Okay this seems to be an over reach

[13Gigatons]

Update: added photo of area...pretty rural.

 

[dawp]

Indoctrinating minorities with the idea that they are victims, that they cannot achieve, that the system is against them, that they need to rely on the government, removing personal responsibility, etc. These are liberal trains and their influence on minorities.

This guy gets it.

actually, no he doesn't, he's just echoing what you want to hear.

 

[Paladin3]

While some may argue for a defenseless homeowner, so far that has not been the case and I would not be among them if they show up. Unlike you I would never go "good shoot" because there is no such thing. Appropriate under the circumstances? I would say so but having to shoot is never "good".

There is no questionnaire but the various laws may or may not have some form of "duty to retreat". "I'm scared so I'll shoot and I know I'll get away with it" laws? Nope. The use deadly force needs to pass a "reasonable and prudent" standard and if you need an explanation of that is I can provide one.

In my state I have a duty to retreat but that also means that I could reasonably do so safely, again as determined by a reasonableness standard in context. Let's say that I am confronted with a person or persons who display threatening behavior and I have reason to believe that there is potential for escalation. I cannot get in that person's face and provoke then shoot without consequence. I would have mishandled the situation and am responsible for my actions. Words are not grounds for killing.

But

If I can "retreat", which legally means disengage to avoid deadly force? Then I must do so. I just leave. If however that person pursues and attempts to physically attack then there MAY be grounds for lethal force. MAY is emphasized because if it's some 9 year old throwing a tantrum, killing is not warranted as that person can be subdued without deadly force. That applies to others as well and takes into consideration the physical condition of the one being attacked. A 330 lb linebacker facing an unarmed elderly woman would not pass a reasonable test in most situations. On the other hand if the situation was reversed no one would expect ( despite protestations to the contrary) that she not use whatever means are necessary to protect herself that she has on her person. Unfortunately, right-wing violence is real and substantial and despite exceptions on the other side is mostly from your lot. That means people who should be able to use weapons in self-defense will be penalized once you are out. That will be a consequence of the collective lack of responsibility exercised by those who you support as a matter of cause and effect.

As you point out, there is a difference between provoking a fight, shooting and then claiming self-defense, and the duty to retreat. But there is no "I'm scared so I'll shoot and I know I'll get away with it" laws. Your decision to shoot always has to be found reasonable by a judge and jury. You can't just claim fear and a shoot be automatically legal. But, I disagree with saddling a person with the duty to retreat by default.

While no shoot is "good," it should be very much legal to shoot someone who is a reasonable threat your life or property. Yes, I said property. Theft would drop dramatically if thieves knew they could be shot. And why should my personal property, which government cannot unfairly seize, be something I can't legally protect with reasonable deadly force?

As for this particular case, at what point do we judge these young people, "most of whom have significant criminal histories," based on their actions that got one of them killed, and not by the old fallacy that all lives are sacred? First degree murder? Maybe not, but something damn close. At least 2nd degree "depraved heart" murder.

I have almost zero sympathy for people who choose to criminally victimize and would hurt or kill their fellow man. I also have an eminence amount of anger at the parents, system and society who raise these young criminals with zero respect for their fellow human being.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

But there is no "I'm scared so I'll shoot and I know I'll get away with it" laws

There is no law with that language in it but in some areas "stand your ground" has been abused to the point that an informed person would not be near as restrained by concerns about legal repercussions in their locale, and a duty to retreat effectively ceases to exist. I know you can find instances if you like. Other than that, we're not far apart on most things.

 

[Paladin3]

There is no law with that language in it but in some areas "stand your ground" has been abused to the point that an informed person would not be near as restrained by concerns about legal repercussions in their locale, and a duty to retreat effectively ceases to exist. I know you can find instances if you like. Other than that, we're not far apart on most things.

Even without the duty to retreat, shooting someone and claiming self-defense still has to pass the smell test. A judge and jury need to find your fear of death or great bodily harm to yourself or another was legit and reasonable.

Just because you don't have the duty to run away doesn't mean you can kill with impunity if the reasonable threat doesn't exist.

 

[SMOGZINN]

You can't just claim fear and a shoot be automatically legal.

We actually don't know that. This is the central question in the trial of Amber Guyger, the police woman that shot a man in his own home when she entered the wrong apartment. The trial starts in a few weeks, and her defense is definitely that she shot because she thought she was in her home and was afraid. She had no reason to think she was in any specific danger. He was not armed, he was not acting aggressively.

But, I disagree with saddling a person with the duty to retreat by default.

I don't. I think that escalating to violence should be a last resort. The law should require that you retreat if that is a reasonable option. That does not mean you can't protect yourself or your property, but that you must use lethal force to do so only as a last resort not as an opening move.

 

[Paladin3]

We actually don't know that. This is the central question in the trial of Amber Guyger, the police woman that shot a man in his own home when she entered the wrong apartment. The trial starts in a few weeks, and her defense is definitely that she shot because she thought she was in her home and was afraid. She had no reason to think she was in any specific danger. He was not armed, he was not acting aggressively.

Actually, we do. The shooting and the fear for your life or safety that you think justified it has to be found reasonable in a court of law. It's not legal just because the shooter claims they felt justified, but it has to be decided so in court. Just because you may disagree with the judge and/or jury and their ruling does not make what you said even close to correct.

I don't. I think that escalating to violence should be a last resort. The law should require that you retreat if that is a reasonable option. That does not mean you can't protect yourself or your property, but that you must use lethal force to do so only as a last resort not as an opening move.

Making the duty to retreat a requirement absolutely means you can't defend your life or property, unless retreat is impossible. So criminals are given a free ride because their victim has to run away as long as there is some way out.

Why do you care more about the life of a violent criminal attacking and/or invading the home of an innocent victim than you do the victim? How many innocent victims is it okay to have to die because they were trying to run away rather than fight back? Why the fuck should anyone give someone attacking them or breaking into their house the benefit of the doubt that they won't hurt them? Would you risk the life of someone you love just so you can continue to believe you are a good person fighting some noble battle against guns? It's one thing to understand that running away is safer if you can, but it's another to make victims afraid to protect themselves for fear of being accused of murder.

All you are doing is empowering criminals and making it as hard as possible for victims to protect themselves. Next you'll be telling me a woman being raped has to try to enjoy it, and only if she really can't, only then can she fight back.