Here's the link to the court information, if anyone can decypher it: http://theweatherman.0catch.com/fish.html
(Also, if anyone knows how to link that ASP data in a URL, please let me know)
What Kind of Advice Is This??
- Thread starter The Rabbi
- Start date
- Status
Here's the link to the court information, if anyone can decypher it: http://theweatherman.0catch.com/fish.html
(Also, if anyone knows how to link that ASP data in a URL, please let me know)
Scenarios like this one are interesting food for thought but not much more. Everyone seems to forget about how quickly these things go down.
The stark reality is you will have a few seconds to decide what you’re going to do.
Anyone that pulls a weapon had better be firing or your gonna eat your own pistol in about 3 of those seconds.
Distance and a lot of it. If the BG peruses you, you’ll have more options and time to make good decisions.
The stark reality is you will have a few seconds to decide what you’re going to do.
Anyone that pulls a weapon had better be firing or your gonna eat your own pistol in about 3 of those seconds.
Distance and a lot of it. If the BG peruses you, you’ll have more options and time to make good decisions.
I cannot hold my $.02 any longer
I spent 28 years in Tae Kwon Do and was very good at the art of self-defense. I have carried a gun for more than 30 years, even during the time that I was at my peck. At 55 I have been in only 5 fights outside of a ring or competition. I have always taught my students (100+) to avoid a fight and leave the area if at all possible. At court to a jury they or I are "weapons". My 2 instructors have both been less than 5'4" tall and white Americans, both can kill you before you have time to pull the gun you are carrying, they also have not been in many fights outside of class. We avoid places that might result in fighting. Now to my point it is not the size of the fighter it is the "fight" in the fighter!! I would attempt to leave the area but if all else fails...shoot to kill. Back in the 70's I was bouncing at a club in LA (yes only 5 fights in 55 years) and had a really bad fight with a drunken customer that was (later learned) released from jail that morning after 15 years. He lost but it was bloody on both sides. Late that night he and 2 friends came back to the club and after a 30-minute gun fight there were 3 dead BG's. We were cleared and no one went to jail. It was just a bad night for the BG's. I hope nothing like that will happen again BUT?? You never know. At my current age and physical shape the GUN would have to be used from the start. In the first post the shooting would be wrong...Just my $.02 worth.
I spent 28 years in Tae Kwon Do and was very good at the art of self-defense. I have carried a gun for more than 30 years, even during the time that I was at my peck. At 55 I have been in only 5 fights outside of a ring or competition. I have always taught my students (100+) to avoid a fight and leave the area if at all possible. At court to a jury they or I are "weapons". My 2 instructors have both been less than 5'4" tall and white Americans, both can kill you before you have time to pull the gun you are carrying, they also have not been in many fights outside of class. We avoid places that might result in fighting. Now to my point it is not the size of the fighter it is the "fight" in the fighter!! I would attempt to leave the area but if all else fails...shoot to kill. Back in the 70's I was bouncing at a club in LA (yes only 5 fights in 55 years) and had a really bad fight with a drunken customer that was (later learned) released from jail that morning after 15 years. He lost but it was bloody on both sides. Late that night he and 2 friends came back to the club and after a 30-minute gun fight there were 3 dead BG's. We were cleared and no one went to jail. It was just a bad night for the BG's. I hope nothing like that will happen again BUT?? You never know. At my current age and physical shape the GUN would have to be used from the start. In the first post the shooting would be wrong...Just my $.02 worth.
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
Rabbi,
I'd like to be helpful here. Please accept what I say in that spirit.
How long has it been since you hired a lawyer? Have you ever had to defend yourself against serious felony charges? Do you know the financial and emotional cost of going through a major court battle where the state has practically unlimited legal power and financial resources to pit against you?
Please think about that. Take a day off and go sit in court, if you have never been there. Not where the minor misdemeanor stuff is tried, but the heavy duty felony trials.
Visualize yourself as the defendant.
Because that is where you are headed with this particular attitude, as nearly as I can tell. I have never lived in your home state, I do not know its laws or its outlook, but without too much trouble or expense right now you can find a practicing attorney who can give you a lot better advice than I can. I heartily suggest you go find one, and soon. It sounds to me as if you are headed for trouble if you ever do start swapping bullets for punches under the circumstances you describe.
FWIW I am 51 years old, a state trained CCW instructor in my home state, was an NRA instructor in three areas, and carry regularly. I held a CCW permit for many years in my previous state of residence. And I can tell you I would do everything possible to avoid fisticuffs outside my home. I have no shame in saying that, because I know that The State has no interest in how good a citizen I have been all my life- or how much of a slimeball my assailant was. All it takes is a crusading DA or a gunhating prosecutor and you are in for the battle of your life no matter how much in the right you were.
You asked- you might not like my answer, but there it is. Please do talk with a practicing defense attorney, preferably one who shoots.
Before you have to hire one...
lpl/nc
I'd like to be helpful here. Please accept what I say in that spirit.
How long has it been since you hired a lawyer? Have you ever had to defend yourself against serious felony charges? Do you know the financial and emotional cost of going through a major court battle where the state has practically unlimited legal power and financial resources to pit against you?
Please think about that. Take a day off and go sit in court, if you have never been there. Not where the minor misdemeanor stuff is tried, but the heavy duty felony trials.
Visualize yourself as the defendant.
Because that is where you are headed with this particular attitude, as nearly as I can tell. I have never lived in your home state, I do not know its laws or its outlook, but without too much trouble or expense right now you can find a practicing attorney who can give you a lot better advice than I can. I heartily suggest you go find one, and soon. It sounds to me as if you are headed for trouble if you ever do start swapping bullets for punches under the circumstances you describe.
FWIW I am 51 years old, a state trained CCW instructor in my home state, was an NRA instructor in three areas, and carry regularly. I held a CCW permit for many years in my previous state of residence. And I can tell you I would do everything possible to avoid fisticuffs outside my home. I have no shame in saying that, because I know that The State has no interest in how good a citizen I have been all my life- or how much of a slimeball my assailant was. All it takes is a crusading DA or a gunhating prosecutor and you are in for the battle of your life no matter how much in the right you were.
You asked- you might not like my answer, but there it is. Please do talk with a practicing defense attorney, preferably one who shoots.
Before you have to hire one...
lpl/nc
Interesting read. FWIW, I saw the post on the other forum and I know some of the guys who responded, like Federal LEO's, respected firearms and self defense trainers, and one of them is even a prosecuting attorney. I don't know what The Rabbi expected to hear differently on this forum.
I dont know what your home state is. But if it is one that makes you endure a beating or the likelihood of one I suggest you move. If it is one that views CCW holders as a bunch of Dirty Harrys who need to be prosecuted for spitting, then you should move. If it is one that prosecutes people for defending themselves from reasonable fear of death or bodily harm, then you should move. If it is one that includes ads for defense attorneys on the back of the CCW permit, then you should definitely move.
But if your state is like TN and recognizes that people should not have to get down in the "mud, the blood, and the beer", that clearly sees the difference between someone spoiling for a fight and someone avoiding one, has prosecutors with better things to do than press charges against citizens acting within the law, then you must have missed something in your classes.
I am only aware of two cases here where CCW holders were prosecuted. In one, the storekeeper chased the would-be robber out of his store, shot him to the ground, and then finished him off on the sidewalk.
In the other, the CCW foiled a flower shop robbery, the felon ran out the back, the holder ran after him into the alley way and trapped him. When felon drew a knife CCW holder shot and killed him. These two were charged but I am not certain the grand jury indicted the second guy. But they were clearly outside the law.
But if your state is like TN and recognizes that people should not have to get down in the "mud, the blood, and the beer", that clearly sees the difference between someone spoiling for a fight and someone avoiding one, has prosecutors with better things to do than press charges against citizens acting within the law, then you must have missed something in your classes.
I am only aware of two cases here where CCW holders were prosecuted. In one, the storekeeper chased the would-be robber out of his store, shot him to the ground, and then finished him off on the sidewalk.
In the other, the CCW foiled a flower shop robbery, the felon ran out the back, the holder ran after him into the alley way and trapped him. When felon drew a knife CCW holder shot and killed him. These two were charged but I am not certain the grand jury indicted the second guy. But they were clearly outside the law.
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
yeaaaaah, rigght....like its the laws of my state that have guided my decision making process, and not my common sense. 
only1asterisk
member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,412
I think it should go without saying that the only time deadly force should be used is when the immediate threat is of more concern than your arrest and trial. If you are forced to defend yourself with a gun, you will be arrested. You will need a lawyer. You will end up in court. It doesn't matter if your attacker is holding a shotgun or nothing at all. If you're in a situation were the thought of going to prison concerns you more than the threat before you, you probably don't need to be shooting anyone right then.
Otherwise, after doing all you can to avoid a physical altercation, I see no reason to expose yourself to harm because on a jury is going Monday morning quarterback.
If it's a fight, fair has nothing to do with it.
David
Otherwise, after doing all you can to avoid a physical altercation, I see no reason to expose yourself to harm because on a jury is going Monday morning quarterback.
If it's a fight, fair has nothing to do with it.
David
joab
Member
Typical ,somebody that admittedly has no experience on a subject must resort to insults against the the people who disagree with them. Even though he acknowledges that they are probably more experienced on the subject.
Probably because the rest know enough not to shoot unarmed people for scaring them with bad manners
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
if every fistfight ended up with a fatality or a life-threatening injury, the hospitals would be bursting at the seams with all the admitted patients.
getting to be about quitting time. think i'll head over to the watering hole and see how many wimps i can knock out with a single punch while complaining about how broke i am.
getting to be about quitting time. think i'll head over to the watering hole and see how many wimps i can knock out with a single punch while complaining about how broke i am.
Who said anything about shooting people because they looked spooky? Looking spooky and presenting a threat seem like very different propositions to me.
Maybe I can try this another way:
1) Are people who are unarmed capable of inflicting death or severe bodily harm?
2) When faced with a reasonable fear of incurring imminent death or severe bodily harm can you draw your weapon and neutralize the threat?
Anyone who answers no to these questions needs to explain it to me.
Looking spooky and presenting a threat seem like very different propositions to me.Maybe I can try this another way:
1) Are people who are unarmed capable of inflicting death or severe bodily harm?
2) When faced with a reasonable fear of incurring imminent death or severe bodily harm can you draw your weapon and neutralize the threat?
Anyone who answers no to these questions needs to explain it to me.
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
well rabbi you began this thread as such:
therefore you have given us all the idea that you are an irresponsible person that is pretty much itching to put all that range time to work.
yes, i do agree that an unarmed person can indeed pose a threat.
yes a much smaller person can indeed inflict great injury upon me.
yes a far larger person can whoop my butt.
however, i do feel a need to have other options at my disposal. why do you need that concept explained to you?
you painted a picture of yourself as one who is deathly afraid of old disabled men who come at you. you gave us the idea that you only want to use a firearm as the only means of self defense.
therefore you have given us all the idea that you are an irresponsible person that is pretty much itching to put all that range time to work.
yes, i do agree that an unarmed person can indeed pose a threat.
yes a much smaller person can indeed inflict great injury upon me.
yes a far larger person can whoop my butt.
however, i do feel a need to have other options at my disposal. why do you need that concept explained to you?
Well, I think we're getting somewhere. If I gave the impression (despite numerous provisos) that I would pull a gun and shoot someone just because I didnt like how they were looking at me, then I apologize for that. It was not my intent nor do I believe that.
So if we are in agreement on the two questions then why do you feel the need to have "other options"? By other options I mean something other than avoiding the situation in the first place or somehow trying to mollify the person before getting away. Let's assume those were tried and failed. Now we agree that there is a justified shoot here. So why would you want to try something that stands a good chance of not being effective with the result that you might be killed, injured, or charged by the guy because he sure isnt going to admit he did anything wrong?
This was the part of the original question that bothers me. Just because someone is unarmed and even if he is demonstrably weaker than you are you always unjustified in shooting? The responses I had read seemed to say yes and this is the part I dont get.
So if we are in agreement on the two questions then why do you feel the need to have "other options"? By other options I mean something other than avoiding the situation in the first place or somehow trying to mollify the person before getting away. Let's assume those were tried and failed. Now we agree that there is a justified shoot here. So why would you want to try something that stands a good chance of not being effective with the result that you might be killed, injured, or charged by the guy because he sure isnt going to admit he did anything wrong?
This was the part of the original question that bothers me. Just because someone is unarmed and even if he is demonstrably weaker than you are you always unjustified in shooting? The responses I had read seemed to say yes and this is the part I dont get.
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
some time back, the wonderful un-biased MTV
did some show where they took people who had one point of view and threw them into staged situations where the complete opposite opinion was presented. the one episode that relates to this topic was a gun-loving youngster who was still in high school, and was adamant about his right to protect himself. he may have been a true nutjob, or it may have been careful editing by MTV, whose to say for sure, right? however, this kid came across saying "if anyone gets in my face, i'll shoot them!"
i know there are people out there that share that same viewpoint, if you look at them sideways they will retaliate. and thats the type of people i dont want to be lumped in with. i dont want to be labeled as a dangerous person that makes a rash decision to use deadly force when less than deadly force is an option.
yes, its armchair quarterbacking 9 times out of 10 to say that someone should have used something else to stop an attack. i know that. but we do it to law enforcement, right? when we hear of a cop using a taser on a grandma that is trespassing, or zaps a child (still in single digit age) that is running towards them with a knife.
if we, as sane, rational, peaceable conservatives are willing to be so critical of the actions of a law enforcement officer who is in situations we will never be in, its a given that our actions will be scrutinized even more so.
if you are backed into a corner, then your options are limited. you might need to jump straight to deadly force to save yourself. but if you have let it get to that point, either the situation was more than you could handle from the get go, or you failed to choose other outs earlier.
every time a person does make a rash decision to use deadly force, it affects us all. its more ammo for the antis to use in their arguments that we are not capable of using firearms in self defense. not to mention it really makes life miserable for the person who chose to shoot.
First Post Ever. Had to.
I think you should really talk to a lawyer about your chosen course of action to a perceived threat. I only looked for a short time on Tennessee's Court of Criminal Appeals page, and found the following case which is a similar situation to what you're describing, although both parties in this case seem to have been gang members, the case is similar.
http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/tsc/pdf/014/fraziertorrey.pdf
The document raises an important point regarding Second degree murder convictions, as well as self defense defenses, and also mentions other similar cases, State vs Wilson, State v Sims, State V Goode, and State v Ivy. I suggest you read the details of those cases as well. If you believe that you'll get off scot free because you say "self defense", you are mistaken. There is at least one person in tennessee state prison who shot someone in self defense.
This being my first post and all, I don't want you all to get the wrong impression of me. I'm not an anti. I'm pro second ammendment and pro shall issue ccw, but I think the Rabbi's course of action is foolhardy.
FORTRAN
I think you should really talk to a lawyer about your chosen course of action to a perceived threat. I only looked for a short time on Tennessee's Court of Criminal Appeals page, and found the following case which is a similar situation to what you're describing, although both parties in this case seem to have been gang members, the case is similar.
http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/tsc/pdf/014/fraziertorrey.pdf
The document raises an important point regarding Second degree murder convictions, as well as self defense defenses, and also mentions other similar cases, State vs Wilson, State v Sims, State V Goode, and State v Ivy. I suggest you read the details of those cases as well. If you believe that you'll get off scot free because you say "self defense", you are mistaken. There is at least one person in tennessee state prison who shot someone in self defense.
This being my first post and all, I don't want you all to get the wrong impression of me. I'm not an anti. I'm pro second ammendment and pro shall issue ccw, but I think the Rabbi's course of action is foolhardy.
FORTRAN
Shootcraps
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,007
Good first post. Welcome to the forum.
Powderman
Member
My friend, please, PLEASE re-evaluate your decision to carry a concealed firearm, or to use deadly force.
So far, everything you have mentioned in this post WILL get you arrested for (at the very least) Second-Degree Murder.
Laws DO vary from State to State, sometimes markedly so. However, there is one common thread about the use of deadly force.
1. Deadly force can be used only under IMMEDIATE and IMMINENT threat of death or serious bodily harm. Serious bodily harm is usually defined as that harm which would cause the possible permanent loss of a limb or eyesight.
2. Imminent means that the person threatening MUST be in a position to carry out the threat. In short, the guy who is unarmed shouting obscenities is NOT in a position to carry out a threat.
3. For you to shoot an unarmed man, there MUST be an articulation of disparity of force. As an example, if someone you recognized as a pro wrestler or a world-class martial artist came after you, then it MIGHT be a good shoot. It's still up to the jury.
No flame intended, but your frame of mind will get you put in prison, will cause you to lose your possessions, will put your family at risk, and will ruin your life forever.
If you have any questions about using a firearm, there IS an option that will practically negate the risk, and in fact is specifically meant to be used against combative unarmed individuals. It's worth a look.
http://www.taser.com/self_defense/index.htm
Fortran,
Thanks for the cite. In looking at it one interesting thing comes up immediately: the presumption of innocence of the defendent (meaning the shooter). In the relevant case that got stripped off but in general that is the standard, what Ayoob calls the "mantle of innocence." I take this to mean that if someone says, and it seems likely, that he felt he was in immediate danger, then the courts cannot second guess him on this. (Look at the thread with the walker who shot the man whose dogs attacked him)
The case you cited seems at first glance to be one involving two gang members. They knew each other, they had a history of hostility, in all they were "primed" to go at it. This is far from anything I could contemplate and actually not very relevant.
Spaceman, I cant agree more with you. People who appear to be spoiling for a fight are the last ones who should CCW.
But I will disagree that we should be held to the same standards as cops. Police go on duty specially equipped and trained, usually with back-up a call away. The rest of us just dont have that. In my mind, once a physical confrontation is forced on someone the choice is not deadly force or less than lethal. It is deadly force or capitulation. I would hate to be fumbling with my pepper spray (do those things malfunction ever??) while my supposedly unarmed assailant suddenly produces a knife and plunges it into my chest.
Thanks for the cite. In looking at it one interesting thing comes up immediately: the presumption of innocence of the defendent (meaning the shooter). In the relevant case that got stripped off but in general that is the standard, what Ayoob calls the "mantle of innocence." I take this to mean that if someone says, and it seems likely, that he felt he was in immediate danger, then the courts cannot second guess him on this. (Look at the thread with the walker who shot the man whose dogs attacked him)
The case you cited seems at first glance to be one involving two gang members. They knew each other, they had a history of hostility, in all they were "primed" to go at it. This is far from anything I could contemplate and actually not very relevant.
Spaceman, I cant agree more with you. People who appear to be spoiling for a fight are the last ones who should CCW.
But I will disagree that we should be held to the same standards as cops. Police go on duty specially equipped and trained, usually with back-up a call away. The rest of us just dont have that. In my mind, once a physical confrontation is forced on someone the choice is not deadly force or less than lethal. It is deadly force or capitulation. I would hate to be fumbling with my pepper spray (do those things malfunction ever??) while my supposedly unarmed assailant suddenly produces a knife and plunges it into my chest.
Given the situation, what would those be? Talking and retreat have failed already. Someone mentioned drawing the gun and preparing to fire and if that immediately defuses the situation then good. But getting into a fisticuffs match just doesnt seem like a viable option to me.
Actually, you're mistaken about this, too.
Claiming self-defense in court is the equivalent of saying, "I stipulate that I did the act, and here is my reason for doing the act." This is known as an Affirmative Defense.
Most other types of legal defenses amount to, "Some other dude did it," or "THAT other dude did it."
By stipulating that YOU are the dude that did the act, you have removed the burden of proof from the state (which otherwise would have had to prove YOU did it), and have taken that burden of proof onto your own shoulders. You must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you had a legally appropriate reason to do what you did.
This means that your mere words are no longer sufficient; you must have some level of proof. You must be able to articulate why it was reasonable to believe that your life was in danger at the moment you pulled the trigger -- and you must be able to document the reasons for your belief.
Example of documenting reasons for belief: If you believe you are in mortal danger if a man threatens you with a knife from clear across the room, it will serve you well in court if you can document that someone once taught you the Tueller Drill -- and that you learned it before your deadly encounter. Having read it on the internet somewhere probably isn't proof enough. Better would be if you had written documentation of participating in the drill at some point, and what you learned from it -- or if you could point to an authoritative book or magazine article addressing the question which has your dated signature in the margin.
On the face of it, your assertion that you would be in mortal danger if a man of the same age, weight, and general physical condition were to attack you is not a reasonable assertion. No jury is going to believe that assertion based merely on your own words. If you persist in believing so, you would do well to find some authenticable research which asserts the same thing, and set about documenting that you knew this information before you gunned down an unarmed man.
pax
carpettbaggerr
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2003
- Messages
- 1,676
Unarmed? No, you may be justified in shooting. Unarmed and demonstrably weaker than you? I doubt that will be proven justifiable in court. And I am absolutely certain that shooting an unarmed man who is demonstrably weaker than you will have you on trial for murder. In any State in the Union.
You seem to be saying you would use your handgun to avoid a physical altercation, even with someone you know is far weaker than you. Because you fear any fight can cause you grievous bodily harm. As I said before, I don't think many people would find that to be a reasonable fear.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but I do know Fish is currently on trial for murder.
I second the suggestion you should speak with a lawyer. You should also speak with your local prosecutor.
Pax,
I think you are mistaken here. Look at the opinion cited again. The court writes:
Once raised, the state bears the burden of negating a claim that the accused acted in self-defense.
It is the state's responsibility to show that the accused did not reasonably believe that force was immediately necessary to protect. Note, not whether force actually was necessary or not but whether the defendent reasonably believed it was. The state does not second-guess tactics. The defendent merely claims this and it is up to the state to disprove that claim. That is a hard burden to get 12 people to agree that, no you really werent in reasonable fear.
You were also wrong on not being able to pick who can be on the jury. Go search the phrase "voir dire."
If the state can negate the self-defense claim then you are right, they can bring 2nd degree murder charges. They did in the Frazier case because the jury (probably rightly) didnt buy the self-defense plea.
But it is interesting that in the thread on the dog walker you were pretty supportive of the shooter. Depending on the exact circumstances I thought he was out of line. And yet he has not been convicted, not yet anway.
I think you are mistaken here. Look at the opinion cited again. The court writes:
Once raised, the state bears the burden of negating a claim that the accused acted in self-defense.
It is the state's responsibility to show that the accused did not reasonably believe that force was immediately necessary to protect. Note, not whether force actually was necessary or not but whether the defendent reasonably believed it was. The state does not second-guess tactics. The defendent merely claims this and it is up to the state to disprove that claim. That is a hard burden to get 12 people to agree that, no you really werent in reasonable fear.
You were also wrong on not being able to pick who can be on the jury. Go search the phrase "voir dire."
If the state can negate the self-defense claim then you are right, they can bring 2nd degree murder charges. They did in the Frazier case because the jury (probably rightly) didnt buy the self-defense plea.
But it is interesting that in the thread on the dog walker you were pretty supportive of the shooter. Depending on the exact circumstances I thought he was out of line. And yet he has not been convicted, not yet anway.
- Status