medicine (Summer, 2008)
but it is cited at: http://rosemelnickmuseum.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/medicinal-alcohol-and-prohibition/
That's a close analog to medicinal marijuana.
Whether medicinal or not, being under the influence of an intoxicant can call to question one's defensive use of force (which is dependent on state and local law). Federal law affects purchase and possession by "prohibited persons".
I can't find a link for the medicinal alcohol history:
Appel, Jacob M. "Physicians Are Not Bootleggers: The Short, Peculiar Life of the Medicinal Alcohol Movement." The Bulletin of the History of Medicine (Summer, 2008)
but it is cited at: http://rosemelnickmuseum.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/medicinal-alcohol-and-prohibition/
That's a close analog to medicinal marijuana.
Whether medicinal or not, being under the influence of an intoxicant can call to question one's defensive use of force (which is dependent on state and local law). Federal law affects purchase and possession by "prohibited persons".
F-111 John
Member
henschman
Member
Even if the feds do find out, they don't have to do anything about it - they may decide they have more important things to do. As a good neighbor you might want to mention the federal issue to him though, in case he isn't aware of it, and tell him he might want to prepare to be looked into by the Feds just in case. If it were me, I'd want to sell off all that product and dismantle the grow house, at least until things blow over. To convict him, the Feds will need some sort of evidence that he is a user. I'd make sure there is nothing for them to find... Though if he bought anything from a clinic, there will probably be records of it. Oh well, don't make it easy for them by leaving stuff around the house.
robert garner
Member
Maybe the ATF folks could take a look at the Constitution & Bill of Rights.
That would just confuse the issue
robert
That would just confuse the issue
robert
XxBulletBendeRXx
Member
You sir are wrong. But that is OK. The law is that the threat threshold is different in every situation, especiallly if you happen to know the person and that person is an inlaw/family. IF you have had confrontation with known individuals you should make a paper trail of such events. Also, being that you know the individual your threat threshold is low due to your past history with the known individual. In other words you know them by name and can engage in converation by attempting to defuse the escalting situation. Of course if your life is in imminent danger then deadly force is justified. It was not in this case, He did say he fired a warning shot to scare the unwanted visitor indicating that the threat threshold was low at the momment the shot was fired.
A Similar example on the extreme side to paint a clear picture of thought: A 6'5 man weighing 280 lbs who is assulted by a elderly woman in her 90's does not inherently require excessive/deadly force, therefore the threat threshold is low. However If the elderly woman is threatened has to use excessive/deadly force to stop the assult and shoots a 6'5 man weighing 280 lbs, the threat threshold is very high.
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Mighty generous of you to make allowances like that.
Ok. Please cite the law that says this. Any state's laws would be fine. Michigan's would be much more to the point. Which clause in the law defines the threat threshold as modified by relation?
Edit: Heck... I'll make it easier. Cite the law that defines "threat threshold." What the laws do say is that certain factors must be present in order to support an affirmative defense of "self defense." Whether those factors were truly present is generally left to a jury to decide if there is any question. That's when issues of personal relationships and past history tend to come into the picture. For or against.
Certainly. Or with unknown individuals.
Or, it could be HIGHER, given a pre-history of violent behavior or threats. MOST people attacked and killed know their attacker. Making blanket statements about how you can or should be able to talk your way out of danger is not wise.
So, you're actually saying the same standard applies no matter WHO the attacker is. You are NEVER going to have a successful affirmative defense of "self defense" if you cannot prove that you felt there was a direct, immediate threat of death or grievous injury (or a handful of other forcible felonies, depending on jurisdiction). If it's your brother, or a stranger, the standard you must prove is the same.
If it is your brother, there will likely be more information for the investigators to go over to determine whether they feel the threat was credible, but the actual threshold is the same.
How do you know? Do you have more information than the rest of us here?
The OP is not sure that he really did say any such thing. That was reported 2nd or 3rd hand. We really don't know what he said to whom.
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
That is not how federal law works. A state (so far, and until the SCOTUS says otherwise...) cannot declare federal law not in force. They can write MORE restrictive laws, and enforce them, but they cannot write LESS restrictive laws and prevent the enforcement of the more restrictive federal statutes.
Now a few states are trying exactly that, and we shall see what shakes out there, but that's a rough patch of legal ground to try and stand on. Lessen' you like being a test case. Better not make too many plans for the next 10-15 years. Those cases take a while to sort out.
JRH6856
Member
There has already been a test case. South Carolina tried unsuccessfully in 1832 (see Nullification Crisis). The question was just one of the issues that led to the Civil War.
XxBulletBendeRXx
Member
Thanks.. Its my duty to take The High Road and make allowances for such errors...Mighty generous of you to make allowances like that.
Ok. Please cite the law that says this. Any state's laws would be fine. Michigan's would be much more to the point. Which clause in the law defines the threat threshold as modified by relation?
Edit: Heck... I'll make it easier. Cite the law that defines "threat threshold." What the laws do day is that certain factors must be present in order to support an affirmative defense of "self defense." Whether those factors were truly present is generally left to a jury to decide if there is any question. That's when issues of personal relationships and past history tend to come into the picture. For or against.
Certainly. Or with unknown individuals.
Or, it could be HIGHER, given a pre-history of violent behavior or threats. MOST people attacked and killed know their attacker. Making blanket statements about how you can or should be able to talk your way out of danger is not wise.
So, you're actually saying the same standard applies no matter WHO the attacker is. You are NEVER going to have a successful affirmative defense of "self defense" if you cannot prove that you felt there was a direct, immediate threat of death or grievous injury (or a handful of other forcible felonies, depending on jurisdiction). If it's your brother, or a stranger, the standard you must prove is the same.
If it is your brother, there will likely be more information for the investigators to go over to determine whether they feel the threat was credible, but the actual threshold is the same.
How do you know? Do you have more information than the rest of us here?
The OP is not sure that he really did say any such thing. That was reported 2nd or 3rd hand. We really don't know what he said to whom.
As far as your threat threshold, Just refer to your ccw handbook or pay attention in your next renewal course.
You might learn a thing or two... best of luck.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
What...the heck...are you talking about?
Do you have legal citations to support your statements or not?
What CCW handbook are you referring to? Who is teaching this stuff?
I'd love to sit in on that class. I sure might learn a thing or two. Or I might file a complaint with whatever department or agency accredits such an instructor.
XxBulletBendeRXx
Member
Referring to the CCW handbook given to you as part of the class upon completion..... Its filed away at this time, however there is no need to quote my handbook any further as I have already, albeit in my own words to simplify things.... Perhaps I oversimplified, making it hard to understand..
If so, it was my mistake to not quote the threat threshold and threat distances of the the threat threshold portion of the ccw handbook word for word.. Again I apologize. As I choose to take the high road...
WOW! Great post and topic! I think that MOST (not all) medical marijuana users are presented with other options of medication. IE, painkillers, anti-anxiety, anti-psychotic, and bowel diseases (crohn's) treatments. But most of these meds have severe side affects, for these patients medical marijuana was a alternate medication with less side affects...the munchies? And a godsend! A lot of these patients don't even smoke it because of lung related problems. The side affects of a painkiller addiction, even if prescribed by a docter, are a lot worse then the side affects of long term marijuana use.
So to come to my point, these people (medical marijuana users) should NOT be stripped of there right to defend themselves! Especially with the criminal element the govt. has created around marijuana! Should the govt. be confiscating my 80 year old grandmother's gun because she has a prescription to numerous painkillers, muscle relaxers, etc...??? The laws that are currently in place are directly infringing on EVERYONES ability to defend themselves, their family, and home. And they are only getting worse! This is not the FREE country that our founding fathers created!
Sorry i got a little off topic...just my opinion. And Just like <deleted>, everyone has one, and they all stink!
So to come to my point, these people (medical marijuana users) should NOT be stripped of there right to defend themselves! Especially with the criminal element the govt. has created around marijuana! Should the govt. be confiscating my 80 year old grandmother's gun because she has a prescription to numerous painkillers, muscle relaxers, etc...??? The laws that are currently in place are directly infringing on EVERYONES ability to defend themselves, their family, and home. And they are only getting worse! This is not the FREE country that our founding fathers created!
Sorry i got a little off topic...just my opinion. And Just like <deleted>, everyone has one, and they all stink!
Last edited by a moderator:
theicemanmpls
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2011
- Messages
- 297
According to some on here, the feds are everywhere, watching everything on the internet. I have my tin foil hat on has I type.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Right. But what class, what instructing agency, WHAT state? I am very seriously curious who is teaching this material.
Many (most?) states require or offer no class to get a carry permit or license (if they require a license or permit at all), and some states that do require a class will accept a variety of courses ... some of which are of greater or lesser quality.
So, I'm asking which course you got this from, which instructing agency or teacher, and in what state?
I think maybe you overstated some things. There are bits and pieces of what you said that can come into play in a trial. But it's odd stuff to put into a basic concealed carry course, which most would agree should be about what the law actually says.
And, again, I've not yet heard of a state law on lethal force that discusses "threat threshold" nor makes any distinction between justifiable use of force based on WHO is attacking you.
If your state does so, please quote that law so we can all learn something.
I think you may have been reading some general theory section and considering it as legally binding -- or even particularly relevant. Even the Tueller drill -- what most of us instantly think of when you discuss "threat distances" -- is not codified in law anywhere.
The High Road does allow for you to be clear and factual. Start there.
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Look, drug policy is off-topic for THR. Period.
The fact is if you use cannibis, you are federally prohibited from owning a firearm.
Let's have no more discussion of the mechanics of narcotics or other matters not relevant to this discussion.
Maybe exactly true, maybe just "sorta" true.
The fact is anything you say here is written in stone forever, and is discoverable and admissible in court should you find yourself there.
DAP90
Member
I think what Sam is trying to say is your CCW handbook is not the law; even though it may talk about or reference laws. If there’s no specific law that talks about threat threshold then from a legal perspective it doesn’t exist; even if such a concept is specifically mentioned in your CCW handbook.
Now, investigators will certainly look at your relationship with the other individual, but that’s not the same thing as having a different threshold for use of deadly force. They may even look closer at shootings involving friends or family then they would between two complete strangers but again, that’s not a law, that’s just investigators being cynical.
My appoligies...the original post referenced to both gun use, and medical marijuana. I thought that this was probably the only time when drug policy would or COULD be diiscussed on The High Road. Again....my bad.
Quote from original post.
"The second thing I see as a potential problem for my neighbor is he is a medical marijuana grower and user. How does medical marijuana impact Michigan gun rights? "
Quote from original post.
"The second thing I see as a potential problem for my neighbor is he is a medical marijuana grower and user. How does medical marijuana impact Michigan gun rights? "
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Right. And the answer is specifically what we've covered. Use of medical marijuana makes you a prohibited purchaser. And the ATF has said that if you possess a MM card it is reasonable to believe you use the drug and that's a legitimate reason right there for a dealer to refuse a sale to you.
Whether marijuana, or medical cannabis, should be legal is beyond the scope of THR.
Whether marijuana, or medical cannabis, should be legal is beyond the scope of THR.
XxBulletBendeRXx
Member
here you go this is applicable to those in PA.
section (1) is the portion. If can be avoided.. avoid it. however if the "threat threshold" has become high IE: cannot avoid then force is justifiable.
And Section (2) says each situation is different so "the Threat Threshold" is different in each situation.
And i quote my self from earlier post "A Similar example on the extreme side to paint a clear picture of thought: A 6'5 man weighing 280 lbs who is assulted by a elderly woman in her 90's does not inherently require excessive/deadly force, therefore the threat threshold is low. However If the elderly woman is threatened has to use excessive/deadly force to stop the assult and shoots a 6'5 man weighing 280 lbs, the threat threshold is very high.
Here is YOUR PA LAW.....
18 Pa.C.S. § 503: Justification generally
(a) General rule.--Conduct which the actor believes to be necessary to avoid a harm or evil to himself or to another is justifiable if:
(1) the harm or evil sought to be avoided by such conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged;
(2) neither this title nor other law defining the offense provides exceptions or defenses dealing with the specific situation involved; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed does not otherwise plainly appear.
(b) Choice of evils.--When the actor was reckless or negligent in bringing about the situation requiring a choice of harms or evils or in appraising the necessity for his conduct, the justification afforded by this section is unavailable in a prosecution for any offense for which recklessness or negligence, as the case may be, suffices to establish culpability.
Bulletbender, its one thing to be wrong....its another to defend your wrong position after being corrected. One is understandable, one is not. You have yet to prove your point, theresy denying the your right to call me wrong.....you've made the claim, now prove it...prove a shooting involving a shooter and victim that know each other requires more proof to prove self defense than any other SD shootings. You've attempted to do so, but nothing you've posted in regards to the law says such a thing. Long story short is that many SD shootings involve acquaintances, and many have no history of previous problems, documented or otherwise. That doesn't mean a self defense shoot would been seen with suspicion or a presumption of guilt if the facts otherwise supported a valid SD shooting.
XxBulletBendeRXx
Member
Without a doubt I have proven my position, and with a quoted PA Law I might add... Sometimes its just out of the range of a person's scope to comprehend the legal wording. For example the wording in the PA Codes that I found and posted above for reference to the law.... That is why I gave an example with extemes on both sides of the spectrum to paint a clear picture. If this is not within scope, Well I cannot paint a clearer picture without the use of crayons....
- Status