Teenager shot dead after playing loud music

[MrDudeMan]

that IS messed up.

That's not messed up at all. Starting a fight is one thing, but if you weren't mortally threatening the person with which you picked the fight, they don't get free reign to do it to you. If you bump my kid and rudely walk away, I would definitely get in your face and ask you to apologize. If I lost my temper and punched you, that would definitely be wrong and unlawful, but if you then pulled out a gun and shot me, I'm completely sure that would be murder especially if I threw one punch and backed off. If you took a shot and missed, but I managed to get my gun out, shoot back, and connect, I would think that action would be lawful. The initial assault should still be applicable, but not the latter self defense action.

 

[blankslate]

If a shoot out starts because of a "rude bump" everyone who did some shooting should be executed before they can pollute the gene pool and if they already have then sorry but their offspring has to go too.

Yeah it's a nuclear option but like they say "...nuke the entire site from orbit... it's the only way to be sure."

 

[soundforbjt]

That's not messed up at all. Starting a fight is one thing, but if you weren't mortally threatening the person with which you picked the fight, they don't get free reign to do it to you. If you bump my kid and rudely walk away, I would definitely get in your face and ask you to apologize. If I lost my temper and punched you, that would definitely be wrong and unlawful, but if you then pulled out a gun and shot me, I'm completely sure that would be murder especially if I threw one punch and backed off. If you took a shot and missed, but I managed to get my gun out, shoot back, and connect, I would think that action would be lawful. The initial assault should still be applicable, but not the latter self defense action.

Wrong, As long as I say I feared for my life and the punch you threw left a mark, I could shoot you dead and go home.

 

[mugs]

Wrong, As long as I say I feared for my life and the punch you threw left a mark, I could shoot you dead and go home.

You have to reasonably fear for your life, not just claim you fear for your life.

But if you imagined you saw a gun and got a few Anandtech members on the jury, you might get off.

 

[cmdrdredd]

You have to reasonably fear for your life, not just claim you fear for your life.

But if you imagined you saw a gun and got a few Anandtech members on the jury, you might get off.

A punch to the face is not the same as someone on top of you bashing your head into the cement

 

[cmdrdredd]

Actually, not in this case, in Fl you can start a fight and if you become afraid of great bodily injury/death you can shoot. That's messed up.

That is not true. If you get hit in the face with a fist and you shoot, that is not a justified use of force. If you are helpless getting your head bashed in, that might be. If someone comes at you with a bat, knife, or brick...all bets are off because at that point you should be in fear for your life.

You always, always, always have to meet the criteria for use of force. Like I said before, there is no free pass.

 

[mugs]

A punch to the face is not the same as someone on top of you bashing your head into the cement

I know. I was explaining that the situation he described was not a justifiable use of force. I didn't refer to the George Zimmerman case at all. The last line was a joke about this case (Michael "Done Goofed" Dunn).

 

[highland145]

That is not true. If you get hit in the face with a fist and you shoot, that is not a justified use of force. If you are helpless getting your head bashed in, that might be. If someone comes at you with a bat, knife, or brick...all bets are off because at that point you should be in fear for your life.

You always, always, always have to meet the criteria for use of force. Like I said before, there is no free pass.

That's what I said. The point I was making is that you can start it and when the ante is raised you can shoot (see mugs post). Don't start it in the 1st place.

 

[BUTCH1]

This might be the dumbest, most ridiculous thing (racist statements aside) that I've ever seen you post on here.

Yea, he's so full of crap he floats. Just the fact that he's been denied bail speaks volumes about what the court thinks of this lunatic, the only reason they left the parking lot was trying to avoid more bullets and COMMON SENSE says if there was indeed a shotgun they would have used it by shooting back at Dunn. He can't face the facts, Dunn is DONE FOR..

 

[cmdrdredd]

That's what I said. The point I was making is that you can start it and when the ante is raised you can shoot (see mugs post). Don't start it in the 1st place.

If you are standing there talking shit they cannot assault you. If you make the first move and hit them then when you are losing resort to your weapon, you are screwed. You were on offense not defense.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Wrong, As long as I say I feared for my life and the punch you threw left a mark, I could shoot you dead and go home.

Have you ever been in a situation like this? I have, actually, and what you said is not true. I've also served on two criminal juries. If I punched you and then immediately backed off like I stated originally, you would go to jail if you shot me.

 

[MrDudeMan]

If you are standing there talking shit they cannot assault you. If you make the first move and hit them then when you are losing resort to your weapon, you are screwed. You were on offense not defense.

I don't agree based on my experience. If you resort to your weapon prematurely, then yes, you are screwed. If you resort to a weapon after the other person goes batshit crazy and is trying to kill you, then you are not screwed.

 

[soundforbjt]

Have you ever been in a situation like this? I have, actually, and what you said is not true. I've also served on two criminal juries. If I punched you and then immediately backed off like I stated originally, you would go to jail if you shot me.

With no witnesses it would be my word against no one's word in Florida.
That needs to change...

 

[mugs]

With no witnesses it would be my word against no one's word in Florida.
That needs to change...

We're getting off topic here. This case has nothing to do with that other case other than the claim of self defense. In that other case there was a witness and physical evidence that backed up the claim of self defense. In this case no witnesses or physical evidence have supported the claim of self defense yet.

 

[soundforbjt]

We're getting off topic here. This case has nothing to do with that other case other than the claim of self defense. In that other case there was a witness and physical evidence that backed up the claim of self defense. In this case no witnesses or physical evidence have supported the claim of self defense yet.

True, so far, Dunn is done for murder one...:biggrin:

 

[cmdrdredd]

I don't agree based on my experience. If you resort to your weapon prematurely, then yes, you are screwed. If you resort to a weapon after the other person goes batshit crazy and is trying to kill you, then you are not screwed.

You cannot initiate the confrontation physically. That is clear.

 

[MrDudeMan]

You cannot initiate the confrontation physically. That is clear.

How is that clear? I'm not arguing; I'm actually asking how you know it's clear because I was on the jury for a case where a prisoner and a prison guard were in a similar situation and I assure you, at least in that case, it wasn't clear.

 

[cmdrdredd]

How is that clear? I'm not arguing; I'm actually asking how you know it's clear because I was on the jury for a case where a prisoner and a prison guard were in a similar situation and I assure you, at least in that case, it wasn't clear.

I can't comment on that case, but when it comes to lawful use of force in self defense. You cannot start a fight physically and claim self defense. There is no such thing as lawful aggression and "legally assaulting" someone.

So take this scenario. I carry a concealed weapon. You say something rude to me so I punch you and that causes you to fight back. I cannot then pull out my weapon and escalate to deadly force. The ONLY time this changes is if I am threatened with a weapon of some type. Rock, bat, plank of wood, brick, etc.

The facts and findings of each situation vary so you cannot always apply the same black and white answer. That said, it is clear in self defense laws that you cannot be the aggressor and initiate the confrontation physically.

 

[MrDudeMan]

I can't comment on that case, but when it comes to lawful use of force in self defense. You cannot start a fight physically and claim self defense. There is no such thing as lawful aggression and "legally assaulting" someone.

So take this scenario. I carry a concealed weapon. You say something rude to me so I punch you and that causes you to fight back. I cannot then pull out my weapon and escalate to deadly force. The ONLY time this changes is if I am threatened with a weapon of some type. Rock, bat, plank of wood, brick, etc.

The facts and findings of each situation vary so you cannot always apply the same black and white answer. That said, it is clear in self defense laws that you cannot be the aggressor and initiate the confrontation physically.

In the case I referenced, an inmate attacked a prison guard (with his bare hands) and the guard eventually overcame him. The guard was hitting him with a baton in what looked to be a blind rage (I understand why, but it went beyond what was reasonable). The prisoner managed to grab a chair from a nearby table and hit the guard in the head, which put him in a coma for a few weeks. He was charged with 17 different things, most of which I can't remember, but we didn't find him guilty of most of the things that involved the chair even though we did find him guilty of the initial battery related charges. I can't go into specifics even if I wanted to because I don't remember most of it. It's definitely not an exact match, but it still seems relevant to me since there are similarities.

 

[cmdrdredd]

In the case I referenced, an inmate attacked a prison guard (with his bare hands) and the guard eventually overcame him. The guard was hitting him with a baton in what looked to be a blind rage (I understand why, but it went beyond what was reasonable). The prisoner managed to grab a chair from a nearby table and hit the guard in the head, which put him in a coma for a few weeks. He was charged with 17 different things, most of which I can't remember, but we didn't find him guilty of most of the things that involved the chair even though we did find him guilty of the initial battery related charges. I can't go into specifics even if I wanted to because I don't remember most of it. It's definitely not an exact match, but it still seems relevant to me since there are similarities.

The initial attack is what matters most for CCW holders though. When it comes time to review the case and the facts show you to be the attacker, initially I would say you are pretty much screwed.

There's really no excuse for a CCW holder to start a confrontation in the first place. You are held to a higher standard because you are given certain privileges under the law that are not afforded to just anyone.

 

[MrDudeMan]

The initial attack is what matters most for CCW holders though. When it comes time to review the case and the facts show you to be the attacker, initially I would say you are pretty much screwed.

There's really no excuse for a CCW holder to start a confrontation in the first place. You are held to a higher standard because you are given certain privileges under the law that are not afforded to just anyone.

That's probably a good point.

 

[spidey07]

I can't comment on that case, but when it comes to lawful use of force in self defense. You cannot start a fight physically and claim self defense. There is no such thing as lawful aggression and "legally assaulting" someone.

So take this scenario. I carry a concealed weapon. You say something rude to me so I punch you and that causes you to fight back. I cannot then pull out my weapon and escalate to deadly force. The ONLY time this changes is if I am threatened with a weapon of some type. Rock, bat, plank of wood, brick, etc.

The facts and findings of each situation vary so you cannot always apply the same black and white answer. That said, it is clear in self defense laws that you cannot be the aggressor and initiate the confrontation physically.

That is NOT true at all in many states. Florida specifically allows the initial aggressor to use deadly force if he reasonably believes fears great bodily harm or death and is unable to retreat.

Basically the initial aggressor is held to duty to retreat standards. But if the threat of GHB/death is there and one cannot retreat or has attempted to retreat then deadly force is justified.

Initial aggressor must be the one who used unlawful force first. Words are not aggression.

 

[MrDudeMan]

That is NOT true at all in many states. Florida specifically allows the initial aggressor to use deadly force if he reasonably believes fears great bodily harm or death and is unable to retreat.

Basically the initial aggressor is held to duty to retreat standards. But if the threat of GHB/death is there and one cannot retreat or has attempted to retreat then deadly force is justified.

Initial aggressor must be the one who used unlawful force first. Words are not aggression.

Isn't all force unlawful? I understand what you're saying and it aligns with my limited experience, but the initial aggressor who throws a punch can still be justified to use deadly force even though the initial force was still unlawful.

 

[spidey07]

Isn't all force unlawful? I understand what you're saying and it aligns with my limited experience, but the initial aggressor who throws a punch can still be justified to use deadly force even though the initial force was still unlawful.

Correct. But if your unlawful force rises to the level of forcible felony then self defense is unavailable to you. Don't commit forcible felonies as that gives the victim automatic and clearly justified deadly force.

Initial aggressor stuff is more of "well you shoved this person to the ground therefore you can't use self defense", or "a woman slapper her boyfriend first and then he was kicking the shit out of her so she can't use self defense". If you punch somebody because you thought there were going to punch you, that is not unlawful, but it does make you the initial aggressor.

This is a good article outlining initial aggressor and what the "provoke" aspect of it really means (it doesn't mean words, it means physically threaten or use force)
http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/16/provocation-and-self-defense/

 

[cmdrdredd]

That is NOT true at all in many states. Florida specifically allows the initial aggressor to use deadly force if he reasonably believes fears great bodily harm or death and is unable to retreat.

Basically the initial aggressor is held to duty to retreat standards. But if the threat of GHB/death is there and one cannot retreat or has attempted to retreat then deadly force is justified.

Initial aggressor must be the one who used unlawful force first. Words are not aggression.

Do you live in Florida and are a CCW holder and have studied the self defense laws?

You can't just say "hey this guy might beat me up...BANG!" That is what you're saying and it is 100% factually incorrect.

I am saying you cannot be the first attacker and then claim self defense. You weren't defending, you were attacking.

If someone is threatening you with a weapon...the confrontation was initiated already. You are in defense mode now. Maybe we're arguing the same thing and just using different wording.