Please explain how someone can form a "reasonable belief that their life was in danger" in a fraction of a second and how you are comfortable with that being the basis of taking a life. Perhaps, "I would have done the same thing in that situation" is your conclusion. What a terrible, lowly bar to set.

So what bar would you set?

You are a farmer and you walk out into a field and a large, powerful man has beaten your pre-teen daughter senseless, is armed with a knife, and is forcibly raping her. You come into the clearing a few feet behind them and he starts to turn his head toward you. There is a four foot section of 2x4 at your feet. What do you do? Call "time out!" and sit there and consider your options? Run away and leave him there with your daughter while you go back to the farmhouse to call the police, who will take at least a half hour to get to your place?

Perhaps the standard is what a reasonable person would do given a fraction of a second to make a decision is because, in many situations, that is all the time you HAVE to make a decision.

 

"Plenty of people." There is a fundamental problem of attitude toward the use of firearms and deadly use of force in this country. Please explain how someone can form a "reasonable belief that their life was in danger" in a fraction of a second and how you are comfortable with that being the basis of taking a life. Perhaps, "I would have done the same thing in that situation" is your conclusion. What a terrible, lowly bar to set.

If you are concerned about a baseball game, in a city where a man's neck was practically severed when in official custody, and cannot understand the difference between a rock or bottle against a gun, then you are part of the problem.

Yes, I am a part of the problem, a person who can think in a rational manner and not be herded off a cliff by emotional poppycock.

 

Whose rational sets the standards thats where the issue falls apart.

To a person who is locked down hard in 'What if' beliefs all things are reasonable and rational to them because every conceivable worst case scenario leads to justification even when by the truly rational and reasonable person view they clearly are not.

For example,

So what bar would you set?

You are a farmer and you walk out into a field and a large, powerful man has beaten your pre-teen daughter senseless, is armed with a knife, and is forcibly raping her. You come into the clearing a few feet behind them and he starts to turn his head toward you. There is a four foot section of 2x4 at your feet. What do you do? Call "time out!" and sit there and consider your options? Run away and leave him there with your daughter while you go back to the farmhouse to call the police, who will take at least a half hour to get to your place?

I would not consider this situation a rational 'what if' simply because the odds are so outrageously high it's near impossibility to happen. What I would call it is a strawman defence at best to rationalize unrealistic actions based on improbable scenarios.

 

I would not consider this situation a rational 'what if' simply because the odds are so outrageously high it's near impossibility to happen. What I would call it is a strawman defence at best to rationalize unrealistic actions based on improbable scenarios.

Except that I drew that "what if" from an actual case not too long ago.

That farmer HAD to make a decision. That farmer DID make a decision. A grand jury DID have to decide if that farmer's decision WAS justified.

So how is that a strawman?

 

There is a fundamental problem of attitude toward the use of firearms and deadly use of force in this country.

So true. Only mandatory concealed carry can solve that "fundamental problem".

 

I am surprised a DA would even consider this scenario. It is pretty obvious what a reasonable person would do.

Where was this?

 

I don't recall. The reason it was a story was precisely because the DA sent it to a grand jury. If I remember, it was because the father hit the guy multiple times and the DA maintained that, at some point, the guy had been rendered incapable of presenting a threat and so because the father continued hitting him he could no longer claim he was acting to stop the attack upon his daughter. Also, there was a completely unrelated incident elsewhere at about the same time where an even more bizarre incident was sent to a grand jury and people were trying to draw (in my opinion) unreasonable parallels between the two. I don't know if I can track the cases down or not.

 

Perhaps the standard is what a reasonable person would do given a fraction of a second to make a decision is because, in many situations, that is all the time you HAVE to make a decision.

Do you not see the problem here? Judicial precedent asks if a reasonable person believes 1) they are being threatened with physical harm, 2) that danger has a particular level of gravity, 3) the use of force will prevent this from happening, 4) the use of force required for safety is similar to the level of gravity, 4) if no force was used, the harm would be immediate, and 5) no non-violent alternatives were available. All in a fraction of a second.

"That's all the time I had because black people be skury!" Especially in light of recent events.

The law demands otherwise.

So true. Only mandatory concealed carry can solve that "fundamental problem".

I have no idea how this pertains to the fundamental issue of "shoot first, ask questions later" because "I am in fear of my life." Congratulations on a non-sequitur?

 

Do you not see the problem here? Judicial precedent asks if a reasonable person believes 1) they are being threatened with physical harm, 2) that danger has a particular level of gravity, 3) the use of force will prevent this from happening, 4) the use of force required for safety is similar to the level of gravity, 4) if no force was used, the harm would be immediate, and 5) no non-violent alternatives were available.

Requirement 5 is unrealistic. There is no requirement that violence be the last choice, only a reasonable choice. What is reasonable at any one instant in time depends on circumstance. If a teenage boy stole ice-cream and ran it would not be reasonable to shoot him in the back. If the boston bomber ran in handcuffs and leg irons to a waiting getaway car it would be very reasonable to shoot him in the back without giving warning or chase. The fact that some make unreasonable choices is not an excuse for those who can to give those right only to the police or government because they will surely abuse that power in the ways we see today. Reducing the responsibility of the public for their own safety only empowers the police state and does not prevent violence. It usually actually increases the level of violence because of the resources available to government vs a home owner with a handgun who knows the 'bad guys' in his neighborhood.

 

Requirement 5 is unrealistic. There is no requirement that violence be the last choice, only a reasonable choice.

It's just as valid as the other criteria. If other alternatives were available to eliminate the threat, then it is quite possible that the use of deadly force is not justified.

boston bomber ran in handcuffs and leg irons to a waiting getaway car it would be very reasonable to shoot him in the back without giving warning or chase.

FULL STOP.
What immediate threat does a person in chains present to police or the community? None. Apparently, on a square planet, there are no other alternatives to re-capture someone running away. It could be the Devil himself; we have laws that protect society from the unjustified use of force.

The fact that some make unreasonable choices is not an excuse for those who can to give those right only to the police or government because they will surely abuse that power in the ways we see today. Reducing the responsibility of the public for their own safety only empowers the police state and does not prevent violence. It usually actually increases the level of violence because of the resources available to government vs a home owner with a handgun who knows the 'bad guys' in his neighborhood.

What?

"If we do not allow people to use deadly force determined by the lack of any objective criteria and leave that decision to the authorities, we will have a dictatorship?"

 

I have no idea how this pertains...

You made an absurd claim. I illustrated that with tongue-in-cheek absurdity. That's all.

 

Do you not see the problem here? Judicial precedent asks if a reasonable person believes 1) they are being threatened with physical harm, 2) that danger has a particular level of gravity, 3) the use of force will prevent this from happening, 4) the use of force required for safety is similar to the level of gravity, 4) if no force was used, the harm would be immediate, and 5) no non-violent alternatives were available. All in a fraction of a second.

You still haven't addressed the question. If it is so unreasonable to use a standard that is based on what a reasonable person would do given only that fraction of a second to make a decision, then what standard should be used?

"That's all the time I had because black people be skury!" Especially in light of recent events.

See if you can stop trying to play the race card for a few minutes. Unless, that is, you are trying to claim that the law should have different standards for people of different races. Is that what you are proposing?

The law demands otherwise.

What does the law demand? What standard do you believe would be reasonable to hold YOU to?

 

...
"If we do not allow people to use deadly force determined by the lack of any objective criteria and leave that decision to the authorities, we will have a dictatorship?"

That's ridiculous and you know it.

 

If other alternatives were available to eliminate the threat, then it is quite possible that the use of deadly force is not justified.

I'm no lawyer, but as far as I can tell the availability of alternatives has had no bearing in the case law. Deadly force is either justified by the circumstances or it isn't. You don't have to consider and rule out alternatives unless you choose to.

 

... cannot understand the difference between a rock or bottle against a gun, then you are part of the problem.

I know the difference between a rock, bottle against a gun. I also know people have been killed by fists, bottles, rocks, and guns.

Samuel Colt's revolver was called the "equalizer". You could be 6 ft 5, 250 lbs, and angry as you can be. You could even take that anger out against a 5 ft 2 woman, only if she is armed, she can defend herself. Speaking of Texas, there are plenty of women armed around here. There was a "road rage" incident where the driver got out of their car and confronted another driver ... only to be shot because he threatened the driver.

There are all sorts of weapons. They are not playing rock, paper, scissors. They are committing aggravated assault. When one escalates the assault, the response can be escalated until the disturbance is squelched.

This isn't the movie "Purge." One still has the right to self-defense and protecting their property.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arizona-cop-n350166

Some Detectives are pretty sharp.

 

I don't recall. The reason it was a story was precisely because the DA sent it to a grand jury. If I remember, it was because the father hit the guy multiple times and the DA maintained that, at some point, the guy had been rendered incapable of presenting a threat and so because the father continued hitting him he could no longer claim he was acting to stop the attack upon his daughter. between the two. .

So apply this against law enforcement too. Why can they empty their weapon into a suspect and get off?

 

Y

See if you can stop trying to play the race card for a few minutes. Unless, that is, you are trying to claim that the law should have different standards for people of different races. Is that what you are proposing?

That goes both ways too. How come the forum only talks about this stuff when it's minorities doing it? Never see any mention of it after say the riots after some Stanley Cup games, or other sports , when it's mostly young white kids doing it.

 

That goes both ways too. How come the forum only talks about this stuff when it's minorities doing it? Never see any mention of it after say the riots after some Stanley Cup games, or other sports , when it's mostly young white kids doing it.

What are the 'Stanley Cup games', I don't follow soccer. Unfortunately mindless sports hooliganism has become back page news win, lose or draw.

 

How come the forum only talks about this stuff when it's minorities doing it? Never see any mention of it after say the riots after some Stanley Cup games, or other sports , when it's mostly young white kids doing it.

The reality is no one brings it up. That does not mean I condone such activity ... besides, when was the last time someone accused the cops of shooting someone after those games? I remember hearing about arrests, but never any deaths.