This one is for all the members who think their social media posts won’t get them in trouble

[WTBguns10kOK]

You are misleading yourself vey badly.

If by chance you want to learn something before getting into real trouble, buy Attorney Andrew Branca's book on The Law of Self Defense. and study it carefully. It will tell you all you need to know.

"What's going on" hasn't really changed much since the days of George Washington, or the days of Geoffrey Chaucer for that matter. except for one key thing: most of us no longer have a duty to retreat before employing force to defend ourselves,

In what way am I misleading myself. Good to know one book has everything a person needs to know. Also, let's hear how "real trouble" is going to occur.

 

[toivo]

If they can't convincingly claim #1, then #2 is all they're left with.

People have used accidental discharge as defense as well, or in a recent case with a certain celebrity that the gun fired itself. He'll likely get off entirely, but if he'd had a history of derogatory comments and threats against directors and camera workers, there's a good chance the charges would have stuck.

Good point -- I hadn't thought of that. If there was only one bullet wound, that could work too.

 

[Kleanbore]

In what way am I misleading myself.

If you believe, as you have implied, that the legal system treats self defense claims materially different today from the way that the way they were handled in years past, you are mistaken. There used to be a duty to retreat almost everywhere, and that has changed, and we are now afforded more leeway if our occupied homes or conveyances are invaded, but other than that, things have remained largely unchanged since the time of Blackstone.

Good to know one book has everything a person needs to know

It covers everything I can think of regarding self defense.

Also, let's hear how "real trouble" is going to occur.

I did not say it is going to occur. But if a legal defense of self defense fails on any one of the required elements, one loses the whole shebang.

 

[WTBguns10kOK]

If you believe, as you have implied, that the legal system treats self defense claims materially different today from the way that the way they were handled in years past, you are mistaken. There used to be a duty to retreat almost everywhere, and that has changed, and we are now afforded more leeway if our occupied homes or conveyances are invaded, but other than that, things have remained largely unchanged since the time of Blackstone.
It covers everything I can think of regarding self defense.
I did not say it is going to occur. But if a legal defense of self defense fails on any one of the required elements, one loses the whole shebang.

I can't help you notice the trend of current events, it seems you're willfully remaining ignorant. Gotta have the desire to learn.

What page does the book discuss which individuals which represent the biggest violent threat to other citizens in the U.S.?

 

[Kleanbore]

I can't help you notice the trend of current events, it seems you're willfully remaining ignorant. Gotta have the desire to learn.

What are you talking about?

What page does the book discuss which individuals which represent the biggest violent threat to other citizens in the U.S.?

The book is about the law of self defense.

If you are talking about what has been gong on in the streets and how it is being handled, the point is serious, but it is entirely irrelevant to the trial of Sgt. Perry, and it cannot justify his actions.

 

[The Last Outlaw]

If you believe, as you have implied, that the legal system treats self defense claims materially different today from the way that the way they were handled in years past, you are mistaken. There used to be a duty to retreat almost everywhere, and that has changed, and we are now afforded more leeway if our occupied homes or conveyances are invaded, but other than that, things have remained largely unchanged since the time of Blackstone.
It covers everything I can think of regarding self defense.
I did not say it is going to occur. But if a legal defense of self defense fails on any one of the required elements, one loses the whole shebang.

I seem to recall a number of self defense shootings in the Old West that didn’t even go to trial. So I would say the way self defense is treated by the legal system has most certainly changed.

 

[MEHavey]

If you want to water your eyes as to the supposed "Old West" purview on shootings . . . and their legal aftermath,
look no further than the OK corral:

https://www.famous-trials.com/earp/503-home (Whole hearing summary)

https://www.famous-trials.com/earp/521-vearptestimony (Virgil)
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/earp/wearptestimony.html

 

[The Last Outlaw]

If you want to water your eyes as to the supposed "Old West" purview on shootings . . . and their legal aftermath,
look no further than the OK corral:

https://www.famous-trials.com/earp/503-home (Whole hearing summary)

https://www.famous-trials.com/earp/521-vearptestimony (Virgil)
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/earp/wearptestimony.html

There’s one example. Here’s one too, acquitted after a three day trial. Show me where it happens that quickly today.

https://www.springfieldmo.gov/1839/Wild-Bill-Hickoks-Shootout-on-the-Square

 

[Kleanbore]

I seem to recall a number of self defense shootings in the Old West that didn’t even go to trial. So I would say the way self defense is treated by the legal system has most certainly changed.

I recall a number of recent SD shootings that did not go to trial.

 

[The Last Outlaw]

I recall a number of recent SD shootings that did not go to trial.

Of the ones that did, I wonder how many only lasted a few days?

 

[Kleanbore]

Of the ones that did, I wonder how many only lasted a few days?

Most murder and maslaugther trials last less than a week.

Overall, around 5% go to trial. The vast majority of arrests for murder and manslaughter end in plea bargains.

One cannot say anything about SD-specific arrests, because the vast majority of SD claims are bogus.

Because there are so few charges involving incidents that may really constitute legitimate SD, there are few criminal defense attorneys with the experience and expertise to handle the defense.

 

[WTBguns10kOK]

It covers everything I can think of regarding self defense.

The book is about the law of self defense.

Ah, that's a bit more specific. Where does it talk about how after a lawful defense of your person that the police are allowed to lie to you in the course of their investigation, but you can't lie to them?

 

[Jeff White]

Ah, that's a bit more specific. Where does it talk about how after a lawful defense of your person that the police are allowed to lie to you in the course of their investigation, but you can't lie to them?

Why would you need to lie to the police if your claim of self defense was actually lawful?

 

[Howland937]

Because I can't find one that depicts banging its head on the wall. Nothing ruins a legitimately insightful thread quicker than irrelevant conjecture.

Nobody's "allowed to lie". Police can be changed with perjury just as quickly as any other witness. If the lying occured before trial, it's called a falsified statement. Glad we have juries to sort out the truth. Not that any of it has anything to do with the discussion at hand.

 

[Kleanbore]

Where does it talk about how after a lawful defense of your person that the police are allowed to lie to you in the course of their investigation, but you can't lie to them.

That the police are allowed to lie has nothing to do with self defense--or with this forum, for that matter.

 

[bdickens]

Ah, that's a bit more specific. Where does it talk about how after a lawful defense of your person that the police are allowed to lie to you in the course of their investigation, but you can't lie to them?

Well bless your heart....

 

[WTBguns10kOK]

Because I can't find one that depicts banging its head on the wall. Nothing ruins a legitimately insightful thread quicker than irrelevant conjecture.

Nobody's "allowed to lie". Police can be changed with perjury just as quickly as any other witness. If the lying occured before trial, it's called a falsified statement. Glad we have juries to sort out the truth. Not that any of it has anything to do with the discussion at hand.

The post immediately following yours illustrates your statement to be false.

 

[WTBguns10kOK]

That the police are allowed to lie has nothing to do with self defense--or with this forum, for that matter.

Ah, noteworthy you are not able to answer my direct question regarding the book. It very much has to do with how you handle yourself immediately after a self defense encounter/incident, especially if still on scene.

 

[Howland937]

The post immediately following yours illustrates your statement to be false.

I doubt his wording was meant as agreement that police are allowed to lie. He will weigh in and correct it because he's keenly aware that police are NOT in fact, allowed to lie. Mr. @Kleanbore?

 

[WTBguns10kOK]

Why would you need to lie to the police if your claim of self defense was actually lawful?

Wrong question. Why would the police need lie to intimidate someone who is innocent? But you're asking a question not relevant to what I asked the other guy. I asked the other guy a direct question whether a self defense concept is included in a book that he brought up.

 

[WTBguns10kOK]

I doubt his wording was meant as agreement that police are allowed to lie. He will weigh in and correct it because he's keenly aware that police are NOT in fact, allowed to lie. Mr. @Kleanbore?

Ya, it's a begrudging agreement.

 

[Kleanbore]

Ah, noteworthy you are not able to answer my direct question regarding the book. It very much has to do with how you handle yourself immediately after a self defense encounter/incident, especially if still on scene.

Hogwash!

I asked the other guy a direct question whether a self defense concept is included in a book that he brought up.

Legal duties of the police regarding truthfulness are by no means a "self defense concept--at all, period.

 

[Kleanbore]

I doubt his wording was meant as agreement that police are allowed to lie. He will weigh in and correct it because he's keenly aware that police are NOT in fact, allowed to lie. Mr. @Kleanbore?

Police officers may not perjure themslves under oath, but they are not required to be truthful in interrogations, etc.

That is completely irrelevant to the thread, but it is something that people should know.

 

[Jeff White]

Wrong question. Why would the police need lie to intimidate someone who is innocent? But you're asking a question not relevant to what I asked the other guy. I asked the other guy a direct question whether a self defense concept is included in a book that he brought up.

If you want to talk about that start a thread in legal. You know darn well that’s off topic here.

 

[WTBguns10kOK]

If you want to talk about that start a thread in legal. You know darn well that’s off topic here.

Asking me a question regarding a post I made, then claiming it belongs in legal when you don't like the response is exactly what I expected, sadly.