Your loved one instigates a confrontation, now they're under attack! Legal question. - Page 4

Your loved one instigates a confrontation, now they're under attack! Legal question.

This is a discussion on Your loved one instigates a confrontation, now they're under attack! Legal question. within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by farronwolf You overlook the fact that the whole situation could have been avoided by the person not playing loud music with profanities. ...

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 60 of 60
Like Tree53Likes

Thread: Your loved one instigates a confrontation, now they're under attack! Legal question.

  1. #46
    Ex Member Array MadMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    You overlook the fact that the whole situation could have been avoided by the person not playing loud music with profanities. Don't skip to step two of the equation. To place blame on the person who speaks up means you condone a certain segment of the population being rude by exercising their 1A rights in a disruptive manner. If I am going around calling folks names, screaming profanities in a public place, and being generally disruptive, hey I am just exercising my 1A right, good for me. Enjoy it or leave the area.

    Based on the scenario the person playing loud music is definately the one at fault. They presented a deadly weapon in response to words they didn't like. Had the response of the music player been to tell the wife to pound sand it would be different scenario altogether, but that isn't what the OP laid out for us.
    I simply want to point out the First Amendment places limitations on the United States government, and has nothing to do with loud rap music or speech among individuals or groups.


  2. #47
    VIP Member Array paaiyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,129
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMac View Post
    I simply want to point out the First Amendment places limitations on the United States government, and has nothing to do with loud rap music or speech among individuals or groups.
    Agreed, the First Amendment places restrictions on the government's ability to restrict our ability to speak our opinions and exercise our beliefs. It has nothing to do with protecting loud music.
    My blog

    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

  3. #48
    Ex Member Array MadMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by paaiyan View Post
    Agreed, the First Amendment places restrictions on the government's ability to restrict our ability to speak our opinions and exercise our beliefs. It has nothing to do with protecting loud music.
    Didn't I just say that?

  4. #49
    VIP Member Array paaiyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,129
    I was simply agreeing with you. I wrote part of my post, came back and changed it, then wrote the toehr part, and somewhere in between didn't realize i pretty much said exactly what you did. Suffice to say I agree.
    My blog

    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

  5. #50
    Ex Member Array MadMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Just joshn' with ya, bro....

  6. #51
    VIP Member Array paaiyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,129
    Ah, I'm running on a lack of sleep right now. I'm a little
    My blog

    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

  7. #52
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,886
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMac View Post
    I simply want to point out the First Amendment places limitations on the United States government, and has nothing to do with loud rap music or speech among individuals or groups.
    Not necessarily. In these cased the SCOTUS upheld restrictions on certain types of speech.

    Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire "fighting words"

    Miller v. California
    FCC v. Pacifica Foundation "obscene material"

    Schenck v. United States "extreme or imminent danger"

    No rights are unlimited. States and local governments can also restrict certain speech as they need for the public good. For instace Texas' disorderly conduct reads as follows. (portion of)

    Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;(3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable odor in a public place;(4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner;(5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place other than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy;
    But that really isn't what this thread is about. Because if both sides "speech" including loud music and telling them to turn it down were the only factors we wouldn't be discussing the thread. It was the actions of bringing a deadly weapon into the mix due to "speech" that wasn't appreciated. If any state has statutes that allow for deadly force to be used against someone who says something you don't like, I would love to read that statute. However I don't think there is any such statute, maybe I am wrong.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  8. #53
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,156
    Quote Originally Posted by W9HDG View Post

    My apologies to the OP and everyone else for taking this post so far off topic and this will be my last reply to Miketrance because apparently his experiences in Milwaukee have taught him all he needs to know about how the world works.
    LOL My wife was born in Milwaukee and moved away when she was eight.
    W9HDG likes this.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  9. #54
    VIP Member Array smolck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    3,558
    Quote Originally Posted by WHEC724 View Post
    My wife has a mouth on her. Her Dad refers to her as "The Mouth Of The South".

    She also wouldn't hurt a fly, nor has any idea how to defend herself. The thought of even pausing to ponder the ramifications of defending her, should someone present her with lethal force is ludicrous to me. Seriously? Hesitate to come to the aid of your wife when her life is in danger?

    I have a bag of non-lethal tricks up my sleeve as well. Shooting is my last resort, but I know when it's time.

    Let her get her butt chewed? Sure, she has it coming sometimes. Hesitate to protect her in a lethal situation? Not on my life. My fate will be in someone else's hands.
    This hits home. I too have a wife that has a mouth and driving habits that can make any NASCAR driver cringe. Sometimes I too wonder what would happen if the next person she cuts off decides to start something I have to finish. Also, my wife is a CCW holder and I worry about that sometimes too. She is one of those people who will run her mouth to the largest of fellows and then say "beat his a$$ honey". Leaving me looking up at Goliath thinking "this isn't going to end well for me" and "thanks honey".

    Interesting food for thought.

  10. #55
    Ex Member Array MadMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by smolck View Post
    This hits home. I too have a wife that has a mouth and driving habits that can make any NASCAR driver cringe. Sometimes I too wonder what would happen if the next person she cuts off decides to start something I have to finish. Also, my wife is a CCW holder and I worry about that sometimes too. She is one of those people who will run her mouth to the largest of fellows and then say "beat his a$$ honey". Leaving me looking up at Goliath thinking "this isn't going to end well for me" and "thanks honey".

    Interesting food for thought.
    If she has this type of personality, she shouldn't carry a firearm IMNSHO.

    That said, safety and longevity is why you carry a firearm -- not as a backup for your poor decision-making (or that of your spouse). Since she was your choice, and you're already manacled together, you may want to discuss with her why you carry, and how to ensure a safe, happy, long life with a minuscule likelihood of needing your firearm.

    If she has dangerous driving habits, a road rage incident is only one aspect of your issues. She could leave you a widower and you kids motherless by her careless actions. How you drive and how you react to others is a CHOICE. It sounds like she needs to make better choices.

    ....and if you believe enough in self defense to carry a firearm, you and your wife should start making more mature choices.

  11. #56
    VIP Member Array Hiram25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wyoming, DE
    Posts
    11,271
    If I'm sitting next to my wife, the guy with the knife is also coming towards me, BANG!
    Hiram25
    You can educate ignorance, you can't fix stupid
    Retired DE Trooper, SA XD40 SC, S&W 2" Airweight
    dukalmighty & Pure Kustom Black Ops Pro "Trooper" Holsters, DE CCDW and LEOSA Permits, Vietnam Vet 68-69 Pleiku

  12. #57
    VIP Member Array smolck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    3,558
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMac View Post
    If she has this type of personality, she shouldn't carry a firearm IMNSHO.

    That said, safety and longevity is why you carry a firearm -- not as a backup for your poor decision-making (or that of your spouse). Since she was your choice, and you're already manacled together, you may want to discuss with her why you carry, and how to ensure a safe, happy, long life with a minuscule likelihood of needing your firearm.

    If she has dangerous driving habits, a road rage incident is only one aspect of your issues. She could leave you a widower and you kids motherless by her careless actions. How you drive and how you react to others is a CHOICE. It sounds like she needs to make better choices.

    ....and if you believe enough in self defense to carry a firearm, you and your wife should start making more mature choices.
    Clearly someone doesn't catch sarcastic humor.

  13. #58
    Ex Member Array MadMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Clearly, someone is incapable of communicating effectively.

    Do you mean to say everything you wrote about your wife was "sarcastic"? Do you know the definition of sarcasm?

  14. #59
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,952
    Pretty much everything I have read about self defense law and not being the instigator seems like the intent is obvious: to prevent one from deliberarly starting confrontations and then trying to claim self defense. In most states it also seems that there are corresponding laws covering the conditions upon which one can regain the right of self defense, and this usually involves communicating in some manner of a wish to discontinue the fight. The intent behind these laws also seems pretty obvious in that one does not automatically lose the right of self defense because of, or for event starting, a minor conflict. Self defense law also covers things like the force continuum and disparity of force, typically in the context of how one can not respond with a level of force that is unreasonable (e.g. use of deadly force in response to a soft or hard hands attack). In the case spelled out in this scenario, the guy playing music clearly overstepped the force continuum in a manner that I think the proverbial "reasonable person" would see as massively excessive and thereby changing the dynamics of the situation entirely, creating an imminent deadly threat for which defense is warranted.

    Situations involving a spouse can be tricky. I think it is safe to say that most people would protect their spouse without regard for alter-ego laws. This question / scenario did cause me to think of an interesting question pertaining to the regaining of self defense, and that is: if your spouse were to instigate and you were to interceed (as an alter-ego) and try to de-esclate the situation and withdrawl them from conflict and whether or not that would be sufficient to regain the right of self defense should the other party continue to escalate it to the lethal level?

  15. #60
    Member Array Miketrance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    220
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    A Supreme Court ruling (Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)) created a narrow category of speech—“fighting words”— not covered by the First Amendment. Fighting words, by their very utterance inflict injury, or incite an immediate breach of the peace.



    Miketrance has a point: one catches more flies with honey. Virginia Disorderly Conduct Laws prohbit engaging in conduct having a tendency to cause acts of violence by the person(s) at whom the conduct is directed, and doing so in a public place. Use of fighting words in VA exposes one to a charge of Disorderly Conduct and, arguably, assigns to the person the role of "instigator" who actually causes a fight.
    I do not bother with polity when my life or limb is under threat, or, to the point of the OP, when the life or limb of a loved one or one with whom I am intimately familiar is, but the best course is to refrain from arousing anger when notifying a fellow citizen that his behavior is offensive.
    Quote Originally Posted by noway2 View Post
    Pretty much everything I have read about self defense law and not being the instigator seems like the intent is obvious: to prevent one from deliberarly starting confrontations and then trying to claim self defense. In most states it also seems that there are corresponding laws covering the conditions upon which one can regain the right of self defense, and this usually involves communicating in some manner of a wish to discontinue the fight. The intent behind these laws also seems pretty obvious in that one does not automatically lose the right of self defense because of, or for event starting, a minor conflict. Self defense law also covers things like the force continuum and disparity of force, typically in the context of how one can not respond with a level of force that is unreasonable (e.g. use of deadly force in response to a soft or hard hands attack). In the case spelled out in this scenario, the guy playing music clearly overstepped the force continuum in a manner that I think the proverbial "reasonable person" would see as massively excessive and thereby changing the dynamics of the situation entirely, creating an imminent deadly threat for which defense is warranted.

    Situations involving a spouse can be tricky. I think it is safe to say that most people would protect their spouse without regard for alter-ego laws. This question / scenario did cause me to think of an interesting question pertaining to the regaining of self defense, and that is: if your spouse were to instigate and you were to interceed (as an alter-ego) and try to de-esclate the situation and withdrawl them from conflict and whether or not that would be sufficient to regain the right of self defense should the other party continue to escalate it to the lethal level?
    I would think that depends on your wife's continued involvement. If she's in the background, screaming obcenitites I don't think that would count as self defense. If she withdraws from the confrontation, I would say you're good claiming SD. I think the situation the OP described was over simplified at best to begin with. No one in their right mind would step out of the car with a deadly weapon after someone says one thing.

    The way I see this scenario unfolding would be she walks up to the car, and is belligerent. He tells her to go pound sand. She being a loudmouth, continues to berate the music player. He starts going back and forth with her each round getting more heated. In the heat of an argument, who knows exactly what's said she might threaten to beat his arse or something. Even if it's an unfounded threat, he might be able to claim self defense. The whole thing about an argument is, no one really keeps track of what's said. No one will brandish a weapon over one statement but, normally there is much more said.

    Suppose the OP shoots the guy in question, and he lives. He then claims the wife threatened him which is why he stepped out of the car with the knife. You could both be in a world of trouble as the facts are, she walked up to his car and initiated the confrontation. CC isn't intended to protect you from a bad decision. Most people that know someone that has a tendency to start trouble with their mouths would have to agree that it isn't usually over with one snide remark. If the target of the confrontation responds back in kind, the situation usually escalates.

    Someone else mentioned that their wife would start a confrontation and say kick his ass to their hubby. This to me is grounds for self defense action. The music player doesn't know who the husband is, he could be some MMA champion and he feels he's in imminent danger. Then shooting the guy for pulling a weapon, muddies the water in an already murky situation. Better hope the guy doesn't pull through, as his side of the story might just get you in more trouble.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

how is the instigator allowed to claim self defense
,
if a person instigates a confrontation can he claim self defense if he kills him
,
instigate self defense
,

instigating confrontation

,
instigator claims self defense
,
is it against the law to instigate a fight
,
my husband instagates fights with me
,
rules of self defense not instigating
,
self defense instigation
,
self defense instigator
,
texas law instigating a fight
,
texas law of self-defense provocation escalation
Click on a term to search for related topics.