Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
) lied in saying Mr. Williams pulled the gun when he went to shake hands with him (which was likely to restrain an arm so he or one of his friends could cold-cock him.) and the generally aggressive and drunken nature of the dead guy.Why exactly should the guy be charged with anything for defending himself against some drunken moron who accosted him? White dude attacked them unprovoked and with what could have been lethal force, even fists can be lethal. He choose to provoke a fight himself, choose to attack another person, the other person shouldn't be "fair" in response. That doesn't mean they should go overboard but they certainly shouldn't be fighting fair or endangering themselves because some dumbshit decided he wanted to prove how much of a big dick alpha male he is.Flagg wrote:Funniest part? Mr. Fields (white guy who got shot) was unarmed when he "attacked" Mr. Williams. I think he should have been charged with 2nd degree murder at most, but voluntary homicide seems fairer in that he and his friend (assuming they were together) were outnumbered 2 to 1. By unarmed drunks.
Uh... what last time, who and when and where?Flagg wrote:Huh. Last time a black guy did the same exact thing he was immediately arrested and got charged with first degree murder, then plead down IIRC...
Law enforcement procedure does tend to take a while regardless of the circumstances, unless everyone involved has a literal five minutes "it was a righteous shoot" reaction, which is very unprofessional...Of course they spent a good 4 months twiddling their thumbs waiting to decide to charge him or not.
Then again... Kamikaze Sith, Kamikaze Sith, Kamikaze Sith! Is about 3-4 months "normal" for prosecutors to wait that amount of to make a decision on charges (unless it's like a case of "shot 17 people to death before being tackled by police") in a situation like this? I'm kind of surprised given the video evidence and the fact that it's obvious one of the drunken white youths (when will these damned white on white black crime stop?
Oh damn, I did put "attacked" in quotes. Sorry, that is indeed fucked up. I was trying to think of why I did that I started writing what I had thought happened and realized that I had done it to bring attention to the word because it was clearly evident on the video that Mr. Williams was attacked twice, once by fatty black shirt and then the final charge of the dim brigade as Mr. Fields ran into 3 bullets. So I apologize if that was offensive, it's one of my lovely mind-hiccups.Joun_Lord wrote:Why exactly should the guy be charged with anything for defending himself against some drunken moron who accosted him? White dude attacked them unprovoked and with what could have been lethal force, even fists can be lethal. He choose to provoke a fight himself, choose to attack another person, the other person shouldn't be "fair" in response. That doesn't mean they should go overboard but they certainly shouldn't be fighting fair or endangering themselves because some dumbshit decided he wanted to prove how much of a big dick alpha male he is.Flagg wrote:Funniest part? Mr. Fields (white guy who got shot) was unarmed when he "attacked" Mr. Williams. I think he should have been charged with 2nd degree murder at most, but voluntary homicide seems fairer in that he and his friend (assuming they were together) were outnumbered 2 to 1. By unarmed drunks.
Do you think they should have done the honorable thing and engaged in manly fisticuffs? Maybe allow themselves to be beat down by some racist rejects because the situation didn't warrant them drawing iron?
Dude I'm super cereal and no offense is intended but that is all kinds of stupid. Stupid to charge someone for defending themselves, stupid for possibly making innocent people get harmed because the can't legally fight back, and stupid for you putting "attacked" in quotation marks.
) in which you put it down like the mad dog it was. AddictingInfoSimon_Jester wrote:Uh... what last time, who and when and where?Flagg wrote:Huh. Last time a black guy did the same exact thing he was immediately arrested and got charged with first degree murder, then plead down IIRC...
Law enforcement procedure does tend to take a while regardless of the circumstances, unless everyone involved has a literal five minutes "it was a righteous shoot" reaction, which is very unprofessional...Of course they spent a good 4 months twiddling their thumbs waiting to decide to charge him or not.
Then again... Kamikaze Sith, Kamikaze Sith, Kamikaze Sith! Is about 3-4 months "normal" for prosecutors to wait that amount of to make a decision on charges (unless it's like a case of "shot 17 people to death before being tackled by police") in a situation like this? I'm kind of surprised given the video evidence and the fact that it's obvious one of the drunken white youths (when will these damned white on white black crime stop?
Flagg wrote:Oh damn, I did put "attacked" in quotes. Sorry, that is indeed fucked up. I was trying to think of why I did that I started writing what I had thought happened and realized that I had done it to bring attention to the word because it was clearly evident on the video that Mr. Williams was attacked twice, once by fatty black shirt and then the final charge of the dim brigade as Mr. Fields ran into 3 bullets. So I apologize if that was offensive, it's one of my lovely mind-hiccups.Joun_Lord wrote:Why exactly should the guy be charged with anything for defending himself against some drunken moron who accosted him? White dude attacked them unprovoked and with what could have been lethal force, even fists can be lethal. He choose to provoke a fight himself, choose to attack another person, the other person shouldn't be "fair" in response. That doesn't mean they should go overboard but they certainly shouldn't be fighting fair or endangering themselves because some dumbshit decided he wanted to prove how much of a big dick alpha male he is.Flagg wrote:Funniest part? Mr. Fields (white guy who got shot) was unarmed when he "attacked" Mr. Williams. I think he should have been charged with 2nd degree murder at most, but voluntary homicide seems fairer in that he and his friend (assuming they were together) were outnumbered 2 to 1. By unarmed drunks.
Do you think they should have done the honorable thing and engaged in manly fisticuffs? Maybe allow themselves to be beat down by some racist rejects because the situation didn't warrant them drawing iron?
Dude I'm super cereal and no offense is intended but that is all kinds of stupid. Stupid to charge someone for defending themselves, stupid for possibly making innocent people get harmed because the can't legally fight back, and stupid for you putting "attacked" in quotation marks.
But back to the debate at hand.
If he didn't have a gun, he and his friend would have been in a fight with fists, chairs, and the odd plate or for the truly daring, a fork!. My issue, and it's the same one I'd take if the races were reversed, is that the guy who was shot and killed never threw a punch. He never had a chance to. The guy that took the swing was the fatty in a black shirt, then shirtless redneck dumbass Mr. Fields charges (it looked like Mr. Williams had pulled the gun after dodging the punch) and was clearly coming at Mr. Williams. The problem I'm having is that It's unclear to me that the drunken douche even saw the gun, he just came round the corner after he saw the action between fatty black shirt and Mr. Williams and Mr. Williams fired 3 times (according to the news piece). I just wonder if Mr. Fields had the opportunity to actually see the weapon, process what it was, and do something non-aggressive before Mr. Williams begins shooting. I think I'm still on the fence, but leaning more towards it being Mr. Fields bad luck that he essentially ran into 3 bullets.
But I'm still not anywhere close to convinced that if someone throws a punch, you get to pull a gun and shoot whoever happens to be in front of you menacingly without then having an opportunity to know they are in lethal danger and react like a sane person and cease the assault, or be a typical stupid redneck who lives in a trailer in the swamp (or his truck, SUV, or van if he's on meth and will eventually die in prison or jail, depending on the trial date
I mean all that said, he's clear legally in Florida and should be as the law seems to stand now, with no escalation of force rules in effect for civilians, which is fucking insane given what's (at least perceived, I'm not looking to start a fight) going on with cops seemingly killing everyone browner than Cheech Marin, and whiter than Wesley Snipes. I mean legally, in Florida, fatty George Zimmerman can use a shotgun for on a Kindergartener who threw a grapefruit at his fat head as long as the kid was winding up with another, it seems like.
I'm more talking morality, less legality.
"Democratic Korps (of those who are) Beneficently Anti-Government"Terralthra wrote:It's similar to the Arabic word for "one who sows discord" or "one who crushes underfoot". It'd be like if the acronym for the some Tea Party thing was "DKBAG" or something. In one sense, it's just the acronym for ISIL/ISIS in Arabic: Dawlat (al-) Islāmiyya ‘Irāq Shām, but it's also an insult.
Whenever you give people the impression they are at risk of bodily injury or death, you are in lethal danger.Flagg wrote:But I'm still not anywhere close to convinced that if someone throws a punch, you get to pull a gun and shoot whoever happens to be in front of you menacingly without then having an opportunity to know they are in lethal danger and react like a sane person and cease the assault, or be a typical stupid redneck who lives in a trailer in the swamp (or his truck, SUV, or van if he's on meth and will eventually die in prison or jail, depending on the trial date
No worries about the fudge-up.Flagg wrote:Oh damn, I did put "attacked" in quotes. Sorry, that is indeed fucked up. I was trying to think of why I did that I started writing what I had thought happened and realized that I had done it to bring attention to the word because it was clearly evident on the video that Mr. Williams was attacked twice, once by fatty black shirt and then the final charge of the dim brigade as Mr. Fields ran into 3 bullets. So I apologize if that was offensive, it's one of my lovely mind-hiccups.Joun_Lord wrote:Why exactly should the guy be charged with anything for defending himself against some drunken moron who accosted him? White dude attacked them unprovoked and with what could have been lethal force, even fists can be lethal. He choose to provoke a fight himself, choose to attack another person, the other person shouldn't be "fair" in response. That doesn't mean they should go overboard but they certainly shouldn't be fighting fair or endangering themselves because some dumbshit decided he wanted to prove how much of a big dick alpha male he is.Flagg wrote:Funniest part? Mr. Fields (white guy who got shot) was unarmed when he "attacked" Mr. Williams. I think he should have been charged with 2nd degree murder at most, but voluntary homicide seems fairer in that he and his friend (assuming they were together) were outnumbered 2 to 1. By unarmed drunks.
Do you think they should have done the honorable thing and engaged in manly fisticuffs? Maybe allow themselves to be beat down by some racist rejects because the situation didn't warrant them drawing iron?
Dude I'm super cereal and no offense is intended but that is all kinds of stupid. Stupid to charge someone for defending themselves, stupid for possibly making innocent people get harmed because the can't legally fight back, and stupid for you putting "attacked" in quotation marks.
But back to the debate at hand.
If he didn't have a gun, he and his friend would have been in a fight with fists, chairs, and the odd plate or for the truly daring, a fork!. My issue, and it's the same one I'd take if the races were reversed, is that the guy who was shot and killed never threw a punch. He never had a chance to. The guy that took the swing was the fatty in a black shirt, then shirtless redneck dumbass Mr. Fields charges (it looked like Mr. Williams had pulled the gun after dodging the punch) and was clearly coming at Mr. Williams. The problem I'm having is that It's unclear to me that the drunken douche even saw the gun, he just came round the corner after he saw the action between fatty black shirt and Mr. Williams and Mr. Williams fired 3 times (according to the news piece). I just wonder if Mr. Fields had the opportunity to actually see the weapon, process what it was, and do something non-aggressive before Mr. Williams begins shooting. I think I'm still on the fence, but leaning more towards it being Mr. Fields bad luck that he essentially ran into 3 bullets.
But I'm still not anywhere close to convinced that if someone throws a punch, you get to pull a gun and shoot whoever happens to be in front of you menacingly without then having an opportunity to know they are in lethal danger and react like a sane person and cease the assault, or be a typical stupid redneck who lives in a trailer in the swamp (or his truck, SUV, or van if he's on meth and will eventually die in prison or jail, depending on the trial date
I mean all that said, he's clear legally in Florida and should be as the law seems to stand now, with no escalation of force rules in effect for civilians, which is fucking insane given what's (at least perceived, I'm not looking to start a fight) going on with cops seemingly killing everyone browner than Cheech Marin, and whiter than Wesley Snipes. I mean legally, in Florida, fatty George Zimmerman can use a shotgun for on a Kindergartener who threw a grapefruit at his fat head as long as the kid was winding up with another, it seems like.
I'm more talking morality, less legality.
My understanding is that most jurisdictions require several check boxes before the use of deadly force is considered legal. From general conversations with lawyer friends and my own perusing of Google and a good article from New Criminal Law Review: 1) someone is threatening you with harm, 2) that harm would be of a particular level of gravity, 3) the use of force would prevent that harm, 4) the level of responsive force expected to be employed is of a similar gravity,5) if that level of force is not used the harm would be immediate, and 6) no nonviolent or less forceful alternatives are available. The problem highlighted in the article is one of "reasonable beliefs" How can a person cognitively form "reasonable beliefs" in a manner of seconds that would hit most of the above?gizmojumpjet wrote:Whenever you give people the impression they are at risk of bodily injury or death, you are in lethal danger.Flagg wrote:But I'm still not anywhere close to convinced that if someone throws a punch, you get to pull a gun and shoot whoever happens to be in front of you menacingly without then having an opportunity to know they are in lethal danger and react like a sane person and cease the assault, or be a typical stupid redneck who lives in a trailer in the swamp (or his truck, SUV, or van if he's on meth and will eventually die in prison or jail, depending on the trial date
People have a right to defend themselves against bodily injury or death with lethal force in most states. Punching people in the head and disparity of force (two attackers, one defender) hits both of these checkboxes. Most especially the two on one part, but people can die from being punched in the head. The victim didn't have to and shouldn't have to wait until one of the attackers was on top of him, bashing his head into the ground, to defend himself.
This sounds woefully subjective. I struggle with the idea that people only have to think how they would have reacted in the same situation and that determines if deadly force is acceptable. "I would have done the same thing!" is not objective in my opinion. That sets the bar so terribly low.Rogue 9 wrote:The "reasonable person" or "reasonable belief" standard is a technical legal term that doesn't quite mean what you're implying. When the law talks about a reasonable person, it means action consistent with what a hypothetical reasonable person would do in the same situation. That is, if someone of sound mind and no ill will were in the same situation with the same weapon and options, would he have done the same thing? If so, the reasonable person standard is passed. It doesn't mean you have to sit down and do a careful analysis of a perilous situation that takes so long your skull is bashed in before you can finish.
It is actually an objective test, not a subjective test. And yes, frankly, it involves some subjective criteria, but it boils down to this: Would a normal, rational, everyday person fear for their life at the time of the assault? Was this fear immediate? Was there no alternative means of egress or intervention? Was the force used proportionate to the threat, and did it stop when the threat did?Aether wrote:This sounds woefully subjective. I struggle with the idea that people only have to think how they would have reacted in the same situation and that determines if deadly force is acceptable. "I would have done the same thing!" is not objective in my opinion. That sets the bar so terribly low.Rogue 9 wrote:The "reasonable person" or "reasonable belief" standard is a technical legal term that doesn't quite mean what you're implying. When the law talks about a reasonable person, it means action consistent with what a hypothetical reasonable person would do in the same situation. That is, if someone of sound mind and no ill will were in the same situation with the same weapon and options, would he have done the same thing? If so, the reasonable person standard is passed. It doesn't mean you have to sit down and do a careful analysis of a perilous situation that takes so long your skull is bashed in before you can finish.
There are two seemingly good papers that I have yet to read. "Self-Defense: Reasonable Beliefs Or Reasonable Self-Control?" and "What's Reasonable?: Self-Defense And Mistake In Criminal and Tort Law."
Perhaps I am stupid, but I have yet to find an acceptable definition of "reasonable beliefs" that does not invoke completely subjective criteria. Are there any lawyers present on this board?
Yeah, I tend to lean in the direction you're stating it's just that if I'm at Waffle House with my friends at night or 3am (it's happened more than once, Waffle House is cheap, but the food is amazing, especially if you've been partying all night and need carbs. It's where a lot of truckers make a stop and eat as well, for the carbs and because it's cheap and very fucking goodcmdrjones wrote:Flagg wrote:Oh damn, I did put "attacked" in quotes. Sorry, that is indeed fucked up. I was trying to think of why I did that I started writing what I had thought happened and realized that I had done it to bring attention to the word because it was clearly evident on the video that Mr. Williams was attacked twice, once by fatty black shirt and then the final charge of the dim brigade as Mr. Fields ran into 3 bullets. So I apologize if that was offensive, it's one of my lovely mind-hiccups.
But back to the debate at hand.
If he didn't have a gun, he and his friend would have been in a fight with fists, chairs, and the odd plate or for the truly daring, a fork!. My issue, and it's the same one I'd take if the races were reversed, is that the guy who was shot and killed never threw a punch. He never had a chance to. The guy that took the swing was the fatty in a black shirt, then shirtless redneck dumbass Mr. Fields charges (it looked like Mr. Williams had pulled the gun after dodging the punch) and was clearly coming at Mr. Williams. The problem I'm having is that It's unclear to me that the drunken douche even saw the gun, he just came round the corner after he saw the action between fatty black shirt and Mr. Williams and Mr. Williams fired 3 times (according to the news piece). I just wonder if Mr. Fields had the opportunity to actually see the weapon, process what it was, and do something non-aggressive before Mr. Williams begins shooting. I think I'm still on the fence, but leaning more towards it being Mr. Fields bad luck that he essentially ran into 3 bullets.
But I'm still not anywhere close to convinced that if someone throws a punch, you get to pull a gun and shoot whoever happens to be in front of you menacingly without then having an opportunity to know they are in lethal danger and react like a sane person and cease the assault, or be a typical stupid redneck who lives in a trailer in the swamp (or his truck, SUV, or van if he's on meth and will eventually die in prison or jail, depending on the trial date
I mean all that said, he's clear legally in Florida and should be as the law seems to stand now, with no escalation of force rules in effect for civilians, which is fucking insane given what's (at least perceived, I'm not looking to start a fight) going on with cops seemingly killing everyone browner than Cheech Marin, and whiter than Wesley Snipes. I mean legally, in Florida, fatty George Zimmerman can use a shotgun for on a Kindergartener who threw a grapefruit at his fat head as long as the kid was winding up with another, it seems like.
I'm more talking morality, less legality.
Seriously? Escalation of force as a matter of law for civilians? #1 If he's a CCW holder, he has training. #2 He DID use escalation of force by A) Keeping his weapon under his control at all times i.e. never shaking hands and giving said rednecks a chance to tie up his shooting hand. (but cold cock him they did) B) showing the gun when attacked the first time and C) backing up as far as possible.
Now, he wasn't prepared for a fight (wearing flip flips, long hair etc) and so carried a gun instead. It is in NO way his fault redneck #2 came charging in without seeing the gun, or that Redneck #1 decided to start potentially lethal violence with a punch to the head/neck area.
This is why drunk people shouldn't start random fights.
in my mind the ONLy thing he could have done, (but was never obligated to do, either legally OR morally) is to back up further while shouting "I have a GUN! I have a GUN!" BUT being that he was A) in flip flops and B) the only place to go seems to have been the bathroom with no way out, especially when confronted by a charging muscle head who may just take his gun away from him and beat him to death..... I can see no reason NOT to shoot, especially when ALREADY hit in the face. Also, we have no idea how badly hurt he was after taking said punch to the head/neck. I may decide to shoot too is having been hit in the head. Esp. if I don't think I can take a drunken muscled up redneck charging at me....
) if a guy throws a punch at me, I throw a punch back, I don't pull my knife and stab the fucker in the neck or the groin to kill him. It just seemed to me to go from 0-500mph instantly. And I'm not arguing about the current law or anything, I want to make it clear that this was a legal shooting in FL under the very murky Stand Your Ground Law in FL. Which honestly, it's why I'm never going back to FL. Well that and it's a hot, humid, religious fundamentalist hellhole. It would basically be The Middle East only for the humid part. 
You have the choice of restraint. I have that choice as well. An 80 year old who's one fall away from breaking his hip likely doesn't have that choice. Most women in the same situation against a man do not have that choice either. The lawmakers can't write every single possible matchup into the books, it's not like well let's see, the defendant was a black male 180 man of medium build who benches 150 pounds, while his assailant was an asian male, 5'8 200lbs, so clearly it wasn't a legal beating since our stats show that asians are pound for pound 15% weaker. That's why we use the "reasonable person" standard.Flagg wrote: if a guy throws a punch at me, I throw a punch back, I don't pull my knife and stab the fucker in the neck or the groin to kill him. It just seemed to me to go from 0-500mph instantly.
If a guy takes a punch at me I'm not going to risk my health getting into a slug-fest with them, especially if it looks like they significantly out-muscle me (likely) and there's absolutely no way to just walk away. So I'd prefer to pull out every dirty trick I could think of to get them to stop with whatever's handy.Flagg wrote: Yeah, I tend to lean in the direction you're stating it's just that if I'm at Waffle House with my friends at night or 3am (it's happened more than once, Waffle House is cheap, but the food is amazing, especially if you've been partying all night and need carbs. It's where a lot of truckers make a stop and eat as well, for the carbs and because it's cheap and very fucking good
Come on, man, the kid was asking a question, not making an authoritative statement. He was trying to educate himself by asking any lawyers on the board for their thoughts on the matter. No reason to be a dick about it. Your force used wasn't proportional to the threatloomer wrote:Educate yourself before engaging further, please.
.This is pretty much how I feel about the situation. While I don't advocate giving someone lead poisoning over being threatening, if someone is actually actively engaging my rotund rear in violence through no fault of my own (someone being offended by my skin color, sexual orientation, religion, the fact I am there, or any of the other reasons assholes and drunks and drunken assholes tend to start fights does not count as my fault) then I am under no obligation to hold back and risk injury to myself.General Zod wrote:If a guy takes a punch at me I'm not going to risk my health getting into a slug-fest with them, especially if it looks like they significantly out-muscle me (likely) and there's absolutely no way to just walk away. So I'd prefer to pull out every dirty trick I could think of to get them to stop with whatever's handy.
