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

[thraashman]

In ether case, that means that he wasn't killed for making threats, he was killed for beating another man to the point he had to be hospitalized.

True, but that hasn't stopped there being an argument in here about killing someone over a threat. You must be new to P&N, we don't really stay on topic too long around here.

 

[spidey07]

And where does the craziness end?

Man angrily shakes his fist at you: "Oh, I feel threatened. I feel like I'm going to be attacked." Shoot to kill! "Good shoot!" says Spidey.

A BIG man gives you an angry look: "Oh, I feel threatened. I feel like I'm about to be attacked." Shoot to kill! "Good shoot!" says Spidey.

There's nothing magical about a "verbal" threat. So by Spidey's alternate reality, he can legally kill anyone that even looks at him funny.

It's about the reasonableness and if the threat is imminent and credible. A verbal threat to life or great bodily harm with imminent and capable means to carry out that threat means lethal force is justified.

This was all covered in great detail in my state's CCDW classes including specifically what kinds of verbal threats constitute a good shoot.

There is something very special about a verbal threat to life or GBH, it's called assault. It also places any reasonable person in fear for their life or GBH because the assailant has told them their intent to do so and that they intend to kill or maim immediately.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Another misleading spidey thread, son kills man attacking his Father, Strangled for Verbal Threats not found

 

[TheSiege]

Why is no one talking about freedom of speech? His first amendment right to free speech.

 

[Thebobo]

I think we need to have everyone armed If they can they walk they should carry. Just think of a better world it would be. A classroom armed with 20+ students, if someone came in to try and do harm it would be like the ending scene in scarface.

 

[Vic]

Nominate for OP self-ownage of the year thread?

 

[brycejones]

Nominate for OP self-ownage of the year thread?

The year is still young he will top it.

 

[kage69]

Why is no one talking about freedom of speech? His first amendment right to free speech.

My money is on the whole 'I'm going to come kill you and your whole family' being a lot closer to hate, than free. Perhaps it might have gone over as an idle threat or tasteless joke had the bully not gotten physical with someone he so clearly outmatched. The damage the old man received shouldn't be left out of the discussion.

Also, there's a reason the preservation of life part precedes liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration. One of those prerequisite things. A pulse > words.

 

[mizzou]

you can tell someone you are going to kill them and everyone they know, that alone on face value does not automatically give you authority to use deadly force.

What if it is a child that says it? What if it is an old lady? What if the person is naked and obviously has no weapons, yet he says hes going to shoot you dead immediately?

Yes you can defend yourself, but within reason and only from imminent fear of immediate contact.
====
NOW, in this situation, we don't know what happened during the actual physical fight that occurred when the person reasonably wanted to get his families info back from the other guy. Perhaps during that struggle, he felt it necessary to put him in a choke-hold.

 

[kage69]

you can tell someone you are going to kill them and everyone they know, that alone on face value does not automatically give you authority to use deadly force.

Right, which is why the physical part of the incident keeps getting mentioned.

What if it is a child that says it? What if it is an old lady? What if the person is naked and obviously has no weapons, yet he says hes going to shoot you dead immediately?

Yes you can defend yourself, but within reason and only from imminent fear of immediate contact.
====
NOW, in this situation, we don't know what happened during the actual physical fight that occurred when the person reasonably wanted to get his families info back from the other guy. Perhaps during that struggle, he felt it necessary to put him in a choke-hold.

I think you may be confusing the role of father and son in the altercation, but regardless I haven't seen anyone argue there was a disproportionate regard for caution there. The article clearly stated the bully was both younger and a fair bit larger than the father. Combined with an aggressive attitude and willingness to resort to threats and fisticuffs, we should be able to agree that in his shoes neither of us would be ignoring that bully as if he represented the same threat level as some petulant brat or a foul mouthed, senile old lady.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

I think we need to have everyone armed If they can they walk they should carry. Just think of a better world it would be. A classroom armed with 20+ students, if someone came in to try and do harm it would be like the ending scene in scarface.

Say hello to my little friend' sssssss's

 

[Attic]

If a guy says to someone, "I'm going to kill you and you're family" isn't the most important part to consider if the person he said it to believes it to be a serious threat or just a off the cuff threat? Beyond that, consider what kind of person your dealing with who would even say something like that?, the utterance is somewhat tied to the legitimacy of the threat IMO.

Saying those words or typing them here into empty space is lightyears from saying them to someones face with anything other than complete parody. Seniles, children, other one offs need not apply.

 

[OutHouse]

It's about the reasonableness and if the threat is imminent and credible. A verbal threat to life or great bodily harm with imminent and capable means to carry out that threat means lethal force is justified.

This was all covered in great detail in my state's CCDW classes including specifically what kinds of verbal threats constitute a good shoot.

There is something very special about a verbal threat to life or GBH, it's called assault. It also places any reasonable person in fear for their life or GBH because the assailant has told them their intent to do so and that they intend to kill or maim immediately.

your CCW class was not a law class. you are not an expert.

 

[OutHouse]

No.

I am going to rape you is the same as I am going to kill you.

Deadly force is justified.

Did you catch our free states justification against arson?

you have no business with a CCW or any firearm. you are a dangerous person.

 

[OutHouse]

Everyone here thinks its okay to kill someone because of a threat.

everyone? please list the names.

 

[OutHouse]

please scan and post the page from your ccw class that says you can kill a man for a verbal threat.

Again.

This very aspect of self defense is covered in my state's mandated ccdw classes.

 

[dbk]

it appears the physical altercation was directly responsible for the death and NOT the verbal threat..

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Here's what the Texas law saws about Verbal Provocation and I suspect many other states have similar laws.

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE
2.(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone

 

[shortylickens]

In Virginia self-defense is not automatic, you have to prove you were genuinely afraid for your life.

 

[waggy]

Here's what the Texas law saws about Verbal Provocation and I suspect many other states have similar laws.

I think anyone who is not retarded would understand that. its pretty clear cut.


just saying "i will kill you" is not enough to justify deadly force at all.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I think anyone who is not retarded would understand that. its pretty clear cut.

just saying "i will kill you" is not enough to justify deadly force at all.

Someone needs to let the AT P&N Self Defense Experts know that they have misinterpreted the relevant laws in the states where they live as well as other states.

 

[mrjminer]

Here's what the Texas law saws about Verbal Provocation and I suspect many other states have similar laws.

Shall we be fair and include some more relevant information:

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:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
​

I'm sure there's some other fun tidbits in there, or some other applicable statute, too: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

I think one could argue that a serious threat against the lives of your family would constitute the beginning of an attempt to commit the offense, or that the offense was imminent.

 

[waggy]

Shall we be fair and include some more relevant information:



I'm sure there's some other fun tidbits in there, or some other applicable statute, too: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

I think one could argue that a serious threat against the lives of your family would constitute the beginning of an attempt to commit the offense, or that the offense was imminent.

and your point? this backups what he said. just saying "I'm going to kill you" is not enough to use deadly force.

sure it would constitute the beginning but in of itself is not justification.

I do think saying it and then walking toward someone in a threatening manner would be enough though. i guess it get sticky on details..

 

[mrjminer]

and your point? this backups what he said. just saying "I'm going to kill you" is not enough to use deadly force.

sure it would constitute the beginning but in of itself is not justification.

I do think saying it and then walking toward someone in a threatening manner would be enough though. i guess it get sticky on details..

It doesn't back up what he said. It does, however, show that "verbal altercation" is not an end-all, be-all encapsulation of anything that can be said.

"Sticky on the details" is what I think is important out of what you said, and I think everyone here is trying to ignore what was said and the context in which it was said just to claim that you can't kill someone for making their intent to kill you and your family perfectly clear; it always depends on the situation.

Looking at this, we have the following information about some dead son of a bitch:
1. Causes accident, then illegally flees the scene
2. Obtains contact information for the man and his family, then states that he is going to kill them all

I think that just those two things are justification enough because he was, from the perspective of the old guy driving, a guy that does not care about the consequences of his actions (ie: flees the scene) or has a reason to evade police (ie: possibly an active / sought after criminal with their freedom on the line); that gives a significant amount of credibility to the argument that there was an "imminent" threat. Granted, that would be one for a jury to decide, but hopefully it proves the point that the argument is still valid to explore rather than it being a clear-cut "no you can't do this" mentality.

 

[spidey07]

please scan and post the page from your ccw class that says you can kill a man for a verbal threat.

It was in a video from the state and talked about for over an hour in class. The aspects were made very clear.

If the threat is imminent - are they close enough to carry out the threat or coming towards you?
Is the threat capable - can they physically carry out the threat? One guy bigger than you or multiple people/disparity of force?
Is the threat clear/believable - this is where direct words like "I'm going to kill you", "I'm going to break your neck" make the assailants intentions clear and that they mean to do so right now

Of course, the caveat was always "It's a lot better for you if they have a weapon of any kind, even a rock"