Man verbally threatens another, gets choked to death during physical altercation

[RampantAndroid]

That is absolutely correct. That very aspect is taught in CCDW classes. A verbal threat, with the capability to carry out that imminent threat, is OK to shoot.

God fucking dammit. I've quoted your own state laws to you many times. It is NOT a good shoot. A threat with no action to carry it out is NOT enough to put you in fear of your life, and thus, NO FORCE TO DEFEND YOURSELF IS ALLOWED.

Fuck you've got a short memory.

 

[shira]

Read the article, moron.

http://news92fm.com/429099/1-dead-in-apparent-road-rage-homicide-in-se-houston/

Are you really this retarded?

1) A made a verbal threat against B.
2) A and B got into a fight, and A was pounding on B.
3) C intervened, got A in a choke hold, killing A.

The justification for killing A is that C was defending B from an actual physical assault by A. But in your drunken stupor, C killed A simply for the threat in Step 1.

Moron.

 

[spidey07]

Are you really this retarded?

1) A threatened B.
2) A and B got into a fight, and A was pounding on B.
3) C intervened, got A in a choke hold, killing A.

The justification for killing A is that C was defending B from an actual physical assault by A. But in your drunken stupor, C killed A simply for the threat in Step 1.

Moron.

The article states the driver of the Ford F-150, the one who was threatened, choked the other driver.

1) A threatened B
2) B fights and chokes A

Moron, read the article.

 

[RampantAndroid]

the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect a third person against imminent death, serious physical injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; and
(b) under the circumstances as they actually exist, the person whom he seeks to protect would himself have been justified under krs 503.050 and 503.060 in using such protection.

503.050 use of physical force in self-protection — admissibility of evidence of prior acts of domestic violence and abuse.
(1) the use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by the other person.
(2) the use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.
(3) any e

imminent.

 

[RampantAndroid]

The article states the driver of the Ford F-150, the one who was threatened, choked the other driver.

1) A threatened B
2) B fights and chokes A

Moron, read the article.

YOU try reading.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/h...e-incident-near-texas-medical-center/25492174

 

[spidey07]

imminent.

No shit, of course the threat must be imminent. "I'm going to kill you" is very different from "I'm going to kick your ass when you get off work"

 

[RampantAndroid]

No shit, of course the threat must be imminent. "I'm going to kill you" is very different from "I'm going to kick your ass when you get off work"

Neither of those allow use of force.

 

[Newell Steamer]

So, killing someone is justified by:
- being hit by popcorn
- having your car egged
- have loud music being played "at" you
- have someone verbally threaten to kill you, much later

Well now,.. when will you guys start rooting for killing people when they think of killing you? And, how will you determine if someone is thinking of killing you?

 

[zinfamous]

So, killing someone is justified by:
- being hit by popcorn
- having your car egged
- have loud music being played "at" you
- have someone verbally threaten to kill you, much later

Well now,.. when will you guys start rooting for killing people when they think of killing you? And, how will you determine if someone is thinking of killing you?

skin color and outfit?

 

[Newell Steamer]

skin color and outfit?

Lets add what food they are eating and what they are drinking as well.

Oh, and here are a few more;
- knocking on your door, asking for help AND you open the door to them
- run over a child while driving, shoot anyone that comes to that child's aid

 

[kage69]

Thread title is incorrect. Based on details in the story, the aggressive younger guy didn't just threaten another, he threatened another man and that man's family.


I'm having a hard time feeling sorry for an aggressive bully who is accidentally shown the door while he was getting violent with a much smaller, elderly man, and after informing the old timer of his and his family's impending murders to boot.


The son did the correct thing by wading in to defend his father. I do think it's a shame he inadvertently killed someone by not knowing proper submission technique. Definitely could have been handled better. I think the lesson here again is bad things happen when people decide to use violence and death threats to communicate instead of words. That and putting your hands on someone old enough to be your grandfather and telling him his and his family's lives are forfeit due to your inconvenience might just be going a tad overboard. If that idiot hadn't have escalated the situation we most likely wouldn't be reading about this and he would be alive.

 

[shira]

The article states the driver of the Ford F-150, the one who was threatened, choked the other driver.

1) A threatened B
2) B fights and chokes A

Moron, read the article.

Moron, YOU read the article:

http://news92fm.com/429099/1-dead-in-apparent-road-rage-homicide-in-se-houston/

Witnesses told police the driver of the Nissan [= A] approached the 67-year-old driver [= B]of the Ford truck with aggression.

According to Detective Jesus Sosa with the Houston Police Department, the driver of the Nissan [= A] said, "You'll be sorry you gave me your information. I'm going to find you and kill you and your family."

Witnesses told police the driver of the Nissan [= A] pushed the older man [= B].

"The driver of the Nissan [= A] started to assault the older driver," [= B] said Sosa. "The older driver [= B] was so badly beaten he was rushed to the hospital in serious condition,and could physically not talk to officers."

Police said while the older driver was being attacked, his son [= C] got out of the truck and tried to defend his father. Officers said there was at least a 100-pound difference between the young man [= C] and the driver of the Nissan [= A],but in that moment, detectives say, the younger man [= C] jumped on the driver's [= A] back and put him in a choke hold.

"While the older driver's son [= C] was on the other driver's [= A] back, he was yelling 'Call 911. Call 911.' The driver of the Nissan [= A] collapsed before emergency crews arrived," said Sosa.

To summarize:

1) A verbally threatened B
2) A pushed B
3) A started beating on B, pounding him badly.
4) C intervened to defend B, jumped on A, and ended up strangling him.

But in your mind, steps 2 to 4 didn't occur. In your confused state, B retaliated to A's verbal threat by strangling him.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

In your scenario, C could've defended his life for two reasons

Firstly, A threatened C when he told B he would kill him and his family. C was family, that was a direct and credible threat on C's life. Even with no altercation, in many states that is justified self defense.


Secondly, A attacked B with intent of great bodily harm, so C was able to do whatever required to stop the forcible felony.


If there's one thing spidey definitely knows, it's self defense laws. I have literally never seen him proven wrong in these discussions.

 

[dawheat]

Absolutely you can. You said they have to be carrying out that threat, that is not true in Kentucky. A verbal threat and the means to carry out that threat in any way = good shoot.

Here's what you said:


The attempt to carry out the threat is not necessary. Two aspects are covered in our state's classes in detail:
1) Guy on the street says "I'm going to kill you", he's larger than you and appears aggressive = OK to shoot. Doesn't have to attempt to carry out that threat
2) Group of people on the street say "We're going to break your neck". Threat of GBH and disparity of force applies = OK to shoot

His point is that a verbal threat does not give de facto right to start shooting. Context always matters and frankly, we all have an obligation to be a decent and reasonable human being.

1) Guy on the street 30 feet away says "I'm going to kill you", laughs at you, but doesn't move from where he's seated - Not OK to shoot

1a) Guy on the street 30 feet away says "I'm going to kill you", gets up and makes a threatening 'come at me bro' motion, but still stays 30 feet away - Not OK to start shooting

1b) Guy on the street 30 feet away says "I'm going to kill you" and either appears to be pulling out a weapon or starts rapidly coming toward you with the intent to do bodily harm - I'm OK with that

So be a thinking, reasoning human being - just b/c something may be legal doesn't make it morally defensible.

 

[Ns1]

Moron, YOU read the article:

http://news92fm.com/429099/1-dead-in-apparent-road-rage-homicide-in-se-houston/



To summarize:

1) A verbally threatened B
2) A pushed B
3) A started beating on B, pounding him badly.
4) C intervened to defend B, jumped on A, and ended up strangling him.

But in your mind, steps 2 to 4 didn't occur. In your confused state, B retaliated to A's verbal threat by strangling him.

eagerly awaits to see how spidey responds to this one.

 

[Victorian Gray]

No doubt the race brigadiers are trying to figure out skin color before deciding who to support.


“You are going to be sorry you gave me your information. I am going to kill you and your family”

= Good shoot.

3 posts in and just *who* is the first to bring in race?

 

[RampantAndroid]

Firstly, A threatened C when he told B he would kill him and his family. C was family, that was a direct and credible threat on C's life. Even with no altercation, in many states that is justified self defense.

No. It's grounds for a restraining order, but unless something accompanies the verbal threat, I know of no states that allow lethal force.

 

[shira]

In your scenario, C could've defended his life for two reasons

Firstly, A threatened C when he told B he would kill him and his family. C was family, that was a direct and credible threat on C's life. Even with no altercation, in many states that is justified self defense.


Secondly, A attacked B with intent of great bodily harm, so C was able to do whatever required to stop the forcible felony.


If there's one thing spidey definitely knows, it's self defense laws. I have literally never seen him proven wrong in these discussions.

He's dead wrong about Texas. Here are the relevant two sections from the Texas code:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;​

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;​

​

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.​

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);​

 

[Hugo Drax]

What I was getting at was what the person right under this quote said.

I just looked at my ins. card for my motorcycle. No where on there is my address, my location of work or any personal info.

So if the choker guy only gave threat guy his insurance info and plate #, the threat was essentially hollow.

Some of you people have giant killing boners, it's unreal. Yeah the guy who said that was obviously an idiot and shouldn't say things liek that because you don't know who the person on the other end of those words are. But then again, if every bro' out there who threatened another bro got killed, all of jersey shore and like half of Cali's population would be gone.

and this is a bad thing?

 

[brycejones]

Spidey when you finally do kill someone so you know what if feels like make sure to make it known you posted here so we'll know about it.

You really should have enlisted in the army because I don't think I've ever seen anyone so eager to look for reasons to kill other people.

 

[cyclohexane]

Op is truly an idiot. By his logic, all high school boys should be choked to death - as many of the guys I knew back in the day would get threaten to kill one another during fights.

Someone please threaten Spidey.
I want to see if he has the balls to choke someone to death, or if he's just talking out of his ass and being an armchair badass.

 

[shira]

Furthermore, the quoted verbal threat was:

I'm going to find you and kill you and your family.

That bolded, introductory phrase "I'm going to find you" CLEARLY establishes that the threatened action to kill is intended to occur at some point in the indefinite future, after the victim and his family "are found."

Thus, even in Spidey's imaginary version of the event, there was no conceivable "imminent" threat, and deadly force would not be justified anywhere in the U.S. Even in Spidey's wet-dream state of Kentucky.

 

[zinfamous]

No doubt the race brigadiers are trying to figure out skin color before deciding who to support.


“You are going to be sorry you gave me your information. I am going to kill you and your family”

= Good shoot.

you first.

....

...oh, wait. it was you first. carry on, then.

 

[thraashman]

In your scenario, C could've defended his life for two reasons

Firstly, A threatened C when he told B he would kill him and his family. C was family, that was a direct and credible threat on C's life. Even with no altercation, in many states that is justified self defense.


Secondly, A attacked B with intent of great bodily harm, so C was able to do whatever required to stop the forcible felony.


If there's one thing spidey definitely knows, it's self defense laws. I have literally never seen him proven wrong in these discussions.

Interesting because I see him get proven wrong in these discussions all the time. Here's one example in fact.

The article states the driver of the Ford F-150, the one who was threatened, choked the other driver.

1) A threatened B
2) B fights and chokes A

Moron, read the article.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/h...e-incident-near-texas-medical-center/25492174

"The driver of the Nissan started to assault the older driver," said Sosa. "The older driver was so badly beaten he was rushed to the hospital in serious condition,and could physically not talk to officers."

Police said while the older driver was being attacked, his son got out of the truck and tried to defend his father. Officers said there was at least a 100-pound difference between the young man and the driver of the Nissan,but in that moment, detectives say, the younger man jumped on the driver's back and put him in a choke hold.

"While the older driver's son was on the other driver's back, he was yelling 'Call 911. Call 911.' The driver of the Nissan collapsed before emergency crews arrived," said Sosa.

Both drivers were taken to Ben Taub General Hospital. The driver of the Nissan died at the hospital.

 

[etrigan420]

It would appear to be a justified use of force, tragically convoluted by our resident "(Not So) Ambiguously Trigger Happy Duo".