Empty clip into parked vehicle and drive away? Clearly self defense!

I don’t have a lot of words for this. Just read the story at Shakesville

I will agree with the sentiment in the story linked.

That’s a real shame, because I’d love to hear some elaboration on how shooting into a parked vehicle, then driving the fuck away, is an act of self-defense.

We really need to admit that our gun obsession is just not healthy. Not in any way. A culture that creates laws that can even be close enough to a justification for this sort of behavior that a lawyer makes such a claim with a straight face is a very broken culture.

  1. #1 by Bob S. on November 29, 2012 - 8:53 am

    A culture that creates laws that can even be close enough to a justification for this sort of behavior that a lawyer makes such a claim with a straight face is a very broken culture.

    So, how about you lawyer up here and tell us how the law should be written eh?

  2. #2 by Shane on November 29, 2012 - 9:00 am

    Well, here is a first pass….

    The stand your ground laws shouldn’t be written. Period. Done. They don’t solve any problems, they do create problems.

    Sometimes the most important thing about the music is the space between the notes. In this case the laws around guns have many problems, but giving you a new way to shoot people who aren’t a thread and walk away is just not something we need. So here is my revised wording on the stand your ground laws.

    ” .”

    …and look, didn’t even need a lawyer. It is economical too.

  3. #3 by Bob S. on November 29, 2012 - 10:30 am

    Shane,

    You didn’t write a law defining self defense, you didn’t even come close.
    How do you define ‘self defense’ legally, how do you codify in law the right to self defense?

    Or do you even want people to have a legal right to self defense?

  4. #4 by Shane on November 29, 2012 - 2:26 pm

    I spoke about the stand your ground laws, as referenced in the link.

    You asked how it should be written.

    I explained how The stand your ground laws should be written.

    That is not a definition of self defense, because that was not the topic.

    Reading is fundamental. You have to read the topic, the post, and even the link.

    If you want a self defense law, that is a different question. However since I am complaining about the stand your ground claim the lawyer is making, that doesn’t really come into the picture.

  5. #5 by Bob S. on November 29, 2012 - 3:03 pm

    Shane,

    Maybe you should read what you quoted ..is an act of self-defense.

    Then read what you actually wrote ….A culture that creates laws that can even be close enough to a justification for this sort of behavior

    Nothing in what you wrote referenced stand your ground laws. NOTHING

    But let’s go with it. So what you seem to be saying is that people should not have the right to ‘stand their ground’ ?

    So how do you write the laws (self defense or otherwise) to explain to people their legal requirement to run away from a criminal?

  6. #6 by Shane on November 29, 2012 - 10:05 pm

    You are totally correct. The fact that the post I linked started right off by comparing the cases based on the stand your ground laws is totally unfair. Expecting you to read the relevant information is almost rude of me.

    I apologize.

  7. #7 by cav - FAT checker on November 29, 2012 - 10:31 pm

    Hey BobS. Have you given any thought on the Texas secession? Do you suppose the second amendment of the U. S. Constitution will find it’s way into the new Texas National Constitution?

    If the majority of your State-mates decide on this route, but for reasons of your own, you were not on board, would you then attempt to position yourself among the ‘framers’, insisting on something akin to the 2nd? And how would you address the Stand-your-ground issues we all know are connected to that?

    Of course, I’m trollin’ but, wondering too – since you’re on this thread. Always good to read you.

  8. #8 by Bob S. on November 30, 2012 - 4:18 am

    Shane,

    Still waiting for you to write the self defense law or admit you don’t want people to be able to claim self defense?

    You said
    ” A culture that creates laws that can even be close enough to a justification …”

    So how do you write a law so that no outrageous claims can ‘even be close enough to a justification’?

    Regardless of what you call it – ‘stand your ground’, ‘castle doctrine’ — it is self defense. So step up and write the law, eh?

    Cav,

    Yes, I have given thought on the Texas secession petition. You don’t petition for something like that you do it. And it isn’t the time for secession — way too many remedies still available.

    Texas has a fairly strong 2nd Amendment analogy already in its Constitution – we just need to change the part about ‘ how to wear’ firearms to make Open Carry, Campus Carry legal

    I think that we also have fairly decent ‘Stand your ground/Castle doctrine” laws now and am okay with them.

  9. #9 by cav - FAT checker on December 1, 2012 - 10:28 am

    I guess there’s ‘self defense’ and then ‘self defense’. Sometimes the color of the victim sends him right over into the perpetrator zone in the same way the color of the shooter might go from perp to simply defending his castle.

    It’s not Shane’s role to write a law that will clarify this tragic nonsense. A lot of killings are outside ‘stand your ground; and ‘castle doctrine’. That’s not where this one fits. I’m quite sure. The penitentiary should be readying another bed.

  10. #10 by Richard Warnick on December 1, 2012 - 11:27 am

    The right is always lecturing everybody about “personal responsibility.” Actions have consequences, they say, and you must accept responsibility for your actions.

    Then they pass a law that says you can get away with murder if afterwards your lawyer makes up a story that you thought you saw a shotgun, even though the guy you shot was unarmed.

  11. #11 by Shane Smith on December 2, 2012 - 9:46 am

    Bob, it will be a long wait. I am not interested in writing that law, nor was it the point of the post.

    As Aristotle pointed out, there are some things that are clearly good, and only the unreasonable would argue that they are not so. Similarly some are bad, and only the unreasonable would see them other wise. The stand your ground laws being pushed in several places allow behavior that only a fool would argue is anything but unreasonable.

    It may be difficult to argue where such lines should be drawn. It would be shocking if it weren’t difficult.

    But it is easy to see some places where they shouldn’t drawn. That is the only point I have made. I am sorry that is too difficult a point for you to grasp.

  12. #12 by Bob S. on December 3, 2012 - 6:24 am

    Richard,

    What a crock!!!

    The claim that all you have to do is make up a story is so outrageous it is asinine.

    You conveniently leave off the police investigation, the district attorney presenting the evidence to the grand jury, the criminal and/or civilian juries that decide the matter.

    Isn’t it amazing that we still have people convicted of murder if according to you all the have to do is make up a story?

    Shane,

    Make up your mind, eh.

    A culture that creates laws that can even be close enough to a justification for this sort of behavior that a lawyer makes such a claim with a straight face is a very broken culture.

    and

    It may be difficult to argue where such lines should be drawn

    Where that line should be drawn is exactly what I’m asking about.

    You originally said no law should be even close enough to make the justification — so I asked how you write it to avoid that justification. Still waiting.

    Or do you just want to admit you don’t want people to claim self defense?

    It is easy to see AFTER the fact where some people shouldn’t have drawn.
    But usually after the investigation, after the facts all come out.

    You can make all the adhominen insults you want but the fact is you still need to define where that line should be drawn if you think the current law is wrong.

  13. #13 by Richard Warnick on December 3, 2012 - 8:48 am

    Nobody should be able to argue self-defense in court based on a feeling that someone else is a threat, or by claiming they thought they saw a weapon that did not exist. That’s the issue with “stand your ground” laws.

  14. #14 by Richard's Fact Checker on December 3, 2012 - 9:08 am

    So let’s say you are armed. You have a concealed permit. You are doing everything legal.

    And you are in your local bank. Then a guy holds up the teller. He shouts at the teller that he has a gun in his jacket pocket. He shouts “gimme your money or I’ll blow your brains out”. He shows a bulge in his jacket that looks exactly like the barrel of a gun. Then he turns to you and points his barrel in his jacket at you. He tells you he has a gun. He threatens to blow your brains out.

    So you quick draw and kill him.

    Turns out his gun was a toy gun. Is that your fault?

  15. #15 by cav on December 3, 2012 - 9:16 am

    Wow! Just wow.

  16. #16 by Bob S. on December 3, 2012 - 9:28 am

    Richard,

    So no one should be able to argue self defense based on a ‘feeling” that someone else was a threat?

    So how do you write the law?

    How do you make it possible for self defense to be used in court?

  17. #17 by Richard Warnick on December 3, 2012 - 9:34 am

    Non-absurd self-defense laws are already on the books in many states.

    A person claiming self-defense must prove at trial that the self-defense was justified. Generally a person may use reasonable force when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack. Nondeadly force can be used to repel either a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. Deadly Force may be used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force.

    In some cases, before using force that is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to the aggressor, a person who is under attack should attempt to retreat or escape, but only if an exit is reasonably possible. Courts have held, however, that a person is not required to flee from his own home, the fenced ground surrounding the home, his place of business, or his automobile.

    …A defendant who successfully invokes self-defense may be found not guilty or not liable. If the defendant’s self-defense was imperfect, the self-defense may only reduce the defendant’s liability. Imperfect self-defense is self-defense that was arguably necessary but somehow unreasonable. For example, if a person had a Good Faith belief that deadly force was necessary to repel an attack, but that belief was unreasonable, the defendant would have a claim of imperfect self-defense. In some jurisdictions, the successful invocation of such a defense reduces a murder charge to Manslaughter. Most jurisdictions do not recognize imperfect self-defense.

  18. #18 by Bob S. on December 3, 2012 - 9:43 am

    Richard,

    You absolutely fail at logic. Even with the laws on the books, your “non-absurd” self defense laws, defendant still claim self defense in many cases.

    What you said was people shouldn’t even be able to argue self defense based on a feeling.

    Those ‘feelings’ you decry are what is ‘proved’ in a court of law. You seem to want to take away that defense.

    So should a person have to be assaulted, raped, beaten, etc before they can use self defense?

    Do they have to get a threat on tape, clear and precise, before they argue self defense?

    What exactly legal evidence would you require to prove self defense?

  19. #19 by Richard Warnick on December 3, 2012 - 9:58 am

    You think you can prove a “feeling” in a court of law? Good luck with that. In answer to your question, if there is no assault, how can there be self-defense?

  20. #20 by Richard's Fact Checker on December 3, 2012 - 10:20 am

    Richard,
    You know as little about the law as you do about everything else.

    The defendant doesn’t need to prove his feelings. You have no clue what you are talking about. All the defendant has to do is to establish reasonable doubt. To establish reasonable doubt the defendant needs to show the circumstances at the time, what he or she knew or believed at the time, whether it was reasonable to believe those things and reasonable to act in the way in which he or she did. It is the jury’s job to determine whether or not the reasonable tests were met.

    So if someone does not have a gun, but it was reasonable to think that that person did (such as he or she said he or she had a gun or pretended to have a gun) then the jury could conclude that it was reasonable to think the other person had a gun. It is not necessary ex post for there to actually have been a gun.

    Please discuss something you understand.

  21. #21 by Richard Warnick on December 3, 2012 - 11:25 am

    Bob S. wrote: “Those ‘feelings’ you decry are what is ‘proved’ in a court of law.” So take it up with him.

    The doctrine of “imperfect self-defense” covers the toy pistol scenario, or the case of a defendant who shot someone as a result of believing he/she was in a self-defense situation but wasn’t.

  22. #22 by Bob S. on December 3, 2012 - 11:44 am

    Richard,

    It is called the ‘reasonable man’ defense. If a ‘reasonable’ person would have felt the same thing in that situation, then his/her feelings are proven.

    In answer to your question, if there is no assault, how can there be self-defense?

    Are you honestly saying that a thug has to hit or try to hit a victim before they can claim self defense?

    And by the way, your ‘doctrine of imperfect self-defense’ isn’t recognized by many states.

    So…how about you tell me in clear simple terms when a person should be able to claim self defense. You, not a link you find, but you articulate it.

    After all you are the person who said “Nobody should be able to argue self-defense in court based on a feeling that someone else is a threat…”

  23. #23 by Richard Warnick on December 3, 2012 - 12:17 pm

    It’s not justice when someone can shoot an unarmed person who is not assaulting them, claim self-defense, and get off scot free. Is that clear enough?

    BTW “imperfect self-defense” is not something I made up. And my source clearly states, “Most jurisdictions do not recognize imperfect self-defense.”

  24. #24 by Bob S. on December 3, 2012 - 12:27 pm

    Richard,

    We aren’t talking about murder — which is what you described when you talked about ‘justice’.

    You said that people shouldn’t be able to argue self defense based on a feeling that someone else is a threat.

    So fess up. Just exactly what do you believe regarding self defense?

    Should people be able to claim self defense without any other evidence? If no, what evidence do they need.

    What criteria is acceptable in your view for a ‘person to claim self defense’ without being assaulted?

    What constitutes ‘assaulted’ in your view?

    I never said you made up ‘doctrine of imperfect self defense, but since you brought it up, it is yours.

    And lastly, if the ‘doctrine of imperfect self defense’ is not recognized, just how can it ‘cover’ any scenario, eh?

  25. #25 by Richard Warnick on December 3, 2012 - 12:29 pm

    Asked and answered. You wanted my opinion, you got it.

  26. #26 by Richard's Fact Checker on December 3, 2012 - 1:03 pm

    “Scot free”

    Typical for a liberal to use an ethnic slur.

    Hypocrite.

  27. #27 by Richard Warnick on December 3, 2012 - 1:21 pm

    Not ethnic. From Old English scotfreo (“exempt from royal tax”).
    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scot-free

    Aren’t “fact-checkers” supposed to, you know, check the facts?

  28. #28 by Richard Warnick on December 3, 2012 - 2:02 pm

    Eric Boehlert: For Fox News, It’s Never The Right Time To Discuss Gun Violence

    [NBC’s Bob] Costas last night quoted at length a column by Fox Sports’ Jason Whitlock, who wrote about the tragic story of Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher. On Saturday morning, he shot his girlfriend, Kasandra Perkins, and then drove to Arrowhead Stadium and shot himself to death in front of his Chiefs coach.

    Whitlock stressed how “numb” our society has become to gun violence and murder, and suggested if Belcher didn’t own a gun, both he and his girlfriend would be alive today.

    After Costas invoked the column on NBC last night, the “Fox & Friends” team was incensed this morning.

    …Note that the now-is-not-the-time-to-discuss-guns line of attack pushed by Fox has become common practice among conservatives and Republican politicians. Following the Aurora massacres, Sean Hannity and Fox contributor Michelle Malkin were furious the “left wing” was trying to “politicize” the story when they simply made the obvious connection between run-away gun violence and the movie theater mass murder.

  29. #29 by Bob S. on December 3, 2012 - 2:25 pm

    Richard,

    I see you are resorting to your usual tactics – “Quick Change the subject before they noticed I didn’t answer anything”.

    Nice to see you up to your usual self. Want to get back with me on how exactly you answered my question?

    You said “Nobody should be able to argue self-defense in court based on a feeling that someone else is a threat…”

    So far, the only thing I get is you feel a person actually has to be assaulted prior to initiating self defense, is that correct?

    If so, when exactly during a beating should a person be allowed to defend himself/herself?

    How many blows do they have to take, how many knife strikes/stabs?

    I’ll leave off (for now) the inanity of you trying to push ‘gun control’ laws because you feel threatened by people with guns, despite the fact they’ve done nothing to you.

  30. #30 by Richard Warnick on December 3, 2012 - 2:48 pm

    Bob S. — You are being inane. Logically, someone cannot claim to be defending himself against an assailant if the other person does not engage in an assault. Which was apparently the case in the murders of Trayvon Martin and Jordan Russell Davis.

    Where do you get the idea that I feel threatened? Something you made up.

  31. #31 by cav on December 3, 2012 - 2:54 pm

    Seems to me what is ‘reasonable’ might be one of those shifting definitions, much like the right wing becoming more and more bizarre as they adopt wingnut beliefs. So too is the center drifting rightward because of a need to be seen as bipartisan and in reaction to the drifting right (wrong). For example.

    Maybe ‘reasonable’ isn’t such a stable descriptor. I have my doubts about the reasonableness of the shooter in the posted link. He seems schizophrenia or paranoid at the minimum. And armed. And ready to squeeze of eight or so rounds before much else is said.

  32. #32 by Richard's Fact Checker on December 3, 2012 - 3:10 pm

    That’s why we have juries and trials.

  33. #33 by cav on December 3, 2012 - 6:15 pm

    “If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.”

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/03/foxnewscom-columnist-attacks-bob-costas-for-cor/191652

  34. #34 by cav on December 3, 2012 - 7:05 pm

    CLEVELAND, Ohio — With 13 Cleveland police officers firing 137 rounds and killing two people following a chase Thursday night, city leaders are seeking answers and could ask for a civil rights investigation.

    Investigators did not find a gun inside the bullet-riddled blue Chevrolet Malibu SS when staff from the Cuyahoga County medical examiner’s office removed the bodies from the car Friday evening.

    brewski is the judge. What will they get…promotions, medals or time off with pay?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: