Whats wrong with people?

[Bazooka Joe71]

Bazooka_Joe,

It's not my panties that are in a bunch, it's my humanity... i am deeply offended that people could consider "law" being above dealing with someone who is blatantly beating a child to death.

I consider no law to trump the life of a 2 year old child.

I also don't take criticism personally, so i thank you for debating.

Actually, I wasn't trying to criticize at all...The "panties in a bunch" thing is something I sometimes overuse, but it wasn't meant as criticism.

I can totally see how you would be offended that someone could consider "law" above handling a grown (fill in the blank, because "man" doesn't fit) beating a child...That wasn't the question though; the question was "would it be legal," so if anything, you should be mad at the OP not the 7 people that answered his/her question.

 

[rainbowbob]

...the question was "would it be legal," so if anything, you should be mad at the OP...

Yes...but the OP also included this option in the poll:

I do not know but I would have shot any way and let the law figure it out!

 

[LegalAlien]

The 2007 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE View Entire Chapter

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

In FL it would a good way to dispose of the sick element in the gene pool

 

[Dravur]

two part answer

Yes, I would have shot the guy, no doubt in my mind. I hope I would not even hesitate. I would do it.

Now, after the fact, upon time to reflect, I might wonder what the state would do, but at least I would have done the right thing in the first place.

 

[REOIV]

My gut reaction wouldn't even be to shoot but to put myself between the guy and the kid and then pound him until he stopped.

Course I'm 6'8" and 350lbs so my viewpoint is skewed.

 

[Bazooka Joe71]

First of all, I'm not one little bit mad at the OP for asking the question, but:

...the question was "would it be legal," so if anything, you should be mad at the OP...

Yes...but the OP also included this option in the poll:
Quote:

I do not know but I would have shot any way and let the law figure it out!

That's not the point of what Dark_Harvest was saying...Yes, the OP included that option, but what he is saying is he is mad that the fact that the law is even a consideration is ridiculous:

i am deeply offended that people could consider "law" being above dealing with someone who is blatantly beating a child to death.

 

[akodo]

part of me wishs lethal force wasn't only allowed, but required.

 

[Houston Tom]

In Texas the answer is yes, and I would have used deadly force even if I knew that the law was against me to try and save that child

 

[Dark_Harvest]

I'm not mad at anyone! (except the guy in the news...)

 

[Defensory]

"One of the witnesses, Deborah McKain of nearby Crows Landing, said she was the first to pull up to the beating scene with her boyfriend, a volunteer fire chief who is 52, as well as her 20-year-old son, her son's wife and her son's male friend. They called 911 at 10:13 p.m., police said.

Over the next seven minutes, McKain said, Aguiar kicked his son at least 100 times as he calmly stated that he needed to "get the demons out" of the boy.

"It was like I was on some type of drug or something," McKain recalled Tuesday. "I couldn't believe what was going on. It was like a dream."

She said her boyfriend, Dan Robinson, forcefully argued with Aguiar in an effort to get him to stop, but that he would not. At one point, another woman, 23-year-old Lisa Mota, pulled up in her car, but stayed inside.

"We were looking for rocks or boards on the ground, just to knock him out, get him under control. But we couldn't find anything," McKain said. "We didn't know if he had a knife or any kind of weapon on him."

McKain said she wondered whether Aguiar was on hallucinogenic drugs and whether fighting with him might lead him to hurt several of the witnesses.

She also said it appeared the child was "gone."

People who are second-guessing her and her family can "never know until they're in that situation," McKain said. "We would have loved to knock his head off, too, but we had nothing to knock it off with.""

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/18/BA2G11ARO9.DTL

 

[alsaqr]

No problem with shooting the perp in OK.

 

[Catherine]

I would have tried to STOP the criminal hurting the VICTIM = child or anyone else for that matter.

One man hit the nail on the head.

In so MANY states and towns... the only people who pack heat (Allowed according to the 'law'.) are police and CRIMINALS. Otherwise if you are an honest citizen who packs heat for self preservation and for anyone else's protection - YOU end up being a criminal according to the "LAW". They ignore the SECOND and say it does not count!

People are upset at this killing of this child and yet thousands of babies are killed because people did not use birth control. Abortions are not always due to rape. THOUSANDS are killed in WARS, through lack of medical care, living conditions, dirty aka NON potable water, starvation, etc. Tyrants and criminals of all kinds kill babies, children, adults - innocent ones all of the time worldwide.

THIS gets your attention. Good. Wake up and smell the coffee elsewhere.

I am very sad that this innocent child died.

YES, I do wonder what is wrong with people. The criminals, the lawmakers, the ones who uphold those illegal 'laws', the hate filled perps, the power hungry tyrants in this day and age and warmongers.

Catherine

 

[La Pistoletta]

In Sweden I'd be charged with illegal possesion of firearm, illegal use of firearm, carrying a deadly weapon in public, and 1st degree murder or manslaughter. Sentence: life in prison.

The image of a victim being beat to death while the government holds his hands behind his back is the image of our brave new world.

It all makes me question the very premise of humanitity...are we basically good or are we basically evil...or are we just gussied up animals?

Take solace in the fact that there is no "we". Humans are not bees or ants.

there is a special place in hell for the 7 (so far) people who voted they would not be legally justified in shooting this "man."

Special place in hell for accurately describing the law as it is where they live...?

 

[Zedicus]

legal or not I would have sent that filth to the morgue.

 

[jon_in_wv]

I have a hard time making excuses for the people that didn't stop him. I don't believe several cars pulled over and all of them were invalids, elderly, or pregnant women? The fact that none of them, regardless of size or ability had the fortitude to perform their civic DUTY and save this child is sickening to me. If someone isn't physically able to defend themselves they should have the MEANS to defend themselves with them. It doesn't have to me a firearm.
Also, most states will allow you to transport a firearms without CCW. A cased firearm can be transported in most states. They would have had time to load it, and use it. We in the US are too used to calling 911 and crying for help. I live in WV, most would say its full of hillbillies but I'll tell you what, they know what it means to take care of yourself and each other. I don't think this would have happened here. Someone would have punched this guys ticket, THEN called 911.

 

[HK G3]

According to the CCW course I took in the state of AZ, you would not be legally justified.

But, honestly, I'd have shot him.

Which one is going to win out in the heat of the moment, while witnessing something horrific like this? Years of developing a strong sense of right vs. wrong, or an 8 hour course that I took awhile ago? Hmmm....

People are upset at this killing of this child and yet thousands of babies are killed because people did not use birth control. Abortions are not always due to rape. THOUSANDS are killed in WARS, through lack of medical care, living conditions, dirty aka NON potable water, starvation, etc. Tyrants and criminals of all kinds kill babies, children, adults - innocent ones all of the time worldwide.

Very well said, Catherine. If only people could look at the big picture, instead of focusing on individual stories like this one, regardless of how shocking it may be.

 

[ozwyn]

I think in a direct situation you havbe to interevene. a tire iron would work if you lack the firearm.

And being in Maryland, I would have to state that "going to jail was better than being a bystander to such a event in front of my eyes", because even odds I would end up in jail for it.

I'd probably have better odds getting out of jail with using a tire iron than gun, oddly enough

 

[42]

dark harvest Like I said not legal but if I had the gun then no qualms from me. I would probably kneecap him and leave him to die.

Though I would go to prison for olife for ilegal gun concealed weapona and defending annother. I mean I cant shoot in self defense in my own home. God I lovwe the UK.

But as I said I would if I saw it hit the guy repeatedly with either my cane or a crutch depending on my day.

Thats the on ly carry choice I make cane or crutches I cant even have a blade at all even my modeling scalpel if I dont have a "valid reason" its ilegal and if its not lokedd up in a steel box doubly so :banghead:

So remember some cant shoot some dont have the means so be fair pay attention its not would you shoot its could you legally and stop being judgementtal sopme cant afford to go to jail.

Smack a kid fine punch Il say something hit repeatedly I will get annoyed and kicking stomping etc is liable to cause me to intervene with force. although I would do that for most people, most of my fights at school were from jumping in to help a mate getting dun over by a group.

 

[Iggy]

In Wyoming, if you didn't shoot that scumbag, you'd better start packin' because the citizens will probably deposit you at the nearest state line in a hurry!

 

[jon_in_wv]

I wouldn't use the argument that I didn't want to see that happen so I shot him, thats pretty ignorant. But the fact is he was killing the child and you shot to STOP IT. What makes you think the officer was justified in shooting the guy but no one else??

 

[.cheese.]

Drawn a firearm and announced that if he didn't stop and step away from the kid he was going to be shot.

If he didn't stop - I'd have shot.

I voted no because I wouldn't have immediately shot. However, if he didn't stop the answer would have been yes.

 

[camslam]

According to the CCW course I took in the state of AZ, you would not be legally justified.

HKG3 - I'm not sure who you took your course from, but this is completely inaccurate.

Here is the skinny straight from the state statutes.

13-406. Justification; defense of a third person

A person is justified in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force against another to protect a third person if:

1. Under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, such person would be justified under section 13-404 or 13-405 in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force to protect himself against the unlawful physical force or deadly physical force a reasonable person would believe is threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

2. A reasonable person would believe that such person's intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

 

[HK G3]

See they explained it to us that the third party would have to have explicitly requested your protection at a time prior to the criminal actor's arrival, and then gave us a story of an undercover NARC being stopped at gunpoint by a "good Samaritan" during a drug bust, and how the guy went to jail. The NARC was dressed like a bum and appeared to be assaulting a businessman, according to our instructor.

They definitely did tell us not to intervene, and to do what the people in the article did - be good witnesses and call the cops until you are directly threatened.

 

[camslam]

HK G3 - This is what a conceal carry instructor is going to have to tell you.

13-406. Justification; defense of a third person

A person is justified in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force against another to protect a third person if:

1. Under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, such person would be justified under section 13-404 or 13-405 in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force to protect himself against the unlawful physical force or deadly physical force a reasonable person would believe is threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

2. A reasonable person would believe that such person's intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Sadly in most of these events it comes down to this section of the law. What would a reasonable person believe and do? If any of us are involved in a shooting that for some reason goes bad, we are going to have problems, but having a good attorney and being able to show your actions as reasonable is your best course of action.

The case you cite is in the syllabus of the Arizona Conceal Carry class and was gone over in my class as well. We debated it in our class and once again it comes down to what is reasonable. Did you warn the person to step away from the other, was a person's death imminent? These are all questions that you have to ask yourself mentally before you get into a situation and you must have thought to yourself, "what am I going to do in this situation?" It is something anyone carrying a weapon needs to do, but at the end of the day you need to have a contingency plan for lots of different scenarios and you need to know how to match your actions to the threat that is presented.

 

[camslam]

Another thing you have to remember. CWP instructors have to be very careful in what they say and teach to a class. They are "licensed" through the state to teach the laws regarding CWP permits and if it was believed they were telling people to shoot in this situation, etc.. there could be some problems. Think about the thousands of different situations that could arise, how do you cover even a small amount of them in an 8 hour class?

In this case, I would love to see an Arizona jury that would convict someone of shooting a person that was beating to death a toddler. The Fisher case that happened here in 2006 was a joke, and the outcome was ridiculous, but this one would be found to be reasonable if you ask me. I would be willing to take my chances on it.