Using A Knife For Self Defence costs 10 to Life

[eljay]

In the US this stuff varies from state to state, but the general rule is a reasonable person would have to be in immediate fear of grievous bodily harm or death that can only be stopped by the use of deadly force. In most states there's a concept that if you're at home a) it's assumed the other guys are particularly bad guys, and b) you're not expected to retreat. Still, the operative word is "fear" and if you're in active pursuit of somebody who has left your house, and one option is simply to stop pursuing them, yeah, you've crossed a line. Maybe it's OK in Texas or someplace similar, but not most US states, so it's no great shock that it's also not OK in Canada.

Interestingly enough in California, where I live, you're also allowed to place yourself in a victim's shoes in certain circumstances - if you prevent a rape as an example. One interesting one is if you see somebody about to commit arson and you have reason to believe there are people inside, you can basically act as a proxy for the victim.

[Jimd]

The "Just-Us" (Justice?!) System is set up to give the criminals all the rights, and the law-abiding people no rights. It's a fact. I work in it every day, and have seen the frustration of victims many times. In fact, I've been the victim myself more times than I can count, and have personally felt the frustration.

The crooks are protected, and the victims get raped a second time by the system.

But I'm not cynical or anything.

[The Deacon]

The case you describe seems to involve one family of drug dealers attacking another family of drug dealers and, in turn being attacked by them. If that, or something similar, is the case, then the State's decision to maximize the benefit to society by prosecuting the victim-turned-attacker seems like a rare case of bureaucratic good judgement to me. To call his actions "self defense" is to grossly misunderstand the meaning of the term, so your thread title is inaccurate and extremely misleading. I can tell you that I would not allow reports of a case like that should dissuade me from defending myself, and would consider anyone who would allow it to dissuade them from defending themselves or their families to be very foolish.

[Bowie Man]

The case you describe seems to involve one family of drug dealers attacking another family of drug dealers and, in turn being attacked by them. If that, or something similar, is the case, then the State's decision to maximize the benefit to society by prosecuting the victim-turned-attacker seems like a rare case of bureaucratic good judgement to me. To call his actions "self defense" is to grossly misunderstand the meaning of the term, so your thread title is inaccurate and extremely misleading. I can tell you that I would not allow reports of a case like that should dissuade me from defending myself, and would consider anyone who would allow it to dissuade them from defending themselves or their families to be very foolish.

You're right Deac...drug dealer vs drug dealer. And just to clarify, the victim shot did not receive any life threatening injuries (hip and leg) and survived the attack.

[cdf]

Bowieman , I hear ya on this case , i fully understand how dumbass got himself in trouble . All the above notwithstanding , I will still if need be defend myself with any means at my disposal , I just hope I can remember not to chase the asshat . A sentence can always be appealed , ya got to be alive to get prosecuted .

Chris

[Th232]

Hmm... while I feel that it's good that they're prosecuting, I have this sudden urge to build a prison type wall (ie 2m high with razor wire on top), along with great big reflective signs that say that by stepping onto my property, you waive all rights to sue for damages.

[Jordan]

heh... nice thing about Texas, once they step foot on your property... all bets are off just about up to the steps of a police station.

[Hannibal Lecter]

My Dear Friends,

Of course not, he should've known the law and stop when the guys were running for their lives.

The first rule of pleading self-defense - you MUST break off the attack as soon as your assailant does. Period. That is the law. Violate it, and you go to jail, and rightly so.

Like all of you, I hate that the initial crime occurred and feel sympathy towards the victims.

However, I have taught the NRA Personal Protection Course for over a decade, and this is a key point in the class. You don't chase someone down and continue to try to kill them after they have ceased assaulting you. If you do, YOU become a criminal also.

--------
Hannibal

[Qship]

If you live in the US and are concerned about legal issues related to self defense, go here, pay the short Arab a bunch of money, take the course. Excellent.

http://www.ayoob.com/lfi-1.html

Qship

[Michael Cook]

:spyder: Everyone who carries blades or guns for self-protection should read "in the gravest extreme" by Massad Ayoob. Arm yourself with knowledge. :spyder:

[The Deacon]

Like all of you, I hate that the initial crime occurred and feel sympathy towards the victims.

Hannibal, I must respectfully disagree. I can find no sympathy in my heart for drug dealers, but rather feel that anything that removes one from the landscape is in society's best interest. If they are removed by a competitors bullet or knife, the cost to the taxpayers is reduced, since only the survivor needs to get free room and board and cable TV.

[Hannibal Lecter]

My Dear Deacon,

Hannibal, I must respectfully disagree. I can find no sympathy in my heart for drug dealers, but rather feel that anything that removes one from the landscape is in society's best interest. If they are removed by a competitors bullet or knife, the cost to the taxpayers is reduced, since only the survivor needs to get free room and board and cable TV.

Please take no offense at my post, my dear friend. This might explain further...

Drugs are rampant here - a good friend of mine from high school has sent his parents into bankruptcy by stealing from them to buy drugs. He has stolen his daughter's toys and sold them. He has stolen his father's tools (a contractor who really needs them).

In school he had everything in the world going for him; I can hardly recognize him now as the same person. He has done drugs - he has dealt them as well.

I know first hand what drugs do to a family and a community, and yes, anything that takes a few of them out can, I suppose, be construed as a good thing.

My primary concern is for those they leave behind, the largely innocent parents and children who had no control of the situation and lost someone they loved.



Even if that someone was, in our opinion, better off dead anyway.



Respectfully yours...

--------
Hannibal

[Michael Cook]

I can find no sympathy in my heart for drug dealers, but rather feel that anything that removes one from the landscape is in society's best interest. If they are removed by a competitors bullet or knife, the cost to the taxpayers is reduced, since only the survivor needs to get free room and board and cable TV.

:spyder: Does that apply to bartenders as well? How about non-violent people whose only criminality is selling marijuana to other consenting adults? So many grey areas. :spyder:

[Jordan]

I'm a bit torn on this topic... on the one hand, I agree with Deacon (at least in the case of certain narcotics peddlers... I've seen what crack and meth can do to people), they are a tumor in society's flesh that threatens to consume us all. On the other hand, I've met lots of potheads and dope dealers that were essentially benign... content to sell dime bags of dirt weed to college kids until the cows come home and never hurt a soul. The only thing they endanger is the Guinness record for longest time spent watching cartoons. The sad truth is that the first group has a tendency to absorb or destroy the latter... a small time drug dealer is a ripe target for a violent man with a gun. It's not as if the police will be involved in most of those situations, and even if they are (say, in the event of a fatality), the fact that the victim was a drug dealer in ANY capacity is apt to put something of a damper on a criminal investigation. If a multiple felon kills a 19 year old college kid with no priors for a pound of weed, where is the justice?

The only conclusion I can come to is that people deserve the right to choose... I smoked a ton of grass when I first came to college. I was out on my own and it was a whole **** of a lot easier to get than a beer. But, then, I finished my first year with a 1.9 GPA and decided that spending all night getting high and watching Cannibal: The Musical might be detrimental to my future... so, I quit. Cold turkey, never looked back. It was quite a bit easier to let go of than cigarettes or caffeine, tell you that much.

But, thats all really irrelevant, mere semantics. The point, if you will, is that while I find the sentiment Deacon expressed extremely attractive... I can't follow it to it's inevitable conclusion. The cost to the tax payer would be reduced if people were given the right to decide what they put into their own bodies too... and that would deprive the more depraved of this group, the part for which I can not only agree with your sentiment but your reaction, a large source of income.

[RueTheDay]

It was a big mistake for the home owner to go chasing the guy down the block.

It would have just been so much better after they ran out of the house to call the cops and wait.

Here's the problem though - he had a knife and the two of them had guns. Had he broken off the chase at any point, they could have turned and fired at him.

I think the real mistake he made was telling the police that he chased them out of the house because he was afraid they'd come back. He should have said that he continued the fight because he was in imminent fear for his life that they could have turned around and shot him at any second. In other words, he wasn't "chasing" them, he was still in defense mode.

[Michael Cook]

He should have said that he continued the fight because he was in imminent fear for his life that they could have turned around and shot him at any second. In other words, he wasn't "chasing" them, he was still in defense mode.

:spyder: That has no basis in law, you are describing vigilantism. Right and legal are not the same thing. :spyder:

[arnon]

There is only one thing that is on my mind, if my loved one is on the floor after being shot TWICE I will stay with him call 911 and do CPR if needed, stop the bleeding etc.. to save him....but than maybe rage, ego, insanity take over love and care for your brother :rolleyes:
Not in my book...
Be well Arnon