Escalation of Force and property.

[Knife]

I have a new hobby, one of the local papers have their online eddition that I like reading the opinions and leaving comments. Especially after some fellow leaves retarded comments.

Anyway, one of the opinion pieces was commenting on a local councilman who found a couple kids actually spray painting his pickup truck and he went over and grabbed the two and held them for the cops. He's now getting charged with assault for grabbing and holding the two kids.

On the online eddition, a reader posted a comment sympathetic to the opinion but then ramps it up a level or eight and writes;

[sic]

This is a good example of how our freedoms are being eroded, all in the name of relying on or government to protect us.

You own property, someone is damaging that property, you should be able to take appropriate action to prevent that damage.

Unfortunately, you are required to rely on the police to protect it for you, so, go ahead and sit back, and wait for them to get there, if you live in Ogden, it should only take a day for them to respond.

That is why you have insurance, so they can pay up, and all the rest of us can pay a small chunk of it (in rate increases)

I am not necessarily a vigilante, but I can tell you this. I do not rely on the police to protect me or my family.

Case in point, back in 03 I was attending Weber State on the GI Bill, I was bar tending at night and going to school in the day, I had a wife and one young son.

happy days were ending, i recieved orders I was being called back up, for Afghanistan, and it was best to ready my family. I had a couple of months notice. About that time, my wife picked up a stalker, she had left her drivers license somewhere and a middle aged man had picked it up, my wife is beautiful, she started getting knocking on the doors and windows, after midnight, I would not get home until 2 or 3 in the morning.

She would call the police and they would arrive several hours later, the man would be gone already.

I taught my wife to use my handgun, and after giving OPD several opportunities to end this, i decided to end it myself.

This man had come by at least half a dozen times (that we knew of), OPD had never responded faster than an hour and a half (the report was someone trying to break in to our house) and I was getting ready to leave for war.

I parked my car on another street(he always came by when my car was gone), and went home and waited, sure enough, about 1am I get lots of pounding on the front door, then stop, i wanted to know what all he was doing so I let him go through his routine, he want to our side window and tried to open a window, then hard pounding on that window, I waited, then back to the front door..hard pounding.

I had told the wife, once the fight starts to give me 10 minutes then call the police, and report an intruder in the home.

I opened the front door and his first sight was me, then my fist.

This army grunt, years of infantry, airborne, and mountain training, was mad, and not, the count to ten and forget about it mad, this was the, you are scaring my wife and child to death mad, you are threatening my family mad, you will be lucky to survive this mad.

I beat that man, in my front yard, when he fell, i kicked him in the face until he got up, when he got up, I punched him until he fell, and I repeated it.

He bled from all over.

as he laid there, covering the snow in crimson, I asked him nicely, if he planned on coming back to visit, he just shook his head.

I could see the police lights coming, they responded a lot better when they heard that a homeowner was defending himself.

I took my handgun from my pants and walked it back inside, while inside, this man got in his car and drove off.

Several squad cars arrived and came out guns drawn, i raised my hands in the air and they patted me down.

I told them the story while standing in handcuffs.

They were ready to haul me in on assault, after all, there was a lot of blood, finally an old police sergeant arrived, uncuffed me and started talking sense. He had been on the last call to our house and he knew the story.

They followed a hunch and went to McKay-Dee, looked around the emergency room an sure enough, there was a middle aged man, covered in blood, he said he had been attacked by a gang and couldn't describe them.

he had my wifes drivers license in his pocket, and said he had been trying to return it for over a month, the old police sergeant drove it back to me.

I stood in the driveway and talked to him for a while, he said the guy would be getting well over a hundred stitches in his face, but had no plans of ever coming near my wife again.

Was this excessive? maybe

But our society has gotten too accustomed to having the government protect them, and that is not a good thing.

I'm pretty pro gun and pro self defense but even I have a problem with this asshole going out side and basically beating the guy just shy of death and probably the only reason he didn't is to mitigate his liability in the situation. He even went so far as to bring a gun with him and make sure it got back in the house before the cops got there.

With all his pomp about the military, I tried to put it in those terms for him, namely force escalation and how he jumped all the way to lethal and that's why I thought he was wrong, that and through all his bluster, the guy still got away from him while he was busy making sure he wouldn't go to prison.

Of course I got more 'yarg I'm an army guy' crap.

cc, sorry, but I am a big believer in intent.

ROE states, "nothing on this card prevents you from using necessary and proportional force, to defend yourself"

then we have to look at what is intended...would I beat a man up for returning my wife's ID? no way. would I hurt a kid for cutting across my lawn? nope.

would I beat a man for repeated attempts to break into my house when my wife was home alone? absolutely, did it and would do it again.

would I shoot a kid in iraq while He is reloading his AK? you bet, did it.

this is about intent, that man had intentions of breaking into my house when my young wife was home alone, I do not need a law degree to know what he wanted.

The young man had every intention of shooting me when he finished reloading, same, same.

I fully understand force escalation, better than anyone else on this site. And there was nothing out of bounds for what I did, and I like to think that beating that man, saved someone else the heartbreak of having a loved one hurt by him.

Just like shooting the kid in iraq saved another soldier from being attacked by him.

Escalation of force, is something officers threw at us when we got back to base and they wanted to fill out their paperwork properly, but I will tell you the same thing I told them, the entire escalation of force can be accomplished with one trigger pull, in a fraction of a second...but that is not something I would expect anyone who has never been in combat to understand.

Which still doesn't make sense since even with intent added in, the guy didn't make it into the house so there was no lethal threat to react to. I also pointed out the obvious of appeal to authority and appeal to emotion he's using. As a former NCO in a infantry platoon, this guy would need a lot of watching to make sure he didn't get anyone killed and to make sure he didn't get the whole unit into a legal nightmare to fulfill his rambo complex.


There is plenty to debate when it comes to gun control, property rights, escalation of force, lethal force. But ego and self gratification aren't one of them, doubly so when you try to play up the rest to justify your egotistical forey.

[Broomstick]

Let's see...

.... he could have shot the stalker easily, but he didn't.

.... he could have beaten him to death, but he didn't.

Without getting into the whether or not Mr. Badass Military Boy was in the right or wrong here, he did NOT use lethal force. No, he didn't. Seems to me he stopped well before threat of death if the Stalker Guy was able to get up and drive himself to the emergency room. Mr. BMB wasn't stopped by someone else, he stopped himself. Nope, not lethal force.

[PeZook]

Huh...

While bragging how badass he was and how he could defend himself and his family RAR is irritating, and he didn't really escalate 100% properly (he basically swung the door open and started punching the guy), and he used more force than necessary, I can't say I feel sorry for the creepy stalker. He survived, he'll need stitches, he shouldn't pound on people's door in the middle of the night time after time after time. I personally think the guy has an agression control problem, though: he continued beating the stalker well after he had the upper hand, kicking him in the face, etc.

Couldn't he have just subdued him and held him untill the police arrived? Oh, yeah, but that would be "depending on the government for his own protection". Right.

[Knife]

Let's see...

.... he could have shot the stalker easily, but he didn't.

Nope, but he did have his gun in his pants so if the opportunity arose he could. Granted, I'm speculating on this one, but I believe he would have shot the guy if any small provoction gave him a legal out to do so.

.... he could have beaten him to death, but he didn't.

I beat that man, in my front yard, when he fell, i kicked him in the face until he got up, when he got up, I punched him until he fell, and I repeated it.

He in fact did. Lethal Force is the force necessary to kill or reasonable expect to kill some one. Beating him till he falls, then beating him on the ground until he gets up and then beating him again would certainly fall within this. One would expect that if you beat someone to the ground and then start kicking him in the head, death certainly could result. That is lethal force. You don't necessarily have to kill some one to use lethal force, shooting some one is lethal force and yet people can survive a gunshot.

Without getting into the whether or not Mr. Badass Military Boy was in the right or wrong here, he did NOT use lethal force. No, he didn't.

Yes he did. If he was some dumb shit not in the military I could see his ignorance of the legality of it. However he went to great length to throw out his military training so I have little sympathy for him. He should know that he did in fact use lethal force in a situation that didn't call for it. He knew enough to cover his ass from a gun charge and who knows, he might have let the guy go to further mitigate his liability, I don't know.

Seems to me he stopped well before threat of death if the Stalker Guy was able to get up and drive himself to the emergency room. Mr. BMB wasn't stopped by someone else, he stopped himself. Nope, not lethal force.

Again, lethal force doesn't necessarily have to kill the person on the spot or at all. If he shot the guy in the leg instead of beat him, I doubt we'd be having this particular dissagreement.

[PainRack]

Let's see...

.... he could have shot the stalker easily, but he didn't.

.... he could have beaten him to death, but he didn't.

Without getting into the whether or not Mr. Badass Military Boy was in the right or wrong here, he did NOT use lethal force. No, he didn't. Seems to me he stopped well before threat of death if the Stalker Guy was able to get up and drive himself to the emergency room. Mr. BMB wasn't stopped by someone else, he stopped himself. Nope, not lethal force.

That doesn't matter when discussing escalation of force. The idea here is to use sufficient force to PREVENT HARM.

The only way to justify that level of violence would be for the stalker to had actively fought back, something that the poster didn't mention. Continuing to beat someone up when he's helpless is simple brutality.

[Singular Intellect]

As far as I see it, he didn't kill the guy or intent to kill him. So he was completely in the right.

I actually wouldn't have had a problem if he had ended up killing the guy, because he was defending his wife and kid from a obviously mentally unstable individual (or at the very least fucking stupid individual), who could easily have been a potential rapist and/or murderer.

You see, I think it's funny; say a bear attacks and mauls a human because that person strayed a bit too close to it's cubs. Even when the human is unaware of the cubs nearby (as realized later), I've read enough of these stories to know the general consensus is that the human wasn't careful enough or should've been more cautious. "It was the bear's territory, I was intruding into it's home"...these words more often than not are spoken by the victim themselves. The bear itself didn't do anything wrong, it was merely protecting it's young. The same goes for things like shark attacks and many other animals aggressively defending their territory/young/family. On this very board we'll mock and sneer at stupid assholes who provoke animals into aggressive and defensive behaviors, never mind some ashole who thinks it might be funny to scare the shit out of some bear cubs or whatnot.

However, when we change that story as demostrated here, where a human predator who is clearly stalking a human family and the male aggressively defends his loved ones, suddenly it's "oh no! he should have exercised more restraint and been more reasonable".

What a load of fucking bullshit. Why the fuck don't people have the right to defend themselves and loved ones like animals do?

The problem isn't anyone who's willing and capable of aggressively defending their family...it's the fucking idiots/criminals out there who are clearly threatening the family in the first place who are the problem.

As far as I'm concerned, if the police showed up and find the husband beating the shit out of the stalker (and they know the situation), then they should restraint the husband if that's necessary, cuff the stalker and see if the family wants to press charges. None of this "He's being way too aggressive!" whining shit.

[Darth Wong]

So if I ever shoot someone, I just need to make sure that he and I have a history, he's on my property, and I can tell the police afterwards that he was threatening my family? After all, it's not as if the dead guy can contradict my testimony, so I win! Win win!

[Singular Intellect]

So if I ever shoot someone, I just need to make sure that he and I have a history, he's on my property, and I can tell the police afterwards that he was threatening my family? After all, it's not as if the dead guy can contradict my testimony, so I win! Win win!

Ah, so if some guy is threatening your family, what will you do then? And knowing the police aren't going to show up in time to stop him? (And let's dismiss this shooting nonesense, since with a gun you should clearly have control of the situation; I'm talking about being physically aggressive against an intruder)

[Oni Koneko Damien]

She would call the police and they would arrive several hours later, the man would be gone already.

...

This man had come by at least half a dozen times (that we knew of), OPD had never responded faster than an hour and a half.

...

I had told the wife, once the fight starts to give me 10 minutes then call the police, and report an intruder in the home.

...

I could see the police lights coming, they responded a lot better when they heard that a homeowner was defending himself.

I took my handgun from my pants and walked it back inside, while inside, this man got in his car and drove off.

So... the police never respond faster than an hour and a half. Except when they respond in under twenty minutes (he said for her to wait ten minutes before calling, so I'm assuming that's the length of time it took as a low-end figure, leaving out the ridiculousness of someone viciously attacking someone else for twenty-minutes straight).

But while he could see the lights coming, the other guy apparently still has time to get up and drive away without being noticed by the police.

Yeah, that's consistent. I also love how he never bothered to, say, check the guy's license plate, take his keys, etc. while he had him bleeding on the ground.

[SCRawl]

You see, I think it's funny; say a bear attacks and mauls a human because that person strayed a bit too close to it's cubs. {Much snippage}

The big difference here is that you can't reason with a bear. If you call the police to come deal with the bear, they'll laugh at you, because that isn't their job.

No, the guy in the OP basically laid a trap for the stalker. Was his method successful? It clearly was. But is that the only means we use to measure whether or not the actions taken were justified?

The correct thing to do, which would have satisfied the law (if not his own sense of self-importance) would have been to physically restrain the stalker until the police arrived. He had the means to do so: he was the better man physically, he was armed with a lethal weapon, he had surprise and the law on his side. Stalker goes to jail for a while, and learns to not fuck with this family again, since Mr. Badass could be home at any time.

Is my way going to be as effective as the way Mr. Badass described? Maybe, maybe not. If the stalker is the vindictive type, he'll just show up one day with a shotgun, regardless of how vigorously he was dissuaded the first time.

[Knife]

As far as I see it, he didn't kill the guy or intent to kill him. So he was completely in the right.

No he wasn't.

I actually wouldn't have had a problem if he had ended up killing the guy, because he was defending his wife and kid from a obviously mentally unstable individual (or at the very least fucking stupid individual), who could easily have been a potential rapist and/or murderer.

Or just some asshole who wanted to scare them. While that is an asshole, it hardly should be punished with death. That's my point dumb shit. At no time was his wife actually in danger since she was inside a locked house with a weapon at her disposal and the criminal was outside.

You see, I think it's funny; say a bear attacks and mauls a human because that person strayed a bit too close to it's cubs. Even when the human is unaware of the cubs nearby (as realized later), I've read enough of these stories to know the general consensus is that the human wasn't careful enough or should've been more cautious. "It was the bear's territory, I was intruding into it's home"...these words more often than not are spoken by the victim themselves. The bear itself didn't do anything wrong, it was merely protecting it's young.

If the bear and it's cubs were in it's fucking cave and you walked past, I doubt the bear would come rushing out to fuck you up unless it thought you were going in the cave.

He, his wife and his kid were in the house with a gun. If the sicko made it into the house, I'd have no problem with him engaging the criminal while the wife and kid fleed.

The same goes for things like shark attacks and many other animals aggressively defending their territory/young/family. On this very board we'll mock and sneer at stupid assholes who provoke animals into aggressive and defensive behaviors, never mind some ashole who thinks it might be funny to scare the shit out of some bear cubs or whatnot.

Your example continue to suck since they (the people) were not in imminent danger of attack like the animals in your examples percieve, hence the escalation of Force is not proportionate. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

However, when we change that story as demostrated here, where a human predator who is clearly stalking a human family and the male aggressively defends his loved ones, suddenly it's "oh no! he should have exercised more restraint and been more reasonable".

I think I've covered this fairly well.

What a load of fucking bullshit. Why the fuck don't people have the right to defend themselves and loved ones like animals do?

You do, you also live in a society with rules and you benifit from that society and it's rules. One of it's rules is not to punish people disportionately. By his logic and something I pointed out to him, some kid cutting across my yard violates my property, so I should be able to kick him in the nuts the next time I catch him doing it.

The problem isn't anyone who's willing and capable of aggressively defending their family...it's the fucking idiots/criminals out there who are clearly threatening the family in the first place who are the problem.

Criminals are the people who think the law doesn't apply to them or those who think the benifits of breaking the law are worth the concequences. Both the sicko and this asshat fit that description.

As far as I'm concerned, if the police showed up and find the husband beating the shit out of the stalker (and they know the situation), then they should restraint the husband if that's necessary, cuff the stalker and see if the family wants to press charges. None of this "He's being way too aggressive!" whining shit.

Sure, if the husband was using force to restrain, but beating the man repeatedly and constantly with what would be considered lethal force when neither he nor his family were in danger is excessive. We get uppity when cops do it, why shouldn't we when a simple civilian does?

[Junghalli]

I'm with PeZook here. The guy probably stepped over the line somewhat but I can't really work up much outrage at some guy beating up somebody who had been stalking his wife and very likely was planning to rape her.

[Kamakazie Sith]

As far as I see it, he didn't kill the guy or intent to kill him. So he was completely in the right.

What he did do is called Aggravated Assault.
76-5-103. Aggravated assault.
(1) A person commits aggravated assault if he commits assault as defined in Section 76-5-102 and he:
(a) intentionally causes serious bodily injury to another; or
(b) under circumstances not amounting to a violation of Subsection (1)(a), uses a dangerous weapon as defined in Section 76-1-601 <b>or other means or force likely to produce death or serious bodily injury.</b>
(2) A violation of Subsection (1)(a) is a second degree felony.
(3) A violation of Subsection (1)(b) is a third degree felony.

Under law you are allowed to use reasonable force to take a person into custody IF they resist or try to flee. Once the resistance ends...so does the force. He admitted that he went beyond this.

Under law you are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself, or another. Again, he went beyond reasonable.

I actually wouldn't have had a problem if he had ended up killing the guy, because he was defending his wife and kid from a obviously mentally unstable individual (or at the very least fucking stupid individual), who could easily have been a potential rapist and/or murderer.

One second, macho guy. I realize that the idea of someone having his wife's drivers license, and then coming to their house is scary. However, did he try to gain entry at any time? What if he was actually trying to return the license, and just isn't the smartest of people?

You see, I think it's funny; say a bear attacks and mauls a human because that person strayed a bit too close to it's cubs. Even when the human is unaware of the cubs nearby (as realized later), I've read enough of these stories to know the general consensus is that the human wasn't careful enough or should've been more cautious. "It was the bear's territory, I was intruding into it's home"...these words more often than not are spoken by the victim themselves. The bear itself didn't do anything wrong, it was merely protecting it's young. The same goes for things like shark attacks and many other animals aggressively defending their territory/young/family. On this very board we'll mock and sneer at stupid assholes who provoke animals into aggressive and defensive behaviors, never mind some ashole who thinks it might be funny to scare the shit out of some bear cubs or whatnot.

So knocking on a door or window is now considered aggressive action?

However, when we change that story as demostrated here, where a human predator who is clearly stalking a human family and the male aggressively defends his loved ones, suddenly it's "oh no! he should have exercised more restraint and been more reasonable".

Yes, he should have because he admitted that there was no resistance, and no force used.

What a load of fucking bullshit. Why the fuck don't people have the right to defend themselves and loved ones like animals do?

Are you serious right now? Let's see because humans are capable for critical thinking?

The problem isn't anyone who's willing and capable of aggressively defending their family...it's the fucking idiots/criminals out there who are clearly threatening the family in the first place who are the problem.

This guy isn't necessarily a criminal.

As far as I'm concerned, if the police showed up and find the husband beating the shit out of the stalker (and they know the situation), then they should restraint the husband if that's necessary, cuff the stalker and see if the family wants to press charges. None of this "He's being way too aggressive!" whining shit.

Well, personally. If I would have been there the husband would have been going to jail for aggravated assault.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I'm with PeZook here. The guy probably stepped over the line somewhat but I can't really work up much outrage at some guy beating up somebody who had been stalking his wife and very likely was planning to rape her.

You should become a cop. You're amazing. You can tell just by reading one side of the story that this guy was stalking and probably going to rape this guys wife. Most impressive.

[Darth Wong]

So if I ever shoot someone, I just need to make sure that he and I have a history, he's on my property, and I can tell the police afterwards that he was threatening my family? After all, it's not as if the dead guy can contradict my testimony, so I win! Win win!

Ah, so if some guy is threatening your family, what will you do then? And knowing the police aren't going to show up in time to stop him? (And let's dismiss this shooting nonesense, since with a gun you should clearly have control of the situation; I'm talking about being physically aggressive against an intruder)

Wow, that point just rocketed over your head, didn't it?

[Junghalli]

You should become a cop. You're amazing. You can tell just by reading one side of the story that this guy was stalking and probably going to rape this guys wife. Most impressive.

What the hell do you call showing up at midnight when the guy's not home and his wife is and rattling on the doors and windows if not stalking? That aint normal behavior, and it certainly can be interpreted as threatening.

I already said the guy went over the line, my point is for someone in his shoes a little overreaction is somewhat understandable to me. I wouldn't be at my most calm and serene self when some creepy fucker was showing up at my house at midnight and rattling on the windows.

[PeZook]

You should become a cop. You're amazing. You can tell just by reading one side of the story that this guy was stalking and probably going to rape this guys wife. Most impressive.

As was pointed out, the story isn't consistent at all. It is entirely possible that it was A) Entirely made up by an Internet kiddie (they always pretend to be soldiers, after all), B) Covers up some really ugly details about the incident (as if viciously beating the guy up wasn't ugly enough) or C) Varies from the truth in a couple of crucially important details.

[Kamakazie Sith]

What the hell do you call showing up at midnight when the guy's not home and his wife is and rattling on the doors and windows if not stalking? That aint normal behavior, and it certainly can be interpreted as threatening.

I call it unusual behavior that warrants him opening his door, and telling him to leave immediately and never return. I don't call it evidence that he was likely planning to rape the guys wife.

I already said the guy went over the line, my point is for someone in his shoes a little overreaction is somewhat understandable to me. I wouldn't be at my most calm and serene self when some creepy fucker was showing up at my house at midnight and rattling on the windows.

I could probably be OK with him opening the door then punching the guy in the face, but everything after that was completely wrong, and not excusable.

[Junghalli]

Yeah, you're right, I'm not saying he did the right thing, I'm saying I can understand how a guy in his shoes could overreact. I'm sorry, I just can't work up much outrage at a guy punching around some creepy fucker who was stalking around his house at night rattling on the windows. It was bullshit vigilanteism and not the right thing to do, but on the scale of stuff that makes me mad it just doesn't rate very high.

[Justforfun000]

This is a frustrating scenario because there are very good points on each side. As others have said though, both of these people were in the wrong to some degree.

IF it's true that the police take normally an hour and a half to show up repeatedly when called about this kind of stalking behaviour, then I can sympathize with the husband's concern and even approve of him lying in wait to take care of this yahoo himself.

But when this actually comes down to the encounter, he should have been responsibly physical towards the individual. He really SHOULD have talked to the guy first. simply confronted him and demanded to know who the hell he was and what he was doing stalking his wife. Then anything further would depend on circumstances. It's true that he was not yet IN the house. If he actually had broken in, then he would have been totally justified in attacking him first and even go so far as to repeatedly hit the man until he was first incapacitated enough to be subdued. Then (or during if he can yell to the wife), the police should be called and they can keep him in custody until they arrive.

He can't truly justify immediately attacking, and continuing to seriously beat the man. I mean we all can totally empathize with his anger at this man and his behaviour, but I think I can quote Yoda on this one..."But beware of the dark side. Anger, fear, aggression; the dark side of the Force are they."

[PeZook]

I call it unusual behavior that warrants him opening his door, and telling him to leave immediately and never return. I don't call it evidence that he was likely planning to rape the guys wife.

You know, I wonder why he didn't confront him first, throwing the punch instead. Either he really does have an agression control problem, or the story is just made-up macho bullshit.

I could probably be OK with him opening the door then punching the guy in the face, but everything after that was completely wrong, and not excusable.

I wonder...if he hates the cops so much and thinks they're useless, why did he count on an "old sergeant" coming to his house and removing his cuffs? Why did he have a handgun with him if all he intented to do was beat the guy up (he ran the risk of the stalker grabbing it and shooting him, after all)? How did the stalker manage to stand up and drive away after being viciously beaten up?

Lots of things don't add up here.

Oh, another ironic thing. He spends a paragraph saying how we shouldn't depend on the government for defence...but he signed up to join the biggest government institution there is...the Army!

Apparently, standards double themselves quickly for this man.

[Kamakazie Sith]

You know, I wonder why he didn't confront him first, throwing the punch instead. Either he really does have an agression control problem, or the story is just made-up macho bullshit.

That's a good point. This could be exaggerated nonsense. Something about the story including the police approaching him with guns drawn doesn't seem right.

When we respond on physical fights we don't take people into custody with firearms because the justification for deadly force isn't there, and if they call your bluff and come at you then you waste time by having to secure your firearm before you can deal with them with another tool.

I'm not saying it didn't happen that way, but it seems unusual to me.

I wonder...if he hates the cops so much and thinks they're useless, why did he count on an "old sergeant" coming to his house and removing his cuffs? Why did he have a handgun with him if all he intented to do was beat the guy up (he ran the risk of the stalker grabbing it and shooting him, after all)? How did the stalker manage to stand up and drive away after being viciously beaten up?

He probably has a working knowledge of the criminal code, and understands that the police can't arrest him if there's no victim. Then when they found him at the hospital and that man told him he was attacked by gangsters they still don't have a victim.

That's why the Sergeant took the cuffs off.

Lots of things don't add up here.

Oh, another ironic thing. He spends a paragraph saying how we shouldn't depend on the government for defence...but he signed up to join the biggest government institution there is...the Army!

Apparently, standards double themselves quickly for this man.

Meh. Lots of people don't like the police.

[Broomstick]

Let's see...

.... he could have shot the stalker easily, but he didn't.

Nope, but he did have his gun in his pants so if the opportunity arose he could. Granted, I'm speculating on this one, but I believe he would have shot the guy if any small provoction gave him a legal out to do so.

Where I live there are circumstances where it is legal to shoot trespassers. It is legal to shoot someone breaking into your home. Hell, my husband shot someone trying to steal our truck and there were no legal penalties.

I don't know where this guy lives, but if it was my neighborhood he probably could have gotten away with shooting the man.

.... he could have beaten him to death, but he didn't.

I beat that man, in my front yard, when he fell, i kicked him in the face until he got up, when he got up, I punched him until he fell, and I repeated it.

He in fact did. Lethal Force is the force necessary to kill or reasonable expect to kill some one. Beating him till he falls, then beating him on the ground until he gets up and then beating him again would certainly fall within this. One would expect that if you beat someone to the ground and then start kicking him in the head, death certainly could result. That is lethal force. You don't necessarily have to kill some one to use lethal force, shooting some one is lethal force and yet people can survive a gunshot.

Using fists makes the line between non-lethal and lethal fuzzier than if he used a weapon. Not all blow from fists can be reasonably expected to cause death. Unless we know the exact nature of the injuries involved that might be a difficult determination.

Without getting into the whether or not Mr. Badass Military Boy was in the right or wrong here, he did NOT use lethal force. No, he didn't.

Yes he did. If he was some dumb shit not in the military I could see his ignorance of the legality of it. However he went to great length to throw out his military training so I have little sympathy for him. He should know that he did in fact use lethal force in a situation that didn't call for it. He knew enough to cover his ass from a gun charge and who knows, he might have let the guy go to further mitigate his liability, I don't know.

As I said, where I live he probably didn't need to fear a gun charge, provided he legally owned the weapon and had a firearm owner's card.

Frankly, I'm surprised that when he answered the door he didn't just drag the guy into his home and say the stalker was an intruder which in most jurisdictions would give him even more of legal leg to stand on. It makes me inclined to believe this story is at least half bullshit - that, and the constant harping on what a military bad-ass he is.

[Broomstick]

So if I ever shoot someone, I just need to make sure that he and I have a history, he's on my property, and I can tell the police afterwards that he was threatening my family? After all, it's not as if the dead guy can contradict my testimony, so I win! Win win!

Where I live, yeah, sort of like that, although you don't even need to have a history with the guy.

Of course, the police will ask you a shitload of questions, probably ask the neighbors questions, and you might face a lawsuit brought by your victim's family. If you beat the man unconscious THEN shoot him you'll face murder charges. There are limits to one's legal right to defend oneself.

Admittedly (and this is sad) it helps to be white, but Asians are usually perceived as pretty peaceful and non-threatening so you'll probably be OK, particularly if your intruder is black and you can claim you're protecting your wife (who just happens to be white).

On the other hand, until last week, if you lived in the city of Chicago, were tied up in the middle of the night, watched your wife and children being raped, chewed your way through the ropes around your hands and ankles, wrestled the intruder's handgun away from him, and shot him dead while depriving him of said handgun, you could still face felony homicide charges for illegal use and possession of a firearm.

I can't help but think there should be a happy medium here...

[Broomstick]

As far as I see it, he didn't kill the guy or intent to kill him. So he was completely in the right.

What he did do is called Aggravated Assault.
76-5-103. Aggravated assault.
(1) A person commits aggravated assault if he commits assault as defined in Section 76-5-102 and he:
(a) intentionally causes serious bodily injury to another; or
(b) under circumstances not amounting to a violation of Subsection (1)(a), uses a dangerous weapon as defined in Section 76-1-601 <b>or other means or force likely to produce death or serious bodily injury.</b>
(2) A violation of Subsection (1)(a) is a second degree felony.
(3) A violation of Subsection (1)(b) is a third degree felony.

Under law you are allowed to use reasonable force to take a person into custody IF they resist or try to flee. Once the resistance ends...so does the force. He admitted that he went beyond this.

And, just for the record, I do agree with this - Mr. Badass DID commit a felony: aggravated assault. Shooting the guy once in the leg might be considered self-defense (depending on a LOT of details) but deliberately setting out to beat the guy bloody, even after he was down on the ground helpless - THAT's over the line. Shooting someone in the back (because they implies they were attempting to flee) is not only considered over the line, it can result in murder charges even in my rather loose-on-guns area.

One second, macho guy. I realize that the idea of someone having his wife's drivers license, and then coming to their house is scary. However, did he try to gain entry at any time? What if he was actually trying to return the license, and just isn't the smartest of people?

Returning a license by pounding on windows in the middle of the fucking night? If you want to return a license you can call first, or at least show up in daylight, ring the doorbell, and be respectful when the lady of the house says "Who's there?"

Well, personally. If I would have been there the husband would have been going to jail for aggravated assault.

I don't have a problem with that concept. It seems clear to me that Mr. Badass didn't intend to kill (if he had, he easily could have) but he certainly intended to cause severe bodily harm and swung first.

Of course, as already pointed out, this tale could be fabrication.