Home
Forums
New posts
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Current Events
United States
Chad Reed shooting in Texas
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jacob Robinson" data-source="post: 1547774" data-attributes="member: 18849"><p>This is not legal advice, but generally there are multiple criteria that must be satisfied to successfully claim self-defense in court in the US. It is based on English common law:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A "reasonable man," knowing what the person claiming self-defense knew, would have concluded he was in immediate danger of death or crippling injury (or abduction or rape) to use force. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The person being defended against has to have the apparent ability to seriously harm or kill the other. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The force used in alleged self-defense must be proportionate to the force, or threat of force, being defended against. A slap or shove, absent other conditions, does not justify gun fire. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">In some states there is also duty to retreat if it can be done so safely. However, one does not have a duty to retreat from one's house (and car and business in some states) and this is called the castle doctrine. A house is usually defined as one's domicile, and not the surrounding property. The duty to retreat is good in theory but problematic in practice, in terms of what kind of retreat could have been made safely. So some states extend the castle doctrine to any place a person has a right to be and that is called stand your ground. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Provoking an attack generally removes any claim for self-defense and <em>in Texas stand your ground is specifically invalidated by provocation</em>. There is a possible exception if one attempts to abandon the confrontation.</li> </ul><p>The shooter in this case was not in immediate danger at the moment of the shots. The shooter was not at risk of anything but verbal abuse as he was well out of reach at that moment and had his rifle aimed at the other. The victim was not lunging towards him. The shooter appears to have at least partially provoked the conflict (so no stand your ground) and resorted to deadly force instead of taking a clear path of safe retreat and, indeed, having once retreated instead of remaining in safety and calling the police, he returned with a deadly weapon. Using a rifle against an unarmed man at a distance is profound disparate force. To have been in a safe place, and then to arm oneself and return to the fray, mad about being pushed around, could be taken as malice and malice might turn manslaughter into second degree murder. </p><p></p><p>I am familiar with Lubbock and would expect that area to respect legit cases of self-defense, but if the evidence shows provocation, that disparate force was used, that the shooter was not in immediate danger, it was planned, etc., it should go to a grand jury. Personally, if I were the DA and all evidence collected was consistent with what is in the videos I would go to a grand jury for a second degree murder indictment, or first degree if there is evidence it was planned. And any felony conspiracy that results in a death means all conspirators charged with murder, so his old lady could be going to prison for murder as well if this was planned. One could end up testifying against the other. Given the violations of, well, <em>perhaps all</em> the criteria for self defense, a judge would likely not even issue jury instructions regarding self defense and instead the jury would have a choice of murder or not murder. That he shot the other fellow is fairly obvious, so good luck getting out of that one.</p><p> </p><p>A good source for self-defense law information is a retired cop and expert witness named Massad Ayoob. His family came from Syria to New York a long time ago and his father was a jeweler who had shootouts with would-be robbers. Massad carried a gun in the family business as a teen, and then became a cop and eventually an expert on self-defense law. He wrote a good book a long time back titled <em>In the Gravest Extreme</em>, and there are some videos of his seminars on YouTube, the one titled "Judicious Use Of Deadly Force" is especially good, albeit decades old.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jacob Robinson, post: 1547774, member: 18849"] This is not legal advice, but generally there are multiple criteria that must be satisfied to successfully claim self-defense in court in the US. It is based on English common law: [LIST] [*]A "reasonable man," knowing what the person claiming self-defense knew, would have concluded he was in immediate danger of death or crippling injury (or abduction or rape) to use force. [*]The person being defended against has to have the apparent ability to seriously harm or kill the other. [*]The force used in alleged self-defense must be proportionate to the force, or threat of force, being defended against. A slap or shove, absent other conditions, does not justify gun fire. [*]In some states there is also duty to retreat if it can be done so safely. However, one does not have a duty to retreat from one's house (and car and business in some states) and this is called the castle doctrine. A house is usually defined as one's domicile, and not the surrounding property. The duty to retreat is good in theory but problematic in practice, in terms of what kind of retreat could have been made safely. So some states extend the castle doctrine to any place a person has a right to be and that is called stand your ground. [*]Provoking an attack generally removes any claim for self-defense and [I]in Texas stand your ground is specifically invalidated by provocation[/I]. There is a possible exception if one attempts to abandon the confrontation. [/LIST] The shooter in this case was not in immediate danger at the moment of the shots. The shooter was not at risk of anything but verbal abuse as he was well out of reach at that moment and had his rifle aimed at the other. The victim was not lunging towards him. The shooter appears to have at least partially provoked the conflict (so no stand your ground) and resorted to deadly force instead of taking a clear path of safe retreat and, indeed, having once retreated instead of remaining in safety and calling the police, he returned with a deadly weapon. Using a rifle against an unarmed man at a distance is profound disparate force. To have been in a safe place, and then to arm oneself and return to the fray, mad about being pushed around, could be taken as malice and malice might turn manslaughter into second degree murder. I am familiar with Lubbock and would expect that area to respect legit cases of self-defense, but if the evidence shows provocation, that disparate force was used, that the shooter was not in immediate danger, it was planned, etc., it should go to a grand jury. Personally, if I were the DA and all evidence collected was consistent with what is in the videos I would go to a grand jury for a second degree murder indictment, or first degree if there is evidence it was planned. And any felony conspiracy that results in a death means all conspirators charged with murder, so his old lady could be going to prison for murder as well if this was planned. One could end up testifying against the other. Given the violations of, well, [I]perhaps all[/I] the criteria for self defense, a judge would likely not even issue jury instructions regarding self defense and instead the jury would have a choice of murder or not murder. That he shot the other fellow is fairly obvious, so good luck getting out of that one. A good source for self-defense law information is a retired cop and expert witness named Massad Ayoob. His family came from Syria to New York a long time ago and his father was a jeweler who had shootouts with would-be robbers. Massad carried a gun in the family business as a teen, and then became a cop and eventually an expert on self-defense law. He wrote a good book a long time back titled [I]In the Gravest Extreme[/I], and there are some videos of his seminars on YouTube, the one titled "Judicious Use Of Deadly Force" is especially good, albeit decades old. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Current Events
United States
Chad Reed shooting in Texas
Top
