dumb-ass self defense in america, a case study

[Asmodean]

Oh! I gots me cars mixed up!

Not knowing the exact circumstances around the bottle throw, I'm hesitant to disregard it as a potentially-deadly attack. One, it could have been. It depends on the relative velocities of the vehicles and the bottle, its mass and ye olde physics. Two, as the "recipient" of the attack in that situation, could you have reasonably assumed that the object thrown was harmless, even if it indeed was? Perhaps more importantly, could you have reasonably feared death or serious injury to self or others? I suppose one argument could be that the bottle was thrown by that point, so the immediate danger passed with it, but I'm not sure how that argument would hold up in court..?

Having them cars sorted, I must say that there may be viable defence there - at least in my very non-expert opinion. (For instance, would giving someone the finger indeed constitute instigation? Seems like... Just something some people do, and if a reasonable person be the standard there... I don't see it. Throwing stuff, sure, but not that)

As for my argument with regards to the bottle, there are multiple potential angles there as well. For analogy, throwing a sponge at a guy juggling chain saws would be at least some sort of reckless, no?

EDIT: Just for clarity, I do think that it's a case of dangerous idiots in cars, who at the very least belong nowhere near the driver's seat, and probably ought to share a nice cell. Trying to look at the situation from a strictly legal perspective, however, renders my sensibilities irrelevant.

[Icarus]

Within the last few days we have had two cases of "stand your ground" that is going to turn out badly for the person who did the shooting.

A young black kid was sent to pick up his sibling from a house that he had not previously visited. The intended house is on a numbered street but the young man mistook the address instruction and went to the number on an avenue. He rang the door bell innocently,the man who lived there thought he was in danger from, perish the thought, a black kid who is six feet tall.. He shot through the door and hit the kid two times, once in the head. Fortunately the kid lived but the shooter is in big trouble.

In another incident a 17 year old girl exited the store where she had shopped, approached what she thought was the car that her companion was driving. She opened the passenger side door of a similar car and realized her mistake. Embarrassed, she got into the correct car and the offended person in the wrong car shot the girl.

  One other ocassion involved a driver who mistakenly pulled into the wrong driveway at night. Realizing that they had made a mistake, they backed out of the driveway just as the home owner let fly with a few shots. One of which killed a young woman in the car.

None of those were threatening to the shooters. The trigger happy, paranoid, dudes began shooting anyway. It is possible that each of the shooters actually believed that they were in danger, or so they will claim. 

 

[billy rubin]

none of those were stand your ground cases, icarus, but the lawyers will try.it.

the cops often dont know what stand your ground is either.

all that stand your ground does is legally remove from you the duty to retreat-- it doesnt excuse any use of lethal force that is not justified by the legal requirements.

that fool who shot the kid through his locked  door cant claim self defense, and when he stepped outside to shoot him again he became the attacker again. i dont see how he can get off, unless the prosecuting attorney is a moron.

these people are crazy.

[jumbojak]

Something to consider, stand your ground doesn't just apply to firearms. It relates to self defense which could well be with hands and feet. Say, someone attacks you and your response is to hit them, knocking them out and onto the asphalt in the dark alleyway you probably shouldn't have been walking down at night.

They suffer a traumatic brain injury due to the fall, and die - this happens more often than you may think. Are you now liable for a failure to retreat? You absolutely used deadly force, your attacker is dead. Were you required to run, and somehow calculate whether you could get away? If you then realized that you weren't going to escape could you then turn and face your attacker?

No, you were legally walking down an alley. Someone else chose to assault you. You can take your chances and run, or you can take your chances and stand but that's not a decision that needs to be made for you or a legal calculation that should be required to exercise a basic human right.

Shooting through a door or shooting at a car for a thrown bottle aren't reasonable responses to those actions. It would be the same if someone were killed by a knockout after asking for directions on a sidewalk. There's a set of circumstances to consider.

[billy rubin]

yes. the whole idea behind the real stand your ground law purpose is to help innocent people defend themselves. if two people are beating me with an jron bar in a dark parking garage, stand your hround allows me to defend myself with a deadly weapon witjout having to turn around and run for an exit. thats all.
.

[Asmodean]

yes. the whole idea behind the real stand your ground law purpose is to help innocent people defend themselves. if two people are beating me with an jron bar in a dark parking garage, stand your hround allows me to defend myself with a deadly weapon witjout having to turn around and run for an exit. thats all.
.

Ideally, it would allow you to be somewhat proactive as well. shooting attackers full of holes is all good and well, but if they have to literally have caved your skull in before you could try... But then, I suspect that would fall under "imminent danger," quite beside the obligation to retreat or lack thereof..?

[billy rubin]

you have to be in imminent danger first of all, before you can use lethal force anywhere

and it has to pass a reasonable test

i read so-called analyses of stand your ground by media "experts" all the time, and almost to a man tbey neglect to point out that you have to have to be in imminent danger before you can defend yourself at all, much less quibble about stand your ground

so if they are running at you hollering and waving the crowbar, you can shoot em before they get to you. if they satisfy all the other requirements too. thats an attack.

or if they are standing next to you in the subway, pull a knife, and say give me your wallet, you can shoot. thats  a threat to your life and youre in imminent danger there too

but if theyre standing on the other train platform looking at you suspiciously, no. or if theyre on the other side of a locked gate and you see no weapo , no. and so on

[Asmodean]

Well... Yeah. Your "ground" would have to be in need of "standing" - otherwise, how is it different from murder?

I don't think you should have an overarching obligation to flee or try to diffuse a situation if you consider yourself to be in danger, but then, such consideration would have to be tested against the perspective of a reasonable person in similar situation. As such, I suppose I support the idea of stand your ground - but as a defensive mandate only. At the very least, as a response to physical aggression. It should be... How do I make this point well..? It should be more than an excuse for escalation.

[billy rubin]

heres an open and shut murder. the florida cops are being coy. there is no stand your ground defense here

A Black mother of 4 was shot and killed by a neighbor. Her family wants the woman who shot her arrested

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/05/us/florida-woman-aj-owens-fatally-shot-neighbor-feud/index.html

[billy rubin]

both the shooter and the victim were equally guilty of starting and continuing the altercation.

but tbe shooter was behind a locked door, facing an unarmed woman. no imminent danger. just dont open the door. call the police if youre afraid.

the victim was unarmed, so the force was not proportional. she was angry, but had no weapon.

the shooter had no duty to retreat, but had no right to shoot either.

there is no argument that these actions were reasonable except that its florida, and the shooter is white, while the victim was black.

 were i a prosecuting attorney, i would charge manslaughter at the least.

stand your ground does not apply unless all the other boxes are checked first.

[billy rubin]

Woman arrested in connection with the shooting death of Black Florida mother who was killed after knocking on neighbor's door

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/07/us/ajike-aj-owens-florida-neighbor-shooting-wednesday/index.html

manslaughter.

[MarcusA]

Why is Australia an ally of America? Americans obviously play by a different set of rules to Australians.

[billy rubin]

"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."

[The Magic Pudding.]

Why is Australia an ally of America? Americans obviously play by a different set of rules to Australians.

History, ah you don't do history, expediency then.
Or insurance, we pay our premiums and maybe they'll come when we claim.
I think it all comes down to fear of the yellow hordes.

[No one]

Hopefully, somewhere in Florida, a group of lovely christians knocks on the wrong non christian's door, some shots ring out, lovely christians are no more. And everyone is happy, because, you know, hallowed ground and standing for it.