General Categories > Newsworthy

Concealed Carry Self-defense Goin' Down

(1/2) > >>

SemperFiGuy:
Your Homework:  Check out the Scurlock SD riot-mob case in Omaha and the recent Albuquerque SD riot-mob case on the web.

Both cases involve clear-cut mob attacks with fear of death/great bodily harm on the attacked individual concealed carriers.

The Omaha case has been waffled toward a grand jury.
The Albuquerque case now has a charge against the SD victim.

Appears that the Skreeming Mob rules.   The mob trumps (as in contract bridge, not the POTUS) statutory law.   ChickenSpit City Administrators waiving everything related to citizens' rights, deferring to the Howlers.

Remember when Ben Franklin was asked what all this revolution means, and Ben said, "A republic, if we can keep it, sir."

And remember when you read 1984 and Brave New World and it all seemed so........................... Orwellian....?


sfg

Greybeard:
I hesitate to comment, lest I hear my comments being read to a jury by the prosecution at my trial!!

greg58:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/06/16/tucker_carlson_black_lives_matter_is_more_popular_than_any_politician_or_politicial_party.html

Politicians, law enforcement officials, prosecutors, football coaches, etc. Are all pussified in fear of making BLM mad.
Rule of law seems to have flown out the window. Free speech is suspended if you disagree...
Sad times in our society!

Gunscribe:
One caveat about the Alb. case; It is alleged that the SD was there to, and did, physically engage other individuals bent on removing a statute. There is credible evidence that he assaulted 3 subjects (possibly all women) prior to the incident where he discharge his firearm. If this proves to be true it may not be considered self defense as he was the one that provoked an initial altercation. 

hilowe:

--- Quote from: Gunscribe on June 18, 2020, 07:02:03 PM ---One caveat about the Alb. case; It is alleged that the SD was there to, and did, physically engage other individuals bent on removing a statute. There is credible evidence that he assaulted 3 subjects (possibly all women) prior to the incident where he discharge his firearm. If this proves to be true it may not be considered self defense as he was the one that provoked an initial altercation.

--- End quote ---

I think Andrew Branca did a video on this incident.  Don't know if this is the one that he did, or if it was one of the other recent incidents.

Branca described it as, based on the video evidence, the initial stuff could be argued that it was "mutual combat". In one of the incidents, a women was physically blocking his path with her arms out, and would physically move to continue blocking his path when he went to go around her. Branca (and I'm going to continue referencing him, since he is a lawyer, no matter people's opinion of him) said, even if you decided that the SD guy was at fault in all of those incidents, the shooting could still potentially be considered self defense.

In all of the instances, it was unarmed combat. Things changed when someone swung a skateboard at the SD guys head, because someone has now brought a "weapon" into the fight that can cause major bodily harm. Branca said at this point, based on the videio, SD guy made the one good decision Branca had seen in the entire series of videos, and tried backing off and leaving the incident. Branca said, even if you decide he was the aggressor in all of the previous incidents, he "regained innocence" at that point. Branca gave the instructions the state gives to juries in a trial for regaining innocence.  There were 3 steps, the first of which was some clear indication that he wanted to end the fight (which Branca said could be argued he did by trying to walk away and leave the scene, and holding his hand up for people to stop).  There were two more steps, that I don't remember clearly now and it's behind Branca's paywall, so can't watch it again.  Pretty sure the last one was the "other side" (don't remember how the instructions were worded) became aggressive or continued to be aggressive. Branca said that could be argued pretty effectively, because of statement's like "he's going to kill you", being attacked by a mob, swinging skateboards, and potential weapons (what looks like a knife in the hands of the guy that ended up getting shot in one of the still images) that were involved.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page