TheFeniX wrote:The Duchess of Zeon wrote:The reality is that most self-defence cases involve fisticuffs already being exchanged or a fairly large buildup. And, of course, that going for the kill and then claiming "I was frightened" is basically how American law operates, but there has to be some kind of actual cause, which these people forget.
I'd love to see you back this up because it's a blatant lie. From
here:
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
snip
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly
communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing
he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts
to use unlawful force against the actor;
You can't start a fight with someone, then kill them when they start winning the fight. Even Florida's law
has provisions where you can't start a fight and open fire when things go South. What it does say is that, if you are some dumbass in a bar fight/whatever and the guy pulls a knife, grabs a barstool/pool stick and starts swinging at your head, you can fight back with equivalent force. However you do have a duty to retreat in that situation and Stand Your Ground doesn't apply.
But please, by all means, you and Trainwreck continue with your armchair psychological fantasy. It's worth a laugh.
You are a dumb motherfucker who can't understand English.
What I meant was that a normal legitimate self-defence ruling proceeds from: "One guy is jumped by someone who starts beating/knifing him. Guy fends off attacker for long enough to have a chance to pull his pistol and fire".
Rather than firing from a distance without any physical contact beforehand. But because you're an idiot and a moron, you turned that into assuming that I meant you could start a fight with someone and then kill them. I guess retardation is just in the water down there.
The "prototypical" incident I am explaining is:
A bizarre case of what appeared to be justifiable homicide rattled the heart of Seattle's swanky downtown shopping district late Saturday morning.
Seattle police are still piecing together what happened, but this much is known: A young man was killed on the crowded sidewalk outside Westlake Center, and the confessed shooter was allowed to walk out of a police station.
The case, according to police and witnesses, began at 11 a.m. Saturday with a 911 call.
Witnesses reported a man in a yellow shirt acting erratically, insulting and threatening passing pedestrians at Pike Street and Boren Avenue near the Washington State Convention and Trade Center, said Seattle police spokeswoman Deb Brown.
A half-hour later, a man matching the same description was reported near Westlake Center. At the same time, a second man, described by witnesses as balding and wearing a leather jacket, was walking through the nearby plaza after finishing his lunch.
Neither man's identity was released by police on Saturday.
The man in the yellow shirt apparently focused in on the second man, saying, "I am going to kill you," Brown said. He then began punching and kicking the second man until the man fell to the sidewalk.
"He was down there, minding his own business. There is nothing to think he was anything but a random target," Brown said.
The victim happened to have a concealed-weapons permit, Brown said, and he was carrying a handgun. He pulled out the gun and fired once, hitting his attacker in the abdomen.
"It looked to me like he shot him in self-defense," said Linda Vu, who was across the street from the shooting, handing out fliers for political activist Lyndon LaRouche. "It's kind of crazy."
The man in the yellow shirt died after being taken to Harborview Medical Center. The King County Medical Examiner was trying to determine his identity, a task complicated by the fact that the man carried no identification.
Several nearby Seattle police officers heard the gunshot. When they arrived at the shooting scene, the victim, sitting on a streetside planter full of purple pansies, handed the gun to them and said, "I am the one who did this," according to Assistant Police Chief Jim Pugel.
The man was arrested, but after questioning him and other witnesses, detectives determined they did not have probable cause to book him into the King County Jail. The man was released. Police said they were withholding his name as a crime victim — of the assault.
It will be up to the county prosecutor to determine whether the man will face charges. But Pugel said, "It could be considered justifiable homicide."
The shooting stunned Jim and Edith Welsh, tourists from Australia who'd just left the Nordstrom store across the street when police arrived. Peering across the police tape draped across Pine Street, Welsh hugged his wife. "I think we're going back to our hotel right now," he said.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/ ... ke08m.html
As for the second point that I was making, it was about the fact that you
CANNOT LEGALLY FIRE WARNING SHOTS IN THE UNITED STATES. IF YOU SHOOT, YOU MUST SHOOT TO KILL. Here is the woman who decided to use a gun for self-defence... And then decided to fire warning shots instead of shooting to kill:
(CBS News) JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - A Florida woman who fired warning shots against her allegedly abusive husband has been sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Marissa Alexander of Jacksonville had said the state's "Stand Your Ground" law should apply to her because she was defending herself against her allegedly abusive husband when she fired warning shots inside her home in August 2010. She told police it was to escape a brutal beating by her husband, against whom she had already taken out a protective order.
CBS Affiliate WETV reports that Circuit Court Judge James Daniel handed down the sentence Friday.
Under Florida's mandatory minimum sentencing requirements Alexander could receive a lesser sentence, even though she has never been in trouble with the law before. Judge Daniel said the law did not allow for extenuating or mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence below the 20-year minimum.
"I really was crying in there," Marissa's 11-year-old daughter told WETV. "I didn't want to cry in court, but I just really feel hurt. I don't think this should have been happening."
Alexander was convicted of attempted murder after she rejected a plea deal for a three-year prison sentence. She said she did not believe she did anything wrong.
She was recently denied a new trial after appealing to the judge to reconsider her case based on Florida's controversial "Stand Your Ground" law. The law states that the victim of a crime does not have to attempt to run for safety and can immediately retaliate in self-defense.
Alexander's attorney said she was clearly defending herself and should not have to spend the next two decades behind bars.
Alexander's case has drawn support from domestic abuse advocates - and comparison to the case of neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, who has claimed a "Stand Your Ground" defense in his fatal shooting of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin.
If she had shot the man dead claiming she was too terrified to do anything but fire straight at him, she would have gotten off under Florida law. But the explicit doctrine of US common law generally is that, "if you are not scared enough to shoot to kill, then you were in the wrong to use the gun at all".
And that's why the guy claimed he was "in fear of his life". Because these people on AR15 and stuff literally drill it into each other's heads that if they shoot, they MUST tell the police that they were in fear of their life, and had to open fire with the real intention of killing--
or else they've committed a felony. So these people robo-train themselves to say exactly the right thing to cops.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-574 ... ing-shots/ -- link for that.
So you can see that US law actually encourages escalation in the second matter, and you're still a retard.
