Should I have done anything?

[Norman Albers]

I had a neighbor, a tall hardworking good fellow. They restored an old house at the bottom of the road. One day last year he caught a thief in the dining room!!! Drawers were open, etc., so Tom yelled "Get out!" The guy leaped up, crashing his head on an open drawer and drawing considerable blood. He bolted for the back door which was locked. Tom did not attack him and he ran out the front door, got in his car to leave. Tom shouldered his rifle and shot right through both rear doors of his car. Goddamned nice response I thought.

[Moontanman]

I agree and stand corrected.

You are correct about the detail regarding the baseball bat wielded by the 5x bigger guy....under certain circumstances unless there is any other alternative, such as an escape route.

 

And, no matter the circumstances, one must be prepared for their future to be ruined, even if it was done to save their own life.

If you injure or kill someone, no matter what the circumstances, it is highly probable that you will be arrested and charged with a crime.

 

Where do you get this from? This is BS, total and complete.

 

The police will not make the assumption that you acted in self-defense or make judgments of right or wrong; the courts will decide that.

 

No, this is not true, it is usually pretty much decided by the police, if the police recommend it the district attorney can investigate but if you have followed the rules then you are safe.

 

There is a high probability that you will sued in civil court by the deceased's family.

 

Now that is a possiblity, but none the less I'd rather be sued for killing him than my family have to bury me.

 

To clarify:

Statutes that define the legitimate use of force in self defense vary from state to state, but the general rule makes a clear and important distinction between the use of physical force and deadly physical force.

For example, in many jurisdictions, a person may use physical force to prevent imminent physical injury.

However, a person may not use deadly physical force unless that person is in reasonable fear of serious physical injury or death.

 

That's possible but not here

 

Furthermore, many statutes regarding self defense law also include a 'duty to retreat' clause.

So, in those jurisdictions, deadly physical force may only be used if the person acting in self defense is unable to safely retreat except for the "castle exception" ("a man's home is his castle" and he does not have to retreat in it).

 

This is true in some states and it should be that way, shooting some one who is trying to get away or having the opportunity to get away and not doing so is wrong.

 

Also, an important limit is that the level of response must not exceed the threat. This is fuzzy, but it is the way that most self defense laws are written.

 

Fuzzier in some states than others but if you pull your weapon for any reason other than a threat you believe is serious then you are in trouble and should be.

 

 

If a 'victim' uses excessive force, they become the aggressor and force becomes excessive when it exceeds that which is necessary to assure one's own safety.

 

Obviously

 

 

Some jurisdictions state that it is the duty of the person threatened to use all prudent and precautionary measures to prevent the attack

 

I would do that whether it was required or not.

 

Also, "no man is allowed to defend himself with force if he can apply to the law for redress, and the law gives him a complete remedy."

 

So, if it can be shown that you could have called the cops and avoided the whole situation, you will be perceived as taking the law into your own hands, and you can expect to spend a long time in jail.

 

Yes this is true and if that is possible why did you pull your gun to start with?

 

A few states have enacted "no duty to retreat" (like the "castle exception" without the house) statutes.

In these jurisdictions, a person has the right to stand ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

 

Personally i don't agree with that, if you can retreat you should, killing someone is something you don't want to carry around for the rest of your life. If possible I would retreat no matter if I had to under law or not.

 

If you are in fear of your life and if the person keeps coming after you pull your gun then you can shoot the aggressor. Having said that, if I had a chance to retreat no gun would ever be pulled to start with. Pulling your gun means you are in real danger, not just taking verbal abuse by some asshole. Now if the person tries to actually strike me or has a weapon then he had better be willing to retreat or to allow me to do so, if not then he is dead, yes I said dead, i do not shoot to wound. I don't know about where you live but around here the rules are specific but if you follow them you don't even a legal review much less a trail. You seem to be fixated on shooting some one who is not really a threat, of course you can't do that but the rules are quite clear, if you are in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm you can defend your self with deadly force. Yes there are some caveats, like allowing the person to retreat or retreating your self if possible but by the time a gun is pulled the possibility of those scenarios should be gone. Pulling a gun when you could retreat is stupid, shooting some one who retreats when you pull your gun is stupid and makes you a murderer.

[GutZ]

I had a guy attack me with a bat, he didnt get very far. No gun or anything. I am one of those quiet people, who got pick on a lot as a kid and decised one day that it's not going to happen anymore. So now I have 4 years of martial arts training, and I've been weightlifting on and off for 3 years. I can bench press around 240-260 pounds. (never do max bench, but I can do 225, 5 times so...) I use to be like 5'10" 130's now I am 6'0 200ibs (though I should be more like 185 ).

 

I wish others would do the same. In our society people believe you have to be either a jock or a nerd. Be both.

 

Have the intelligence to know when to fight, and when to walk away. Ultimately don't sell yourself short. You still do have to survive, and I don't believe in relying on other things or people to do it. If you feel inferior, make yourself superior.

 

The best thing about it those who are assholes, pricks don't have the same level of motivation. They PREY on weak individual, you'lll rarely see them in the gym.

 

IF you do its funny. especially when they are not the biggest guys there, and the people they usually would pick on are bencing 3 plates lol. sutble revenge can be so sweet.....

 

So basically guys...do what you can, take a class a week of Karate, mauy thai, BJJ, judo, Krav maga...or start going to the gym and feel as arnold calls it "Teh pomp"

[DrDNA]

 

I was being sarcastic, don't you have a sense of humor?

 

 

No.

I have NONE when it comes to firearms.

And, quite frankly, I don't understand anyone that does.

 

However, under most other circumstances, a greater sense of humor than most.

 

 

Again BS

In some states you can kill to defend property, no fear of death or injury is required, you can actually kill someone simply because you caught them stealing.

 

 

That is very interesting.

Aside from the 'Castle Exceptions' that I mentioned above, I would certainly be interested in reading your list of states and the respective laws that permit you to 'kill to defend property' and 'kill someone simply because you caught them stealing' without having a justifiable 'fear of death or injury'.

 

I honestly have never seen anyone go to court much less jail if they follow the rules.

 

How many people in total have you personally 'seen go to court' or jail AND not 'seen go to court' or jail involving shootings whether they followed the rules or not?

[Norman Albers]

Why was it possible that 6,000 men were massacred in Sc`rebrenika, in the Croatian Wars in the '90's? I was recently at a neighbor's barbecue where two guys were talking of the assault rifles they owned. I asked if they had shot in the military and they said no.

[Moontanman]

No.

I have NONE when it comes to firearms.

And, quite frankly, I don't understand anyone that does.

 

However, under most other circumstances, a greater sense of humor than most.

 

 

Well i can see the humor in most situations and while shooting some one isn't really humorous the idea of paper work is, I've heard cops use the same humor, sorry for copying them.

 

That is very interesting.

Aside from the 'Castle Exceptions' that I mentioned above, I would certainly be interested in reading your list of states and the respective laws that permit you to 'kill to defend property' and 'kill someone simply because you caught them stealing' without having a justifiable 'fear of death or injury'.

 

Texas

 

 

How many people in total have you personally 'seen go to court' or jail AND not 'seen go to court' or jail involving shootings whether they followed the rules or not?

 

Three not, none did.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Why was it possible that 6,000 men were massacred in Sc`rebrenika, in the Croatian Wars in the '90's? I was recently at a neighbor's barbecue where two guys were talking of the assault rifles they owned. I asked if they had shot in the military and they said no.

 

I have to say assault riffles have nothing to do with self defense, at least under any conceivable normal circumstances.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

So basically guys...do what you can, take a class a week of Karate, mauy thai, BJJ, judo, Krav maga...or start going to the gym and feel as arnold calls it "Teh pomp"

 

Basically I am too old to go that route.

[Norman Albers]

Moontanman, I do not know what to say entirely, but I have deep distrust of power in the large, and respect the need for individuals to be strong when things get extreme. I feel your discussion is not facing this.

[Moontanman]

Moontanman, I do not know what to say entirely, but I have deep distrust of power in the large, and respect the need for individuals to be strong when things get extreme. I feel your discussion is not facing this.

 

Do you honestly think that an armed contingent of civilians could oppose our government? You would have to have the same resources as our government to even think of such a thing, not likely. I have a 12 guage marine magnum for home defense and a 9mm Smith and Wesson for personol defense. I grew up with and around guns, had my own since i was 10 years old. I have no fear but a healthy respect for guns. i was taught how and when to use a gun from practically the day i began to walk. A bunch of civilians running around with assault rifles is not a good thing.

[Norman Albers]

Thank you sincerely, Moontanman. Do you have much of a moontan??? OK, I have lived through an era of abuse of government power. I think that an armed populace will pose an unacceptable opposing conflict, yes.

[Moontanman]

Not much, no. Exactly where did you go through this? What era? The worst abuse of our governments power I've seen has been in the last eight years. Our military has resources no civilian or group of civilians can hope to be much more than a irritant much less match. I see no reason to think we could need such a force, if we do then it's too late.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Moontanman

[Norman Albers]

I'm sorry. I shall promote something better.

[DrDNA]

Texas

 

I admit that Texas is unique in its interpretation of the Castle Doctrine.

 

In some states you can kill to defend property, no fear of death or injury is required, you can actually kill someone simply because you caught them stealing.

 

But you canNOT shoot someone simply because you caught them stealing.

Even in Texas.

 

Plus, I said besides the Castle Law (Doctrine) exceptions.

 

Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code describes deadly force as justified to prevent arson, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night, or to prevent a suspect from fleeing if the property owner "reasonably believes the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury."

 

‘Texas Castle Doctrine’

 

Texas Senate Bill 378

Effective: 9-1-07

................

 

Under Chapter 9 (Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility), Penal Code, a person is justified in using force and, in some instances, deadly force to repel an aggressor. In deadly force situations, the person must reasonably believe that the force is immediately necessary to protect his or her person from the exercise of unlawful deadly force by the aggressor or to prevent the imminent commission of an aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. Current law provides an affirmative defense to a civil action brought by an attacker for damages for personal injury or death resulting from the use of force or deadly force, but only in cases involving home invasions. As a result, a person who justifiably uses force or deadly force outside of the home and is not guilty of any crime may still be open to a civil action filed by the criminal or the criminal’s family.

 

In addition, the Texas Penal Code contains no presumption of reasonableness in defending a home, vehicle, place of business, or place of employment against unlawful intruders. Instead, Texas juries must decide after the fact whether a victim’s actions to protect the victim and his or her family were reasonable or necessary under the circumstances.

 

S.B. 378 explicitly states in law that a person has no duty to retreat if the person is attacked in a place where he or she has a right to be present, if he or she has not provoked the attacker, and if the person using force is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used. In addition, the jury is instructed to presume that the victim’s actions were reasonable if the victim brings forth evidence that he or she is entitled to the presumption, unless the state can prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, the bill expands the existing affirmative defense to a civil action brought by an injured criminal attacker or his family to apply to any force or deadly force conduct authorized by Subchapter C (Protection of Persons), Chapter 9, Penal Code.

...............

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

 

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [it is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

http://loneranger2008.wordpress.com/2008/05/13/texas-castle-doctrine-the-law-word-for-word/

Edited April 4, 2009 by DrDNA

[Moontanman]

 

Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code describes deadly force as justified to prevent arson, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night, or to prevent a suspect from fleeing if the property owner "reasonably believes the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury."

 

 

Maybe I should have been more exact, you can shoot them if they are stealing your personal property. personally i wouldn't do that anyway.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I'm sorry. I shall promote something better.

 

Please do, BTW just because you edit out a few cuss words doesn't mean they don't get sent to me!

Edited April 4, 2009 by Moontanman
Consecutive posts merged.

[cameron marical]

i usually just stare at them and wait for them to say something. if they do, i reply something smarter. if they want to fight about it, ill stand there and drop my things and stand up to them. youd be surprised at how many people actually do back down to this. ive stood up to groups like this and they all just shut up and avoid eye contact.

 

or you could just work out alot and pantemimely further establish survival of the fitess. dont know many people who screw with buff guys. though, people shouldnt have to get buff in order to avoid confrontation, i guess that you could have just scared him a bit by stopping and staring him down or something. then if he continued, just laugh like he's dirt trying to be gold and walk away.he might even get a little life lesson out of it. little shit.

[Norman Albers]

I very much appreciate this discussion. I may not agree with, say, Moontanman's attitudes but I understand and respect the thinking behind them. It is important to think on these things to establish my own center from which to react, or not.

[GutZ]

Basically I am too old to go that route.

 

well then of course gun or ejecting cane knife.

 

I am so getting one of those.

[Lan(r)12]

...Im just going to jump in here and not read the last 30 or so posts

 

I carry an 18" telescopic baton for just such an occasion. It is perfectly legal to carry so long as you have taken the proper courses.

I would've "risked" confrontation and told them to shut the **** up and go home. I stand at 6'2 so I usually dont have to ask twice. Add in the psychological deterrent of an expanded baton, and you can pretty much reinstate order by yourself...

 

Stand up for those that are too small to do it on their own, like children or woman, or some men.

Do the right thing, even if it means breakin someone's leg with 18 inches of solid steel to do it.

 

And Moontanman, I can certainly understand where youre coming from. I live in Kentucky, in a rural area, and I highly doubt that the police would arrest you for kicking some punks ass, or drawing a pistol, provided you had a permit.

Most people around here have guns in the car...we dont see this kind of behavior where I live.

Edited April 7, 2009 by Lan(r)12

[insane_alien]

...Im just going to jump in here and not read the last 30 or so posts

 

I carry an 18" telescopic baton for just such an occasion. It is perfectly legal to carry so long as you have taken the proper courses.

I would've "risked" confrontation and told them to shut the **** up and go home. I stand at 6'2 so I usually dont have to ask twice. Add in the psychological deterrent of an expanded baton, and you can pretty much reinstate order by yourself...

 

you haven't seen birmingham have you? or any UK city for that matter.

[Lan(r)12]

you haven't seen birmingham have you? or any UK city for that matter.

 

No, but unless you all are capable of taking what is basically an aluminum bat to the skull or leg, I dont really think Id have any trouble handling some skinny little snot-nose skater punks.

 

you should see the big 'ol country boys that lumber around here...Id MUCH rather fight a skater punk with an attitude than those big man-bears. They could take me out with one punch and they LIKE to fight. Most hooligans dont want trouble that might result in a fractured skull.

[Kaeroll]

No, but unless you all are capable of taking what is basically an aluminum bat to the skull or leg, I dont really think Id have any trouble handling some skinny little snot-nose skater punks.

 

you should see the big 'ol country boys that lumber around here...Id MUCH rather fight a skater punk with an attitude than those big man-bears. They could take me out with one punch and they LIKE to fight. Most hooligans dont want trouble that might result in a fractured skull.

In the UK it's not the "snot-nose skater punks". Most of them are either perfectly alright, or a bit lippy at worst. It's the knife-carrying sociopathic thugs that would like nothing more than to stab the skater punks to death that are the problem.

[The Bear's Key]

Maybe insane_alien was referring to UK not having guns? Not even cops -- except I think special units for when a gun confrontation is required?

[Kaeroll]

Maybe insane_alien was referring to UK not having guns? Not even cops -- except I think special units for when a gun confrontation is required?

Not entirely sure. Most officers don't, that's true. The only time I've seen an officer with a firearm is in an airport.

[insane_alien]

i was reffering to the extensive knife culture in the uk. it isn't uncommon for the groups of people causing hassles like this to be carrying a machete. yes a machete. now, base ball bat or not, i'd be unwilling to go up against a bunch of machete wielding neds.

 

this is not even mentioning the rest of the spectrum of bladed weapons i've seenwhen they decide to have a fight on the streets of glasgow.

[YT2095]

meh, I`ll see your Machete and raise you one Klingon Bat`leth

 

no, I`m not kidding, serious!... http://irdial.com/blogdial/?p=346

[insane_alien]

yeah i seen that one too. never seen anyone carrying one outside though.