Poll: What is self defense?

[gothuevos]

In the year 2021 to have a white person tell me I don't have the right to walk down the street will not garner a pleasant response. Should it? I guess I should just smile say yes massa and leave the neighborhood?

Not snapping at you but my anger is showing.

Don't resist.
Just comply.
Don't curse.
Don't kneel or protest.
Don't teach history.
Remove certain books.

Remove certain....people, next on the agenda?

 

[gothuevos]

While police-citizen interactions are its own issue, your scenario highlights a more concerning/growing issue, that of private citizens wanting to take law enforcement matters in their own hands. This disturbing trend of random people questioning other random people about their whereabouts. Like when did this become a thing? Too many people watching Punisher on Netflix.

 

[pmv]

Well as the logic goes since you brought a gun to fight it could be used to kill either combatant therefore you are justified in using lethal force to defend yourself because there’s a weapons involved.

That's pretty much the point made by this law prof here. It seems to me to be a disturbing implication of the case. If you carry a gun, particularly open carry, then that in itself justifies you shooting anyone who you think is coming at you. Anyone carrying a gun potentially has a justified reason to use it, merely by the fact they are carrying it.

Opinion | Kyle Rittenhouse's not guilty verdict has dangerous legal implications

Rittenhouse's lawyer called him a hero, and his expert witness contended aggression is indistinguishable from self-defense. We have normalized the absurd.

www.nbcnews.com

With open-carry becoming more prevalent, the possibility that two people, each reasonably fearing great bodily harm or death, will (legally) shoot each other increases. And now that a jury in Kenosha might find Rittenhouse justified, we are contending with a view of self-defense that transforms an active shooter into a privileged actor.

I was particularly struck by the pretrial testimony of the defense’s use-of-force expert. When asked by the prosecutor whether Rittenhouse could have used deadly force against the first, unarmed victim if Rittenhouse was also unarmed, the expert opined, “no.” What is the basis of this reasoning, that an armed individual has greater discretion to use deadly force than an unarmed individual?

Not surprisingly, use-of-force experts typically testify in officer-involved shootings, and this use-of-force theory comes from police training. Police are trained that there is no such thing as an unarmed encounter, given that an officer carries a gun. At the hearing, Rittenhouse’s expert stated that “the firearm is a potential weapon for both parties.” Under this reasoning, Rittenhouse’s decision to arm himself theoretically arms anyone who advances on Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse having a gun gave him a right to kill that, unarmed, he would not have. Will we accept such reasoning, extending the privileges we give police officers at trial to armed civilians like Rittenhouse? This trajectory takes us to a very dystopian destination.

 

[Vic]

Let's make some small modifications to this scenario. Call it a "hypo".

After the white guy questions your identity, you run off and reach the back of your father's girlfriend's condo. You even called your girlfriend on the phone who later says at trial, "I asked him where he at and he said he at the back of his Daddy fiance house." You could walk inside the condo and call the police or just stay in the condo and not have to worry about this white guy you think is a potential rapist.

Instead you decide to walk around the neighborhood in search of the "creepy-ass cracka." You find him and a confrontation ensues. You sucker punch him in the nose and the two of you wrestle to the ground. You start punching him and pounding his head into the concrete. A witness even testifies that he saw you raining down blows on the guy "MMA style." You are at this moment, attempting to murder the guy who approached you. So he shoots and kills you, but had he not shot you, you probably would have been the one being put on trial for murder.

Given that scenario, was the guy who questioned you now acting in self defense?

What you're describing here seems similar to, and is certainly a lot milder than, what the McDaniels did to Arbery, and yet every right-winger is saying the McDaniels acted in self-defense.
Why the difference?

 

[Vic]

That's pretty much the point made by this law prof here. It seems to me to be a disturbing implication of the case. If you carry a gun, particularly open carry, then that in itself justifies you shooting anyone who you think is coming at you. Anyone carrying a gun potentially has a justified reason to use it, merely by the fact they are carrying it.

Opinion | Kyle Rittenhouse's not guilty verdict has dangerous legal implications

Rittenhouse's lawyer called him a hero, and his expert witness contended aggression is indistinguishable from self-defense. We have normalized the absurd.

www.nbcnews.com

In America's political landscape, conservatives have decided to appropriate the "comply or die" powers they previously gave to law enforcement to themselves. They are celebrating the Rittenhouse verdict because they believe it gives them the power to act like law enforcement, including to kill like law enforcement, whenever they choose to.

 

[HomerJS]

In America's political landscape, conservatives have decided to appropriate the "comply or die" powers they previously gave to law enforcement to themselves. They are celebrating the Rittenhouse verdict because they believe it gives them the power to act like law enforcement, including to kill like law enforcement, whenever they choose to.

Not only that but actually kill law enforcement especially if the are federal ala Jan 6 and Cliven Bundy.

 

[woolfe9998]

Didn’t read the whole thread. The legal answer is that it isn’t going to be a valid claim of self defense for whoever laid hands on the other first.

The Florida stand your ground law explicitly says this. The question in the Zimmerman/Martin case was always who laid hands first.

 

[pcgeek11]

Scenario: I'm walking down the street through a neighborhood. A white man approaches me asking who I am and what I'm doing here. I respond "none of your fucking business". I keep walking, he gets in my path blocks me, tries to turn me around and puts his hands on me. A fight breaks out I start to beat his ass he has cuts and bruises. He pulls out a gun and shoots me claiming he feared for his life.

There are no witnesses. Is that a valid self defense claim? My overall question is it allowed to start a confrontation with someone, start to lose that confrontation and use that as a predicate for shooting? Should that be allowed in this country?

I would say in those exact circumstances, no that would not be a valid claim of self defense.

BUT with no witnesses as you stated, the outcome would boil down to :

1. ) If you survived the shooting or not. If you are dead you couldn't testify and tell your side. With no one to dispute the story told by the other guy the law defaults to the evidence they have.

2. ) If you survived, then it would depend on who was most believable in court.

 

[pauldun170]

Show up to one of the wackadoo protest in my finest getup.
Gonna be tactical as fuck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL20TVNGaqc

Plenty of opportunities to get my stand my ground on

 

[pcgeek11]

What you're describing here seems similar to, and is certainly a lot milder than, what the McDaniels did to Arbery, and yet every right-winger is saying the McDaniels acted in self-defense.
Why the difference?

No, not every right winger thinks that. Many of us think they murdered Arbery and should pay the price.

 

[HomerJS]

No, not every right winger thinks that. Many of us think they murdered Arbery and should pay the price.

And many of you say Arbury should have just complied with the white men. What gave them that inherent authority?

 

[TheELF]

Scenario: I'm walking down the street through a neighborhood. A white man approaches me asking who I am and what I'm doing here. I respond "none of your fucking business". I keep walking, he gets in my path blocks me, tries to turn me around and puts his hands on me. A fight breaks out I start to beat his ass he has cuts and bruises. He pulls out a gun and shoots me claiming he feared for his life.

There are no witnesses. Is that a valid self defense claim? My overall question is it allowed to start a confrontation with someone, start to lose that confrontation and use that as a predicate for shooting? Should that be allowed in this country?

" A fight breaks out I start to beat his ass he has cuts and bruises. He pulls out a gun and shoots me claiming he feared for his life. "

Simple cuts and bruises are not enough for "fear of life" so it wouldn't be accepted as self defense.
If you beat down on the aggressor that hard that he would actually fear for his life, broken bones, gashing wounds etc, then it would be accepted but only if shooting was the only option to safe his life.

All the self defense laws demand the least amount of violence to be used.

 

[Pohemi]

The moment they start jumping you, do not resist, but then again why use the F word when you could have said the words "something private" instead?

I guess I should just smile say yes massa and leave the neighborhood?

Not snapping at you but my anger is showing.

Nobody will fault you for it, @Amol S. says some fairly stupid shit...regularly.

Don't resist.
Just comply.
Don't curse.

Basically, that's what Amol is suggesting, because lack of reasoning.
Comply or die...and YOU BEST NOT SWEAR AT THAT WHITE MAN EITHER OR HE HAS THE RIGHT TO SHOOT YOU DEAD.

 

[pcgeek11]

And many of you say Arbury should have just complied with the white men. What gave them that inherent authority?

Many of you?

I am only me there is no many.

Nothing and that is why the assholes are going to pay for their crimes.

 

[HomerJS]

" A fight breaks out I start to beat his ass he has cuts and bruises. He pulls out a gun and shoots me claiming he feared for his life. "

Simple cuts and bruises are not enough for "fear of life" so it wouldn't be accepted as self defense.
If you beat down on the aggressor that hard that he would actually fear for his life, broken bones, gashing wounds etc, then it would be accepted but only if shooting was the only option to safe his life.

All the self defense laws demand the least amount of violence to be used.

Did Rosenbaum put his hands on KR at anytime before being shot?

 

[Pohemi]

Did Rosenbaum put his hands on KR at anytime before being shot?

Wasn't it stated (by KR) that Rosenbaum tried grabbing at his rifle in order to disarm him?

 

[soundforbjt]

Wasn't it stated (by KR) that Rosenbaum tried grabbing at his rifle in order to disarm him?

Yes, another lie by KR.

 

[Aikouka]

Wait, tell me again who attacked who? That determines guilt. We have precious little evidence of that exact moment. Besides Martin's newfound love of fighting, and hanging up the phone to go turn around and commit to said fight. And apparently picking a fight with the wrong person.

Who attacks whom is how you would assign an initial aggressor, but it is worth mentioning that (depending upon the state, given that we're dealing with state laws) you may have to consider factors such as...

• Unnecessary escalation - Someone assaults you, you knock them down, but continue the skirmish. In some states, if you are able to get away or have arguably "ended" that incident, then continuing it in any way makes you an aggressor even though you were originally the aggrieved party.
• Inequal level of force - Someone tries to stop you from leaving by grabbing you by the shoulder (assault), so you shoot them. Yes, acting back against the aggressor is likely going to be considered self-defense, but you may have to deal with laws based upon the level of your response.

I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that the answer to "is this self-defense" may change depending upon location (state). We have the more obvious reasons such as castle doctrine or stand your ground laws, but also more nuanced things like I mentioned above.

 

[Vic]

No, not every right winger thinks that. Many of us think they murdered Arbery and should pay the price.

This many of you is a minority of right-wingers. The vocal majority are saying that Arbery deserved death for resisting to the McMichaels' perceived authority.

 

[Moonbeam]

No, not every right winger thinks that. Many of us think they murdered Arbery and should pay the price.

That moral integrity is more important to you than most people, conservatives or liberals, in my opinion at lease, and while I am pleased to hear you say this, it doesn't surprise me.

 

[ivwshane]

Didn’t read the whole thread. The legal answer is that it isn’t going to be a valid claim of self defense for whoever laid hands on the other first.

The Florida stand your ground law explicitly says this. The question in the Zimmerman/Martin case was always who laid hands first.

Dead men tell no tales.

 

[Moonbeam]

Google News

Comprehensive up-to-date news coverage, aggregated from sources all over the world by Google News.

news.google.com

I believe the right to self defense is real, that is to say, morally justifiable, including for liberals. This makes liberal efforts to disarm foolishly one-sided and even criminal. California gun laws, for example, have been written by politicians who are clueless.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I think we all realize that in many states the shooter in this scenario would walk away free.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Many of you?

I am only me there is no many.

Nothing and that is why the assholes are going to pay for their crimes.

But in the last post, you just said "many of us"....lol

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

While police-citizen interactions are its own issue, your scenario highlights a more concerning/growing issue, that of private citizens wanting to take law enforcement matters in their own hands. This disturbing trend of random people questioning other random people about their whereabouts. Like when did this become a thing? Too many people watching Punisher on Netflix.

An interesting facet of vigilantism. The more it's done, the more people will be convinced it's necessary, since there's no capable law enforcement stopping it. You're supposed to make examples of vigilantes to restore order.