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

[unofan]

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.

Vehicular manslaughter is still a felony. You're not getting off with just probation for that.

 

[5mn_Major]

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

FL Statute: Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.

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 ...

Your scenario is exactly FL's current statute. And today it means that those parties don't need to convince a jury of peers. Why would they? Its virtually impossible to prove that someone doesn't feel threatened by bodily harm.

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 ... "

Ha! I would start by calling the dude attempting it 'an idiot'.

Then if I'm in FL...I just pull out a gun and shoot any guy reaching for his keys. Afterall I have a gun, I'm deathly afraid of everyone...especially those with a car.

If I'm in a normal state, I stand behind a tree.

 

[The Sicatoka]

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

Vehicular manslaughter is still a felony. You're not getting off with just probation for that.

Then someone needed a better attorney.

OK, OK, ... six months in white-collar work-release half-way house and four years supervised probation ... for what was premeditated.

 

[The Sicatoka]

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

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.

Until the fist flies you have no claim to defense.

 

[The Sicatoka]

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

You folks forget that I had a close relative murdered.
I had someone (not the convicted) threaten me for my part in helping the prosecution.

I took the classes and got educated.

 

[unofan]

Then someone needed a better attorney.

OK, OK, ... six months in white-collar work-release half-way house and four years supervised probation ... for what was premeditated.

Maybe that's how it works in bumblefark North Dakota where the sheriff is both your brother and father, but not in places where drunk driving deaths are taken a wee bit more seriously.

 

[unofan]

Until the fist flies you have no claim to defense.

Now who needs a better attorney? You always have a claim. It's whether you can convince a judge/jury it's valid.

 

[unofan]

You folks forget that I had a close relative murdered.
I had someone (not the convicted) threaten me for my part in helping the prosecution.

I'm sorry for your loss, but

I took the classes and got educated.

This sounds like you're one of my wife's clients who took a criminal justice course at the local community college and thinks he knows more about the law than she does.

 

[joecct]

Vehicular manslaughter is still a felony. You're not getting off with just probation for that.

If your last name begins with K and ends in y, you have a good chance to beat the rap.

 

[unofan]

If your last name begins with K and ends in y, you have a good chance to beat the rap.

Because nothing has changed in the country's attitude towards drunk driving in 50 years, amirite?

Then again, most Republicans still ignore the southern strategy and try to claim the civil rights movement as their own to this day.

 

[The Sicatoka]

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

Maybe that's how it works in bumblefark North Dakota where the sheriff is both your brother and father, but not in places where drunk driving deaths are taken a wee bit more seriously.

You keep confusing "Nebraska" with "North Dakota". We're the ones with hockey titles.

Here's Nebraska and them taking DUI seriously ... no jail and 5 years probation.

 

[The Sicatoka]

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

This sounds like you're one of my wife's clients who took a criminal justice course at the local community college and thinks he knows more about the law than she does.

Concealed carry instructor.
Self-defense instructor.
My attorney.
Coffee with the local sheriff about the law and the situation.
More cop friends (active and retired) than I care to admit*.

It's different when it's not theoretical.


*Most of them are upset with me because I carry unchambered 99.9% of the time, or as one says, that's like saying you'll put on the seat belt right before the crash.

 

[unofan]

You keep confusing "Nebraska" with "North Dakota". We're the ones with hockey titles.

Here's Nebraska and them taking DUI seriously ... no jail and 5 years probation.

Ejecting a fellow passenger is just a wee bit different fact pattern than driving over a pedestrian multiple times, don't you think?

 

[5mn_Major]

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

You folks forget that I had a close relative murdered.
I had someone (not the convicted) threaten me for my part in helping the prosecution.

I took the classes and got educated.

I truly am sorry for your loss. And I understand the drivers of where you're at.

But these SYG laws actually allow the types of criminals you are tried to prosecute...to proactively and much more easily kill. Lawful, just, honest people don't need these laws - I would gladly take a punch to avoid killing someone. But the types of people who are looking to kill like the terrible dude in the above case...now actively pursue others in order to openly use SYG to get away with murder

 

[The Sicatoka]

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

Ejecting a fellow passenger is just a wee bit different fact pattern than driving over a pedestrian multiple times, don't you think?

But you said they take drunk driving seriously. Someone is dead.

 

[SJHovey]

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

SYG laws are simply an extension of the "castle doctrine" to areas outside your home. The appropriateness of those laws really depends upon the appropriateness of the extension of that right not to flee, or "retreat."

Personally, I've always thought it odd that the law was applied differently depending upon whether you were in your home, especially since that law was not based upon any sort of personal safety rationale or argument, but instead based upon archaic British property rights law that a man's home is his castle. But that said, it seems to me we've almost come full circle.

100-150 years ago it was probably much more likely that you'd see people "stand your ground" in areas outside the home, and be protected by the law of self defense. Then, as the nation became more populated and there were fewer confrontations between armed individuals, fleeing essentially became the only alternative for someone faced with mortal danger. Now, with the proliferation of people carrying weapons, those individuals are much more likely to be willing to stand and fight because they think they have a chance of prevailing in that fight.

I'm not a huge fan of forcing someone to decide whether they have to flee first, because I think that decision is way too subjective, and most likely to be second guessed by families of the person shot, the police and the prosecution, to say nothing of people like us.

On the other hand, I do not like the idea that SYG laws may cause a certain few individuals to feel empowered to go around acting like the jello sheriff, knowing that if things get out of hand they can always whip out the old Sig Sauer and start blasting away.

 

[The Sicatoka]

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

I truly am sorry for your loss. And I understand the drivers of where you're at.

But these SYG laws actually allow the types of criminals you are tried to prosecute...to proactively and much more easily kill. Lawful, just, honest people don't need these laws - I would gladly take a punch to avoid killing someone. But the types of people who are looking to kill like the terrible dude in the above case...now actively pursue others in order to openly use SYG to get away with murder

Like I said before, SYG should be SYG.
After that you need to be able to show cause (immediate fear of great bodily harm or death) for taking a defensive action.

 

[The Sicatoka]

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

... whip out the old Sig Sauer and start blasting away.

Never trust anyone who carries a Sig.

 

[5mn_Major]

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

SYG laws are simply an extension of the "castle doctrine" to areas outside your home. The appropriateness of those laws really depends upon the appropriateness of the extension of that right not to flee, or "retreat."

Personally, I've always thought it odd that the law was applied differently depending upon whether you were in your home, especially since that law was not based upon any sort of personal safety rationale or argument, but instead based upon archaic British property rights law that a man's home is his castle. But that said, it seems to me we've almost come full circle.

100-150 years ago it was probably much more likely that you'd see people "stand your ground" in areas outside the home, and be protected by the law of self defense. Then, as the nation became more populated and there were fewer confrontations between armed individuals, fleeing essentially became the only alternative for someone faced with mortal danger. Now, with the proliferation of people carrying weapons, those individuals are much more likely to be willing to stand and fight because they think they have a chance of prevailing in that fight.

I'm not a huge fan of forcing someone to decide whether they have to flee first, because I think that decision is way too subjective, and most likely to be second guessed by families of the person shot, the police and the prosecution, to say nothing of people like us.

On the other hand, I do not like the idea that SYG laws may cause a certain few individuals to feel empowered to go around acting like the jello sheriff, knowing that if things get out of hand they can always whip out the old Sig Sauer and start blasting away.

As being pretty hard core on this stuff, I'm fine with any sort of arming of one's home. I would rather you let me know if you've got guns lying around...I just won't go there. But bringing that armament with the idea its acceptable to defend a piece of sidewalk another matter.

I've got hundreds of FB friends living in the heart of the city and none have been killed by roving gangs yet. I'm just not sure what the fear of others is all about. Statistically speaking you must conclude that the most dangerous person to everyone including themselves is any CC dude packing - regardless of premeditation/accident, level of training, or SYG.

 

[unofan]

But you said they take drunk driving seriously. Someone is dead.

Everything in law is fact dependent. You change the facts enough, you'll get different outcomes. Otherwise known as the "if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle" doctrine.