Re: Michael Brown

[Sparko]

With regard to the discussion of homeowners shooting unarmed people breaking into their homes -- the simple answer is that you have the right to defend your life with deadly force, but not your property. But given the totality of the circumstances, one may be able to articulate enough facts to justify a shooting that at first appears to violate this concept. Small details matter.

As a case study, one of our local prosecutors told me about something that happened several years ago where I live. A man owned two homes, and one had recently been broken into while he was not there. The thieves has taken thousands of dollars of electronic equipment, which he had recently replaced. He drove out to the house one night to check the property. Coming up the driveway, he encountered a car. He got out of his vehicle and approached the car, noticing that it was loaded down with all the new electronics he had recently bought. So then he stepped into the woods and waited till two men came out of his house and got into the car. Then he stepped out in front of car, and shot and killed both of them. He was arrested and charged with murder (because, well, the law's pretty clear on that part).

But when it went to grand jury, they found no probable cause. The DA's Office took it back to the same grand jury, and again the grand jury found no probable cause. When a new DA was sworn in (and a new grand jury was empaneled) the new DA presented it one last time to a new grand jury, which again found no probable cause. The defendant was ultimately released, and even successfully petitioned the court to have his arrest expunged.

The law's about proportionality of force. You can't just execute someone because they're taking your property. But it's ultimately up to citizens in your community and sometimes, as we see, the citizens make their own decisions about right/wrong, irrespective of the law.

The difference would be someone breaking into where you are, versus you shooting someone who is stealing something of yours where you are not. For example, you look out the window and see someone stealing your car. You can't usually go out there and shoot the guy (some states might allow it). But if you wake up in the middle of the night to find someone has broken into your house, then you really don't need to check to see if they are just wanting your property or are willing to harm you. The logical deduction is that if they see you, they will try to harm you to get away without being caught.

[Cow Poke]

With regard to the discussion of homeowners shooting unarmed people breaking into their homes -- the simple answer is that you have the right to defend your life with deadly force, but not your property.

That's simply not true in all states.

But given the totality of the circumstances, one may be able to articulate enough facts to justify a shooting that at first appears to violate this concept. Small details matter.

As a case study, one of our local prosecutors told me about something that happened several years ago where I live. A man owned two homes, and one had recently been broken into while he was not there. The thieves has taken thousands of dollars of electronic equipment, which he had recently replaced. He drove out to the house one night to check the property. Coming up the driveway, he encountered a car. He got out of his vehicle and approached the car, noticing that it was loaded down with all the new electronics he had recently bought. So then he stepped into the woods and waited till two men came out of his house and got into the car. Then he stepped out in front of car, and shot and killed both of them. He was arrested and charged with murder (because, well, the law's pretty clear on that part).

Again, depends on the locality.

But when it went to grand jury, they found no probable cause. The DA's Office took it back to the same grand jury, and again the grand jury found no probable cause. When a new DA was sworn in (and a new grand jury was empaneled) the new DA presented it one last time to a new grand jury, which again found no probable cause. The defendant was ultimately released, and even successfully petitioned the court to have his arrest expunged.

The law's about proportionality of force. You can't just execute someone because they're taking your property. But it's ultimately up to citizens in your community and sometimes, as we see, the citizens make their own decisions about right/wrong, irrespective of the law.

Source: Texas Penal Code Ann 9.42

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

© Copyright Original Source

Source

The rationale for this is that if, as in your example, the individual tried to stop the two men from stealing his stuff, it's likely he would have been attacked and possibly even killed. Deadly force is then permissible.

[Littlejoe]

That's simply not true in all states.



Again, depends on the locality.

Source: Texas Penal Code Ann 9.42

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

© Copyright Original Source

Source

The rationale for this is that if, as in your example, the individual tried to stop the two men from stealing his stuff, it's likely he would have been attacked and possibly even killed. Deadly force is then permissible.

Yep! Don't mess with Texas...or in this case our Stuff here in Texas!

[Cow Poke]

Yep! Don't mess with Texas...or in this case our Stuff here in Texas!

Especially at night!

[lilpixieofterror]

I guess that invalidates historical and ongoing police training and tactics!

Or you're an idiot that doesn't understand police training and tactics to start with, but thinks he's qualified to talk about things he knows nothing about. Tell me PM, what is your experience in police training or tactics? Any at all? How about in any kind of defense? What is your experience in any of that stuff?

"If it's legal, it must be moral." I see.

And if you can't refute it, call them a bunch of names and hope it sticks.

That idea exists because a police officer should not have their life threatened by an unarmed person.

Where did you come up with that nonsense? From the same source that told you about police training and tactics? What is your experience in unarmed combat? Do you seriously think you can teach somebody to be a martial artist, that is capable of taking on anybody and everybody, in a matter of weeks? In reality, people don't just become world class fighters in a matter of weeks.

Their training and tools should be more than adequate. There are several countries which do not arm their beat officers with firearms. I don't expect American police officers to not carry a gun. Our geographic location and our history of gun distribution makes an assailant with a firearm an ever-present reality. I do expect American police to use the same tactics used in those countries I mentioned when dealing with unarmed assailants, or indeed any unarmed person. Killing someone should be a last resort. Not a matter of course.

And more of your insanity seems to show itself. Have you been to other countries? Many of these guys carry a lot higher caliber weapon than a simple 9M that our police carry. Some of them carry around military style weapons.

A little while ago people in this thread were saying things like "if a thief broke into my house, I would shoot them". I really don't understand this. Though it might be legal, it is not self defense. Unless threatening harm, implicit or implied, only one's possessions are in danger. I think this ties into the mentality of police carrying guns. The old adage "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". I hope that's the explanation. An alternative is that many people just don't value human life. If imminent harm is not one's criteria for justifiable self-defense, where does one draw the line?

And more of your insanity, in action. Do you have the magical abilities to read minds? They have already broken the law by breaking into your house. What lengths are they willing to go to keep themselves out of prison? Lots are more than willing to kill in order to do this. Hey though, if you want to get yourself in the ICU for a few weeks or worse, hey... tell me how that works out. I think though I'd prefer to error on caution and defend myself from a potential dangerous criminal that has already proved they have no regard for the law.

[Cow Poke]

They have already broken the law by breaking into your house. What lengths are they willing to go to keep themselves out of prison? Lots are more than willing to kill in order to do this. Hey though, if you want to get yourself in the ICU for a few weeks or worse, hey... tell me how that works out. I think though I'd prefer to error on caution and defend myself from a potential dangerous criminal that has already proved they have no regard for the law.

Perhaps PM is unaware of the rash of home invasions where they don't exactly stop to discuss with you what your options are.

[lilpixieofterror]

Perhaps PM is unaware of the rash of home invasions where they don't exactly stop to discuss with you what your options are.

Yeah, but in PM looney world, you got to ask them if they intend on doing you harm before you were to shoot them.

[CMD]

According to FBI stats, more people are murdered every year by "personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)" than by blunt weapons or even shotguns and rifles (not to mention poisoning, fire, explosives, etc.).

Unquestionably, "unarmed" does not mean "poses no significant threat to ones life."

[Zymologist]

According to FBI stats, more people are murdered every year by "personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)" than by blunt weapons or even shotguns and rifles (not to mention poisoning, fire, explosives, etc.).

Unquestionably, "unarmed" does not mean "poses no significant threat to ones life."

I've posted a similar link (from 2007-2011, rather than 2008-2012) at least twice now. Strangely, it's been completely ignored....

[Jedidiah]

A little while ago people in this thread were saying things like "if a thief broke into my house, I would shoot them". I really don't understand this. Though it might be legal, it is not self defense. Unless threatening harm, implicit or implied, only one's possessions are in danger. I think this ties into the mentality of police carrying guns. The old adage "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". I hope that's the explanation. An alternative is that many people just don't value human life. If imminent harm is not one's criteria for justifiable self-defense, where does one draw the line?

So you must believe that the life of a thief is worth more than the cost, in dollars and anguish, of your personal property and the pain of having been violated. I do not happen to agree. If such a thief looses his life, to bad. He should not have been where he was apt to get shot.

[myth]

The difference would be someone breaking into where you are, versus you shooting someone who is stealing something of yours where you are not. For example, you look out the window and see someone stealing your car. You can't usually go out there and shoot the guy (some states might allow it). But if you wake up in the middle of the night to find someone has broken into your house, then you really don't need to check to see if they are just wanting your property or are willing to harm you. The logical deduction is that if they see you, they will try to harm you to get away without being caught.

I'm aware of the difference. It wasn't meant for a direct comparison, but an illustration to make a point.

[myth]

That's simply not true in all states.



Again, depends on the locality.

Source: Texas Penal Code Ann 9.42

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

© Copyright Original Source

Source

The rationale for this is that if, as in your example, the individual tried to stop the two men from stealing his stuff, it's likely he would have been attacked and possibly even killed. Deadly force is then permissible.

Gonna be honest, I didn't realize that some states differed quite that much. Also...maybe I should move to Texas.

[rogue06]

Gonna be honest, I didn't realize that some states differed quite that much. Also...maybe I should move to Texas.

Texas is the only state where "he needed killing" is a legitimate defense

[JimL]

How much of the officer's statement at the time do we know? I don't think the claim that Michael Brown was going for his gun originated 2 weeks after the incident. Can you cite the law or policy that says a violent felon fleeing from the police cannot or should not be shot at unless he poses an imminent threat to police or others? I'm not sure that is the case.

Edited to add:
The story about the struggle for the gun was already mentioned during the initial police press conference, not only mentioned 2 weeks later:

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/crime...rown/13860601/

The officer himself never filed an incident report, so the officer at the press conference can allege anything he wants. If you notice when asked about what happened outside the car in sight of any potential witnesses, such as "was Michael Brown charging at the officer" he didn't allege anything. Why not?

[robrecht]

The officer himself never filed an incident report, so the officer at the press conference can allege anything he wants. If you notice when asked about what happened outside the car in sight of any potential witnesses, such as "was Michael Brown charging at the officer" he didn't allege anything. Why not?

So I presume you are conceding the other two points. The officer in the press conference was the one asked to lead the investigation. He based his statements on what he had learned so far from limited interviews with Officer Darren Wilson and others at that point. He mentioned that he had not yet had as much access to Darren Wilson as he would have wanted. It was the very beginning of an investigation, as he noted. It seems your implication is that Wilson or the police only thought of this 'charging' element of his story later. OK, that's possible; we don't really know that, but it's possible. All we know of Wilson's side of the story at this point is from a friend of his who happened to call into a radio show. Personally, I wouldn't draw any conclusions yet.