General Categories > Laws and Legislation
Gray areas in Self Defense
Bucket:
--- Quote from: RedDot on May 03, 2013, 10:24:56 PM ---And he was trying to "turn his life around" right before he tried to rob you at gun point... his mom always says so ;)
--- End quote ---
He made some bad decisions and was hanging out with the wrong people, too.
depserv:
All very good points my friends. I'd say it boils down in some cases to the reasonable person doctrine, and what could be sold to a possibly unreasonable jury. It's one reason (among many) that a wise man will walk away from a fight long before it becomes one, if he can. But if he can't, as the saying goes, it's better to be tried by twelve than carried by six (even if the twelve are soccer moms and shallow-minded college professors blinded by liberal doublethink).
Oh, and don't forget that Sarah Palin called herself a soccer mom; I'd be ok with her being on the jury if I had to defend myself.
HuskerXDM:
--- Quote from: Bucket on May 04, 2013, 12:59:26 PM ---He made some bad decisions and was hanging out with the wrong people, too.
--- End quote ---
He was framed by the FBI. And why couldn't you just have shot him in the leg?
depserv:
--- Quote from: HuskerXDM on May 05, 2013, 12:50:17 PM ---He was framed by the FBI. And why couldn't you just have shot him in the leg?
--- End quote ---
I know you're kidding, but in case someone isn't aware of it a point should be clarified: it's my understanding that shooting to wound instead of shooting to kill is a bad idea. And so is shooting into the ground or air to warn somebody (as though seeing a gun won't stop them but hearing one will).
As I understand it, the way the law is generally interpreted, you either have the need to use lethal force or you don't, so you either use it or you don't; you don't kind of use it. A shot to the leg is most likely to stop someone if the bullet hits a long bone like the femur, and if it hits that, chances are it will hit the artery too, which could be fatal.
The movie Terminator 2 had Arnold shooting people in the leg as though it was a way of turning a firearm into a stun gun. I know that was fiction, but there are people whose perception of reality is affected by fiction. Hopefully none here on this site, but who knows.
Do those with a better understanding than I have of the law have any thoughts on shooting to wound instead of to kill?
depserv:
Here's another question to spark some discussion on gray areas:
Are there rules on how far you can go to keep someone from taking control of you? Obviously it's common for criminals to take control of their victims and then commit violence against them somewhere else. So I would think the same rules that apply to direct and immediate violence would apply to an attempt to take control of you. But I don't know the law all that well. I know what I'd do; I just don't know if it would be as clear cut as a deadly response to an immediate violent act.
Say for example someone claims to be a plain clothes police officer but you don't believe him; he insists on putting cuffs on you because he says you look like a suspect or "for your safety" or something, and he won't wait for you to call 911 and confirm that he's who he says he is (criminals tend to make things happen fast). A lot of people aren't all that familiar with police procedure, and it's not uncommon for criminals to pretend to be police.
If the only way to stop this guy from putting cuffs on you and forcing you into his car is to draw your pistol and shoot him, are you legally justified in doing so?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version