Andrew, Welcome from Memphis.
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Hey, thanks! Last time I was in Memphis I was doing a coast-to-coast-to-coast on my motorcycle, and a cute young thing on a cell phone nearly ran me clear over.
But the food was excellent!
Andrew
That's a pretty serious expression on your avatar pic there Andy.
Smile Bubba....life's too short to be wearin' a frown all the time.
Smile Bubba....life's too short to be wearin' a frown all the time.
Good heavens, you obviously don't know me--that's my HAPPY face. Seriously. :smile:That's a pretty serious expression on your avatar pic there Andy.
Smile Bubba....life's too short to be wearin' a frown all the time.
I was in the midst of a long motorcycle tour through the SE states, one of my favorite tours of all time (other than my coas-to-coast-to-coast, or the Netherlands-Belgium-France-Germany-Switzerland-Italy (and back) trip, or the disastrous winter Boston-to-Denver trip where I got trapped by ice in Oklahoma . . . ).
Anyway, that photo is taken of me standing in front of the poured-concrete welcome sign to the Barber Motorsports Museum in Alabama (the only place I've ever seen genuine reserved parking spots for MCs). What a fantastic place.
OK, I see this was all a strategy to get me off message. :yup: Sorry about that, folks.
I'm afraid you're missing the point. Of course the defendant was an idiot. We kind of expect punks to be idiots.
What we don't expect is that a room-full of professionally trained and experienced prosecutors, defense lawyers, judge and clerks will all badly misunderstand and misapply the law, resulting in the defendant being wrongfully convicted and sentenced to 20 years.
Even in Texas, I don't expect its lawful to chase, with the intent to use lethal force, someone who has COMPLETED criminal mischief (e.g., is no longer in the act) and who has FLED the scene (e.g., and so is not seeking a confrontation). Indeed, it is now the car owner who has become the aggressor. Killing someone for them having earlier slashed your car tires and who is now fleeing your pursuit is not typically viewed by any US jurisdiction as lawful self defense, or even defense of property.
But if you're aware of Texas law to the contrary, I'd be interested in seeing it. I learn new stuff every day.
Andrew
So, by your standards, I can come into your house... hit your wife then run away. If you chase me with a gun, I can shoot you in self-defense?? If that's the case, your ideas of "self-defense" are seriously f'd up.I'm afraid you're missing the point. Of course the defendant was an idiot. We kind of expect punks to be idiots.
What we don't expect is that a room-full of professionally trained and experienced prosecutors, defense lawyers, judge and clerks will all badly misunderstand and misapply the law, resulting in the defendant being wrongfully convicted and sentenced to 20 years.
Even in Texas, I don't expect its lawful to chase, with the intent to use lethal force, someone who has COMPLETED criminal mischief (e.g., is no longer in the act) and who has FLED the scene (e.g., and so is not seeking a confrontation). Indeed, it is now the car owner who has become the aggressor. Killing someone for them having earlier slashed your car tires and who is now fleeing your pursuit is not typically viewed by any US jurisdiction as lawful self defense, or even defense of property.
But if you're aware of Texas law to the contrary, I'd be interested in seeing it. I learn new stuff every day.
Andrew
At least in SC... If I provoke you... I can not claim self-defense. Regardless of whether or not your shots were justified... regardless of whether or not I am still in the act... I still provoked you and am not able to claim self-defense.
If that were the case, I could go take a swing at everyone I don't like with a baseball bat and then run into my local Starbucks. When they come to extract revenge, I can shoot them in self-defense?? Sorry bud, not how that works.
Who is talking about my standards? I write about the law, not my personal standards. (Although I'd be happy to do that, as well, next time I'm in SC, first beer's on me.
).In this case, the defendant never entered the victim's house, so that point is irrelevant.
Nor did he commit a violent act upon another person as provocation, so that point is irrelevant.
In any case, even had someone come into your house, punched your wife, then ran away such that he no longer presented any imminent threat, the law of self defense doesn't entitle you to chase them down and shoot them. You're supposed to call the police. What you're advocating might be great fun and stress relieving, but its not lawful. If you're aware of SC law to the contrary, I'd like to see it.
As for your statement that one who provokes a difficulty cannot claim self defense, it seems that you've only been instructed on half of the law governing provocation in self defense. For the SC law on this, I refer you to the SC Supreme Court decision of State v. Bryant, 520 S.E.2d 319 (SC Supreme Court 1999), the full text of which can be found here: State v. Bryant, 520 S.E.2d 319 (SC Supreme Court 1999) .
In Bryant, the state Supreme Court held that "If . . . the aggressor withdraws in good faith from the conflict and announces in some way to his adversary his intention to retire, he is restored to his right of self defense," and "One's right to self-defense is restored after a withdrawal from the initial difficulty with the victim if that withdrawal is communicated to the victim by word or act." As an example of such communication by "act", the court cites leaving the scene of the initial conflict as being adequate.
Note that this is not "my opinion." It's the law. In South Carolina.
In the case I wrote about, the defendant had withdrawn, and communicated that withdrawal by act. Indeed, it was the victim who chose to arm himself, leave his home, and pursue the defendant down the street. This falls squarely under SC law allowing for the restoration of the defendant's right to self defense.
The law does not allow one person to "extract revenge" on another. Any such act to "extract revenge" would be the unlawful use of force, and you would be entirely within your rights to defend yourself against such an unlawful use of force against you. If the effort to "extract revenge" involved the imminent use of deadly force upon you, then certainly you could use deadly force to defend yourself.
Don't you think?
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
