Moral Dilemmas..

[Guest oldfella]

Long, but good read...

----------------------------

Cornered Cat - Saving the Life of a Stranger

Pete

[Guest Muttling]

Good read.

My view....

If you point a gun at me or my family (and a couple of close friends), then I'm very likely to go lethal to eliminate the threat.

A stranger being robbed is a situation where I would hit 911, watch, and wait. If it escalated, I would be likely to act but I'm not going to try to stop a robbery even if the bad guy is pointing a gun. (No I don't trust him and I would be in fear for the person behind the counter, but I'm not taking on that level of legal risk for a stranger.)

[Guest dizzielizzie]

The whole website is a good read, great for any lady who is considering carrying and needs some straight up advice...

I know everyone wouldn't hesitate to say they will not only defend themselves if needed, but their family also. To take it one step further - to defend a stranger - is definitely something to think about. I can't "what if" every scenario, but I would probably try to take a moment and assess the situation, to decide whether it's worth stepping in or if I should just try to get away. It's similar to seeing a stranded motorist on the side of the road...

[Punisher84]

Put another way (and using a very old legal concept), a bystander could legally "stand in the shoes" of the person at risk, using the same level of force that that person would be justified in using. If that person would be legally justified in using deadly force to protect himself or herself, then you also would be legally justified in using deadly force on that person's behalf. But that's a mighty big IF, and here's why: you as the actor would only be justified in using lethal force (or any other level of force) IF the person you were defending was actually justified in using it. If it later turns out that the person you defended knew something you didn't – if, for instance, they'd actually been the aggressor and started the altercation; or if they knew that their life wasn't actually in danger because they were just play-acting for a hidden camera; or if they knew they were fighting with an off-duty cop or a legitimate bail bondsman – then your intervention would not be legal even though you acted in good faith and with the best of intentions. That's a fairly significant issue!

That may be true in some states, but not in Tennessee. While I agree with the article's overall theme, in TN you are judged to a "reasonable person" standard. I.E What would a normal, average person think if they happened upon this situation?

You don't have to know EVERYTHING about the situation for it to be a legal shoot, but I imagine you can rest assured you'll be sued if you shoot the wrong person.

[Guest (BH)]

The whole website is a good read, great for any lady who is considering carrying and needs some straight up advice...

Good for men as well. Kathy has quite a good source of info there.

[Guest Muttling]

That may be true in some states, but not in Tennessee. While I agree with the article's overall theme, in TN you are judged to a "reasonable person" standard. I.E What would a normal, average person think if they happened upon this situation?

You don't have to know EVERYTHING about the situation for it to be a legal shoot, but I imagine you can rest assured you'll be sued if you shoot the wrong person.

A couple of points....

First, reasonable person and average person are not the same thing. The average person would consider a broken nose to be bodily harm, but the law does not consider a broken nose to be bodily harm and a reasonable person goes with what is written in the law. Therefore, the threat of a broken nose is not a justification for the use of lethal force. This is is how the reasonable person model works. (BTW, the reasonable person model is not special to Tennessee. It's pretty standard in American law.)

Second, the link you quoted is QUITE correct and you take a big risk by acting when you don't know enough of what is going on. Let's say you see someone point a weapon at another person so you draw your weapon or even shoot the person you perceive to be an attacker. If it turns out that you have just drawn on a plain clothes police officer or (even worse) shot a plain clothes police officer who was making an arrest, you're going to be doing some jail time.

It is NOT reasonable to use your sidearm unless you KNOW enough of what is going on in a situation and you often don't know that when you're talking about someone else. A reasonable person (not the average person) will wait until they know enough to act.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Muttling

[Punisher84]

A couple of points....

First, reasonable person and average person are not the same thing. The average person might consider a broken nose to be bodily harm, but the law does not consider a broken nose bodily harm and a reasonable person would go with what is written in the law. This is how the reasonable person model works.

Second, the link you quoted is QUITE correct and you take a big risk by acting when you don't know enough of what is going on. Let's say you see someone point a weapon at another person so you draw your weapon or even shoot the person you perceive to be an attacker. If it turns out that you have just drawn on a plain clothes police officer or (even worse) shot a plain clothes police officer who was making an arrest, you're going to be doing some jail time.

It is NOT reasonable to use your sidearm unless you KNOW what is going on in a situation and you often don't know that when you're talking about someone else.

Again, that's mostly true and I agree if you were unfortunate enough to shoot an undercover officer you are probably going to go to jail.

I don't advocate 3rd party self-defense unless you have a very clear understanding of the situation, but the article goes a little far in their analysis of what could happen.

The way it was always explained to me is what would a normal, fully functional person think walking upon this scene? If the facts presented to you would leave you to be in fear of your life then in TN you would be justified in using deadly force. Again, is you make a mistake you may not be held criminally liable, but you are probably gonna lose the civil suit.

[Guest Muttling]

Again, is you make a mistake you may not be held criminally liable, but you are probably gonna lose the civil suit.

You most certainly CAN be held criminally responsible if you make a mistake. A mistake only goes to the aspect of intent, not to the aspect of crime or no crime. For example, 3rd degree murder (e.g. involuntary homocide) is prosecuted against people who made a mistake that resulted in someone else's death. This is an entire section of the law that criminally prosecutes people for making a mistake.

Another good example is ignorance of the law. If you commit a crime but didn't know that there was a law saying that you couldn't do it, then you are still guilty of the crime even though it was an honest mistake. Ignorance of the law is NOT a reasonable defense.

A number of laws come with "strict liability". This means that you are a responsible for your actions and for the results of your actions regardless of anything else. It was a mistake??? Too bad, so sad....You're still resposible under criminal as well as civil statutes.

[Punisher84]

You most certainly CAN be held criminally responsible if you make a mistake. A mistake only goes to the aspect of intent, not to the aspect of crime or no crime. For example, 3rd degree murder (e.g. involuntary homocide) is prosecuted against people who made a mistake that resulted in someone else's death. This is an entire section of the law that criminally prosecutes people for making a mistake.

Another good example is ignorance of the law. If you commit a crime but didn't know that there was a law saying that you couldn't do it, then you are still guilty of the crime even though it was an honest mistake. Ignorance of the law is NOT a reasonable defense.

A number of laws come with "strict liability". This means that you are a responsible for your actions and for the results of your actions regardless of anything else. It was a mistake??? Too bad, so sad....You're still resposible under criminal as well as civil statutes.

I didn't say you would NEVER be charged. I said you MAY NOT be charged due to the way these types of cases are judged in TN with the reasonable person standard.

An example I was given by an LEO/Instructor was there was a case where a guy stumbled upon a man holding a woman by the throat and holding a knife. The guy shot him and killed him. When it was all said and done it turned out that the man was actually the victim. His crazy ex-girlfriend had stabbed him and he was defending himself. The guy was cleared of criminal charges, because most people, including cops, that stumbled upon that scene would have probably shot. He lost the civil suit though obviously.

Again, I'm not advocating 3rd party self-defense without knowing all the facts, but that article, as well as you, are trying to deal in absolutes and there are no absolutes in this sort of thing. You may go to jail on a perfectly legal shoot!

[Guest Muttling]

The guy was cleared of criminal charges, because most people, including cops, that stumbled upon that scene would have probably shot.

I can certainly see that judgement happening, but the reasoning you were given for the judgement is quite unrealistic. If you seek to understand the courts and the laws, then you need to dig up the judgement and read the court's opinion that goes with it. There you will find the justification for the ruling.

On the subject of absolutes, I am NOT talking about absolutes. I am talking about responsibility where I have taken your statements to indicate that you can skirt responsibility by the argument of ignorance to the fact. This is incorrect as ignorance has never been an acceptable defense in American law.

You cite an excellent example, but fail to provide enough details. Was the woman continuing her attack??? If so, the man who was shot was justified in using lethal force to defend himself and the shooter was wrong.

Was the woman trying to escape or begging for her life after her attack failed??? If so, the man who was shot was overstepping his rights as the threat to him had been nuetralized and the 3rd party was absolutely right in shooting him.

I suspect the court found (or the DA believed the court would find and didn't file charges) that the later situation was true. However, your instructor didn't go into the details and details are what really matters.

A situation that involves one person legally shooting another can rarely be summed up in 2 or 3 sentences.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Muttling

[Punisher84]

*head desk* You are completely missing the point. The article was stating YOU WILL GO TO JAIL IF YOU ARE WRONG AND BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY! While it is a possibility it is not an absolute. I understand the point of the article and I get what you are saying, even if you don't get my point after I've bluntly stated it about 4 times now.

[Guest Muttling]

You need to read your posts again, you haven't blunty said much of anything until you last post.

First post:

You don't have to know EVERYTHING about the situation for it to be a legal shoot, but I imagine you can rest assured you'll be sued if you shoot the wrong person.

What is blunt there? Here you're defending that you don't have to know everything to shoot and all to worry about is the civil case.

Second Post

The way it was always explained to me is what would a normal, fully functional person think walking upon this scene? If the facts presented to you would leave you to be in fear of your life then in TN you would be justified in using deadly force. Again, is you make a mistake you may not be held criminally liable, but you are probably gonna lose the civil suit.

Here you say that you are ONLY responsible for the facts presented to you when it comes to criminal charges and the civil suit is the issue.

Third Post

Again, I'm not advocating 3rd party self-defense without knowing all the facts, but that article, as well as you, are trying to deal in absolutes and there are no absolutes in this sort of thing. You may go to jail on a perfectly legal shoot!

You changed your story. Now you're saying you can go to jail for a perfectly legal shoot. Bull ****. If you're legally justified in shooting then you are innocent and won't go to jail.

What happened to the "is you make a mistake you may not be held criminally liable" argument you were running with before????

Your last post is on target, none of the previous have been. Shooting is a sport of precision. Legal issues are a reality of precision. If you carry, you better get the precision down pat or you're at risk for a very rude introduction to the laws of our country. The opinions presented in your 1st two posts could easily put you in jail.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Muttling

[Punisher84]

I don't advocate 3rd party self-defense unless you have a very clear understanding of the situation, but the article goes a little far in their analysis of what could happen.

I didn't say you would NEVER be charged. I said you MAY NOT be charged due to the way these types of cases are judged in TN with the reasonable person standard.

Again, I'm not advocating 3rd party self-defense without knowing all the facts, but that article, as well as you, are trying to deal in absolutes and there are no absolutes in this sort of thing. You may go to jail on a perfectly legal shoot!

You need to read your posts again, you haven't blunty said much of anything until you last post.

You changed your story. Now you're saying you can go to jail for a perfectly legal shoot. Bull ****

What happened to the "is you make a mistake you may not be held criminally liable" argument you were running with before????

Your last post is on target, none of the previous have been. Shooting is a sport of precision. Legal issues are a reality of precision. If you carry, you better get the precision down pat or you're at risk for a very rude introduction to the laws of our country. The opinions presented in your 1st two posts could easily put you in jail.

Maybe you need to take everything into context and not pick out your favorite points.

You very well could end up in jail for what appears to you to be a legal shoot. Remember the Harold Fish case? It happens all the time.

You are picking out parts of my posts and suiting it to make some half-assed argument that I'm in favor of shooting without knowing the facts and that is what is bull****.

The fact is there are situations where you may make a mistake and not be charged due to the circumstances. It's just as naive to say you WILL ALWAYS be charged, then it would be to say you WILL NEVER be charged like some people like to think.

It boils down to one thing and one thing only, pulling the trigger is a life changing decision and you had better make the right one.

I don't know how much more blunt I can be unless I type in caps and use small words.

[Guest Muttling]

OK!!!!!

You don't want to listen to yourself or even READ your own posts, so I will spoon feed you.

Here's your first post in it's entirety.

That may be true in some states, but not in Tennessee. While I agree with the article's overall theme, in TN you are judged to a "reasonable person" standard. I.E What would a normal, average person think if they happened upon this situation?

You don't have to know EVERYTHING about the situation for it to be a legal shoot, but I imagine you can rest assured you'll be sued if you shoot the wrong person.

Please explain to me how my partial quotation misrepresented your statements and where you say "bluntly stated" that "YOU WILL GO TO JAIL IF YOU ARE WRONG" in this first post of yours.

Grow up and take responsibility for what you have said.

P.S. - This is my last post to this thread. If you can't learn from listening, you will have to learn from experience.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Muttling

[Punisher84]

OK!!!!!

Please explain to me how my partial quotation misrepresented your statements and where you say that "YOU WILL GO TO JAIL IF YOU ARE WRONG" in this first post of yours.

Grow up and take responsibility for what you have said.

Are you serious? I am taking responsibility for what I've said! I honestly don't even get your point. Maybe if I clarify that first post for you since that seems to be what is giving your brain the stumbles.

By saying you do not have to have all the facts, I mean...YOU DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE ALL THE FACTS!

If you walk in to the Circle K and a guy in a hoodie is pointing a black gun at the Cashier what would most REASONABLE people assume? She is in fear for her life and that guy may kill her right? OK So you shoot and kill the guy. Turns out it was the cashier's boyfriend playing a prank on her with a BB gun. So did you have all the facts? Nope, you reacted with what you knew and what a REASONABLE person would have assumed happening upon that situation.

It's the same across the board. You seem to be hung up on the thought that I'm advocating shooting first and not assessing the situation. That is not what I've said once.

Now do I need to explain anything further or do you get my statements in their entirety now, because I've got to go to work in a few hours so I'm not sure how much longer I can try to "grow up".

[Punisher84]

P.S. - This is my last post to this thread. If you can't learn from listening, you will have to learn from experience.

That is obviously the mature response to take after you told someone else to grow up.

[Guest Hyaloid]

Let's guide this one back on topic and not shovel a pile of crap on a very good topic for debate, please.

This has probably all been hashed out ad nauseum on any gun board with more than three threads, but I will post my opinion here.

Some may call me a coward, but if I am in a situation where someone is being threatened with deadly force, and I am not in the crosshairs, so to speak, the chances are I am retreating, being as good a witness as I can, and trying to extract myself from the situation. My job is to get home safe to my wife and kids.

Now, if the criminal turns out to be a madman and starts opening up on people, the likelihood that I will engage is directly proportional to how likely it is the criminal is between me and the exit I want to use.

I have no delusions of grandeur. Bags of Cheetos don't stop bullets in the real world like they do in Hollywood, and I am going to do whatever I can to give ME the best chance of survival. Now, I have never been in a situation like this, and I hope and pray I never am. It goes against my instinct on some levels to turn away from someone that needs help, but I made a promise to my wife and I intend to keep it.