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.
Hope the feds don't use Google
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.In a word, no. No state laws that I'm aware of differentiate between known assailant and one unknown to the victim. There is NO requirement that restraining orders or other documentation exist for an "acquaintance" shooting....many people are forced to defend themselves from assailants they may know in some capacity or another, be it a family member, co-worker, etc. Merely knowing the person who were forced to take action against doesn't equate a presumption of guilt or even a hint of guilt. A justified shooting will be ruled as justified regardless of relationship. A shooting involving someone previously known the shooter may trigger a more in depth investigation, but hat is to be expected
Mighty generous of you to make allowances like that.You sir are wrong. But that is OK.
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?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.
Certainly. Or with unknown individuals.IF you have had confrontation with known individuals you should make a paper trail of such events.
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.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.
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.Of course if your life is in imminent danger then deadly force is justified.
How do you know? Do you have more information than the rest of us here?It was not in this case,
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.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.
Only place I know of given exclusively over to federal law is Washington DC -let them make all the BS laws they wanna in DC
A state (so far, and until the SCOTUS says otherwise...) cannot declare federal law not in force.
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.
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.
What...the heck...are you talking about?Just refer to your ccw handbook or pay attention in your next renewal course.
You might learn a thing or two... best of luck.
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..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.
Right. But what class, what instructing agency, WHAT state? I am very seriously curious who is teaching this material.Referring to the CCW handbook given to you as part of the class upon completion
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...... 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..
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.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
The High Road does allow for you to be clear and factual. Start there.As I choose to take the high road...
Look, drug policy is off-topic for THR. Period.So to come to my point, these people (medical marijuana users) should NOT be stripped of there right to defend themselves!
Maybe exactly true, maybe just "sorta" true.According to some on here, the feds are everywhere, watching everything on the internet. I have my tin foil hat on has I type.
Referring to the CCW handbook given to you as part of the class upon completion
here you go this is applicable to those in PA. section (1) is the portion.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.
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....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.