What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

Brenthoven said:
"If one believes one is in mortal danger."

That is okay, IMO. That is the principle of the law. The interpretations of the law in context with the situation in question, whatever situation that may be...good Lord, that needs to change.
Click to expand...

" ... in immediate fear of great bodily harm or death ... " is the phrase I've always heard.

To me SYG is SYG.
If it's not your ground you'd better be able to prove you were "in immediate fear of great bodily harm or death" if you choose to use lethal force.
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

The Sicatoka said:
" ... in immediate fear of great bodily harm or death ... " is the phrase I've always heard.

To me SYG is SYG.
If it's not your ground you'd better be able to prove you were "in immediate fear of great bodily harm or death" if you choose to use lethal force.
Click to expand...

'Fear of great bodily harm' is not enough. Reason? You say 'proof of' but remember its 'fear of'. 'Fear of' is subjective. As a result, the hurdle must be sufficiently high - 'Fear of death'. As in somebody is coming at you with a knife.
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

5mn_Major said:
'Fear of great bodily harm' is not enough. Reason? You say 'proof of' but remember its 'fear of'. 'Fear of' is subjective. As a result, the hurdle must be sufficiently high - 'Fear of death'. As in somebody is coming at you with a knife.
Click to expand...

A nuance, but if someone is coming at me with a knife I am "in immediate fear of great bodily harm or death." So yes, provable fear of great bodily harm is enough.

Change the scenario slightly: Dude points gun at cash-register guy in gas station. That's fear of great bodily harm. And in that case, in most states, the minute the muzzle of bad dude points at other person it invokes the "in defense of others who are in immediate fear of ..." laws.

That said, know who is who, or as my carry instructor and carry permit instructors both said, "Don't shoot a plain clothes cop".
 
Slap Shot said:
I think Brent is saying is that he is not ok with SYG covering some ahole that provokes someone else into a confrontation and then shoots them in the process claiming SYG. His objections may be even wider in scope but that's what I'm getting from his comments.
Click to expand...

And my point is SYG is only necessary in such situations, so for him to say it's good in theory but wrong in execution is missing the point that those situations are what the NRA intended it to cover.
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

Right, self defense laws already existed before SYG.
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

Oh it’s an execution and it’s working perfectly as intended.
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

Slap Shot said:
I think Brent is saying is that he is not ok with SYG covering some ahole that provokes someone else into a confrontation and then shoots them in the process claiming SYG. His objections may be even wider in scope but that's what I'm getting from his comments.
Click to expand...

This. You better be in fear of your actual life and have proof to back up that claim. Some bro-dude just says, "You're gonna die, punk!" There's nothing there to cause you to kill him. You might be scared, that's fine and natural. It's all context. Now, if bro-dude points a gun at you? Fire away.

As for redundant laws, SYG and Self-Defense are far from the only law that repeats itself. See: distracted driving/cell phones laws. Just sayin'.
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

Brenthoven said:
SYG and Self-Defense are far from the only law that repeats itself.
Click to expand...

They aren't repetitive. Self-defense is what you're describing. SYG is intended to go well beyond that.
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

unofan said:
They aren't repetitive. Self-defense is what you're describing. SYG is intended to go well beyond that.
Click to expand...

From the articles I read, the principle is the same. For comparison, so are the cellphone/distracted driving laws. In the SYG/SD: don't try and kill the other guy unless you will be dead yourself otherwise."

SYG's issue is the loose interpretation of that law. That's the issue with it.
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

Let's look at it a different way:

Distracted Driving: pretty big umbrella there. Due to social pressures, additional laws for driving w/cells narrowed that specific crime down to a single thing.

Self-Defense: pretty small umbrella, SYG expanded that umbrella to loosening of interpretations.

In both cases, the base crime has already been stated. One just tightened the standards, and one loosened it. That's my point.
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

unofan said:
They aren't repetitive. Self-defense is what you're describing. SYG is intended to go well beyond that.
Click to expand...

Brenthoven said:
From the articles I read, the principle is the same. For comparison, so are the cellphone/distracted driving laws. In the SYG/SD: don't try and kill the other guy unless you will be dead yourself otherwise."

SYG's issue is the loose interpretation of that law. That's the issue with it.
Click to expand...

Brent.

The police, legal system (including the aggregate of judges, juries and lawyers), the legislature, and the legislations authors are all applying this identical 'loose interpretation'. Don't you think that this might be the exact/correct interpretation...and that the articles you read could be either wrong or dishonest?
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

The Sicatoka said:
A nuance, but if someone is coming at me with a knife I am "in immediate fear of great bodily harm or death." So yes, provable fear of great bodily harm is enough.

Change the scenario slightly: Dude points gun at cash-register guy in gas station. That's fear of great bodily harm. And in that case, in most states, the minute the muzzle of bad dude points at other person it invokes the "in defense of others who are in immediate fear of ..." laws.

That said, know who is who, or as my carry instructor and carry permit instructors both said, "Don't shoot a plain clothes cop".
Click to expand...

Nope. To someone who's never been in a fist fight, somebody threatening to punch him in the face could easily lead to a 'fear of bodily harm' - could it not? Remember its up to the dude who just killed someone to explain what they're afraid of...

If you give someone in a fist fight a green light to kill - then you're a simple spilled drink away from your fig leaf cover for premeditated murder.
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

5mn_Major said:
Brent.

The police, legal system (including the aggregate of judges, juries and lawyers), the legislature, and the legislations authors are all applying this identical 'loose interpretation'. Don't you think that this might be the exact/correct interpretation...and that the articles you read could be either wrong or dishonest?
Click to expand...

They could be. In this day and age...who the heck knows? Makes it easier for the cops, that's for sure. Oh, we just interpret it like this, and less paperwork, the law covers us, and we're peons. The judges/etc have to deal with it. Ok, we're done here.

Again, the LAW isn't the problem, IMO. It's the real-life usage of said law that is the issue. Goes back to f*ing ourselves b/c of our human failures.
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

Brenthoven said:
They could be. In this day and age...who the heck knows? Makes it easier for the cops, that's for sure. Oh, we just interpret it like this, and less paperwork, the law covers us, and we're peons. The judges/etc have to deal with it. Ok, we're done here.

Again, the LAW isn't the problem, IMO. It's the real-life usage of said law that is the issue. Goes back to f*ing ourselves b/c of our human failures.
Click to expand...

Well, I got to give you credit for hanging in there.
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

Brenthoven said:
This. You better be in fear of your actual life and have proof to back up that claim. /QUOTE]

The problem though is what prompted someone to, "Fear for their life" and in this case I think we are disconnected. mho you shouldn't be able to initiate a physical confrontation with someone and then claim, "SYG" if they pull out a weapon. It gives any ahole the right to start **** without fear of retribution.
Click to expand...
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

5mn_Major said:
Nope. To someone who's never been in a fist fight, somebody threatening to punch him in the face could easily lead to a 'fear of bodily harm' - could it not? Remember its up to the dude who just killed someone to explain what they're afraid of...
Click to expand...

Yes, it is up to the person who took what they believed to be self-defensive actions to explain what they did.
And they most likely will have to convince twelve peers of their "immediate fear of great bodily harm or death".

Now to your scenario: Just threatening? See Amendment One. The minute the fist is airborne however ...
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

5mn_Major said:
If you give someone in a fist fight a green light to kill - then you're a simple spilled drink away from your fig leaf cover for premeditated murder.
Click to expand...

Want to kill someone? You don't use a gun. Too dog-whistle.

Drive over them, back up to see what you hit, and drive over them again, ... and then before the authorities arrive swig down half a 750 of Jack Daniels: "I was soooo drunk that I didn't know ... "

Any one of the resident scheisters* here will get you off with at most vehicular manslaughter and probation.


*Meant in the most kind and loving way to the members of the legal community.
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

5mn_Major said:
If you give someone in a fist fight a green light to kill - then you're a simple spilled drink away from your fig leaf cover for premeditated murder.
Click to expand...

You are standing, not involved with the situation, 20 feet away on the street and witness this: http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/4281601-i-became-witness-one-punch-homicide

You see the larger men go down by one punch each; you tell the puncher to stop; the puncher turns and take two steps at you ...
 
Last edited:
The Sicatoka said:
Yes, it is up to the person who took what they believed to be self-defensive actions to explain what they did.
And they most likely will have to convince twelve peers of their "immediate fear of great bodily harm or death".

Now to your scenario: Just threatening? See Amendment One. The minute the fist is airborne however ...
Click to expand...

Amendment One applies to governments, not people. A government can't arrest you for fighting words, but people can still be put into fear by them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top