Shoot first law: What could possibly go wrong?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm gonna start off with a very important term which makes the whole premise of "Reasonable is a definition anyone can pull out of their asses and sell to the court" BS.

Imminent threat:

This means that someone has to be an immediate threat, not a potential threat. Like if someone hits you, you defend yourself and you end up knocking him on his ass, then he might still be a potential threat but he no longer presents an imminent threat which means if you strike him while he's helplessly laying on the ground then that's when it goes from self-defense to assault since by laying helplessly on the ground he isn't "commencing a course of conduct" that puts you in immediate danger. So in order to "reasonably" believe you are in enough danger to warrant shooting him the other person has to present an imminent threat, like if you see him reaching for a weapon or if he starts running towards you. That is when he is commencing a course of conduct that puts you in immediate danger.

Yeah, for anyone who still has doubts about the solidity of the definition, good luck trying to convince the court that a woman you just shot after you had sex with her was an "imminent threat" commencing the course of conduct of putting her clothes back on. The "imminent threat" definition also makes it clear that wearing baggy pants doesn't constitute an imminent threat unless that person reaches for a weapon concealed in it.

It works the same way as laws pertaining to physical self-defense. You can't punch someone just for looking like a criminal, so likewise you can't shoot that person for looking like a criminal either. There's really nothing more to this law than the fact that it's just another Castle Doctrine law with the same definition of "reasonable force" as a typical self-defense law. So there you go, have all your facts straight before you jump to conclusions and make an ass out of yourself. It's really f*****g irritating when people let their egos cloud their judgment.

No, It is not the castle doctrine. It is a new thing to enhance it to even more ridiculous proportions. The libelious liberal source hasn't made up the quoted parts of the law. So I think that shielding away on Inuyasha-style accusations of bias is not going to work for you. Too bad.

Attempt failed.


The "actor infers" it is 100% on the perception of the guy who shot. This is subjective as heck.


Feel free to try to sall the idea that "immediate threat" somehow cures this stupid law from its subjectivity.


This law gives random armed people more rights to kill that the police. Use your next posts in attempting to debunk that claim.

Americans love guns because they hate strangers and automatically assume everyone is out to get them.

Way to put words in my mouth. Not only have I never said that, I haven't even implied it in the slightest. And I don't know if you've ever even touched a dictionary before, but "sensationalist" and "biased" have meanings that are much different than "libelous". btw not that I'm mocking your spelling, I'm not a grammar nazi who has no life beyond pointing out mistakes no one gives a crap about. I just noticed firefox underlined it red, that's all.

Anyways, I know better than to underestimate a biased source. They're a lot smarter than that. Why tell a bold faced lie when you can misrepresent the truth?

Right, I dismissed a biased source and refuted it with an equally biased source. More like I went straight to the source itself and specifically explained how the source in the OP was biased rather than just dismiss it without explanation.

So looks like shielding away on your self-styled strawmen hasn't been working out for ya. Poor you.

The sad thing is you haven't even attempted to justify how "reasonable" is vague enough to allow someone to justify shooting someone merely because you don't take kindly to their type. Sophistry at its finest.

Actually it is 100% on the state which "has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's actions were not justifiable". They get the final say. It's just as subjective as the imminent threat concept which also applies to physical self-defense yet I haven't seen you bemoan that. And the definition isn't nearly as malleable as you make it out to be since it is very specific. Yeah I'm sure "He was a scary democrat!" is going to hold up in court as an "imminent threat" as much as "He was reaching for something in the small of his back!".

Let me make this clear again. "Potential threat" isn't the same as an "Imminent threat". Someone waving a knife at you from across the room is a potential threat, but since he is out is reach and isn't moving towards you he doesn't present an imminent threat. If on the other hand he was either running towards you, that would constitute him presenting an imminent threat since a knife is a close range weapon that requires him to be within reach to harm you with it. So hell, if you wouldn't even be able to shoot someone who is waving a knife at you from a distance, how would you be able to shoot someone just for being dressed like a criminal?

Equating a potential threat with an imminent threat is as fallacious as equating reasonable suspicion with probable cause.

It isn't subjectivity per se that makes subjectivity a problem, but the fact that vagueness and inarticulability usually comes along with subjectivity. Imminent threat is specifically defined, so that does a good job of ruling contingencies out.

Oh so you get to steer the whole discussion huh? How convenient. A tactic favoured by radio talk show hosts.

Debunk what? How am I supposed to debunk a future possibility? I can debunk facts pertaining to past events but I don't have a crystal ball here. Besides you're the one asserting that "Reasonable" is so easily bent that you could kill someone on mere suspicion. So the burden of proof would be on you. But I'll go along with it anyways just so you don't take dismissal as a sign of copping out and use that as an excuse to cop out of your own baseless assertions.

Police already have the power to shoot someone that poses an imminent threat, so if anything it would actually give random armed people equal power. Also citizens already have the power to punch someone that poses an imminent threat so it wouldn't exactly give citizens a right they never had but merely extend it to firearms. Has there been a case of anyone successfully selling their definition of "reasonable force" to any court by defining it as "Stomping the s**t out of someone long after they no longer pose an imminent threat"?. I haven't heard of one yet so I have no reason to assume that would pose a problem with reasonable force being extended to guns. It is the court that defines it, not you. You're the one who is supposed to prove you acted under their definition.

Totally not as much of an assumption as assuming everyone is out to get you is.

So, you're a mind reader now? This American happens to like weapons in general and guns in particular for reasons having nothing to do with paranoia or dislike of strangers; most of my gun owning friends tend to fall into the shooting sports or hunting crowds as well. In other words, speak for yourself.

Perhaps I am being an idealist but why the need for a single gun in this world whatsoever? Isn't the only reasib gun advocates defend guns so heavily is because they afraid of violence, in some cases to the point of paranoia? Gun advocates say that those in favor of gun control are being paranoid but 99% of the time it is the gun owners who are being paranoid. I could act like a tough macho guy in my suburban neighborhood but I just don't feel the need. I am not afraid that I am going to be shot every time I make a trip to Wahoo's. Maybe I should be but I am not.

As long as guns are readily available to society, then it will be unconstitutional to prevent a prevent someone from defending themself with a gun in the first place. But if nobody had any use for guns, any desire for guns, then it wouldn't even be an issue.

This is completely an idealist argument and not necessarily a reasonable one but you get my point.

Hi AceOfSpades,

In your sentence "The 'imminent threat' definition also makes it clear that wearing baggy pants doesn't constitute an imminent threat unless that person reaches for a weapon concealed in it," how do you determine that the baggy pants are not used to accommodate something similar to your concerns with douche bags required for over-reaction to perceived imminent threats, especially with the top reason for in house guns is listed as for "protection", despite that others consider other family members as opportunities of dangers hunting for any fatal error?

What if the "concealed weapon" involves internally concealed weapons suspected? Your douche bag concerns may be very similar to Dr. Julie Holland's omitted secondary patient concerns at:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=c ... ltingly%22

Many police commissions/court cases hold the display of behaviours characteristic of many episodes of ASD phenomena constitute "imminent threat" justifying the use of deadly force. Are you in the correct bandwidth of subject concerns?

Tadzio

Like I told the previous poster, speak for yourself and don't project your assumptions onto people you know nothing about. For the vast majority of people, gun ownership has nothing to do with fear, power, paranoia, etc and everything to do with an enjoyable hobby, with perhaps a bit of "be prepared" thrown in. I probably spend more time tinkering with my guns than shooting them, though I do enjoy punching holes in paper as much as the next guy. My boss is a trap shooter, my electrician is a hunter, my friends shoot IPSC and 3 gun, all very enjoyable uses for firearms that don't involve any whiff of paranoia. Now worrying about things like 35 lb 6 foot long .50 caliber rifles that are statistically irrelevant in crime, or the invented term "assault weapons", used less frequently than bare knuckles in violence; that's paranoia.

To recycle a bit of argumentation, a man doesn't lug around a spare tire because he's looking to get a flat, own a first aid kit because he's planning to get hurt, or have a fire extinguisher because he wants to set his house on fire. A gun owned for self defense is exactly the same, it's a small investment and a minor inconvenience hedging against an unlikely event, hardly the exercise in paranoia you seem to think it is. I like shooting, carrying a gun is not a major hassle, so it's a win/win for me personally, there is literally no downside to it. No acting macho, no broadcasting the fact I'm carrying (which would be illegal anyway), just a simple, practical decision to take responsibility for my own security. Why so many people have such a problem with that is a real mystery for me.

You admit to ignorance on this topic and being uninterested in debating it, so I'm not sure why you keep piping up when it's raised. Guns and gun rights happen to be a bit of a pet cause of mine, so if you'd like to discuss it seriously, I'll be here.

Lol, you're right I really don't care

But I saw a couple of men in Wahoo's with in guns in their holsters and it just made me think, who the heck do they think they are?

I'm fine if you are using it for hunting, I'm fine if you need it for self-defense.

But I mean come on, I just don't trust my fellow men with guns. Does this make a paranoiac or a realist? Guns are dumb. They are primitive, they are simple, they are unsophisticated and the world would be better off without them. This is not an opinion, this is a fact. I mean we could use a bows and arrows if we wanted to hunt. It be would be way cooler.

Alright, I am slightly drunk right now, so don't take this too seriously. I don't like guns, and I am going to stay out of this argument right now. I know I am right but I don't have the sophisticated knowledge to express my viewpoint concisely. I will give you that much. You are right about that. But knowledge is not everything. Truth is sometimes more important.

Hi Dox47,

OK, OK, OK, you don't practice what you preach. Dr. Julie Holland makes about the same assumptions about gun metaphors, but I didn't think her ideas were so pervasive. As from "The posturing that me do, the armor that they wear...they do it to protect their hearts, and their balls. With their phallic guns...."(page 72), makes the whole book, "Weekends at Bellevue" (2010), by Holland, worth the read for insight about her "butch mode" concerns and men's penetrator bill of rights concerns in symbolic legal technicalities protecting their preoccupations.

At least Chesney sings that he knows of a mystery that will remain a mystery to him.

Tadzio

My state has had the same castle doctrine policy for a few years now and last time I checked the streets weren't running red with blood.
About the only places where the streets even come close to running red with blood are the states and cities that forbid it's citizens from defending themselves. Go figure..............
The handwringers said that after the 1994 assault weapons ban lifted in 2004 that the streets would run red with blood yet eight years later the streets are the same color as before.
Why is this so hard for some to figure out?

Your posts and replies say otherwise.



Citizens?



I don't distrust my fellow men, but I do accept that there are people out their with ill intentions and base motives who are willing to use violence to get what they want. Does that make me paranoid?



Yeah, way cooler if the feudal system is your idea of a good time. See, guns have one major strength as a weapon, namely that they don't require years of training and great physical strength to use effectively, allowing for people who are not blessed with physical prowess or willing to invest huge amounts of time in training to defend themselves. They also make things like standing armies relatively obsolete, as soldiers no longer need to spend all their time training with arms to be proficient, they're good for things other than fighting and thus don't need to be kept occupied lest they prey on the populace.

Guns also allow traditional victim classes, you know, women, the elderly, the disabled, etc to defend themselves from predatory individuals, something not possible with weapons of the past that required strength and agility to wield. They're egalitarian, being relatively inexpensive, easy to use, convenient to carry on your person, and available. The alternative is far more elitist; the strong preying on the weak, or only those physically or financially able possessing protection. Remember, the police don't prevent crimes, they punish the perpetrators (sometimes) after the fact; cold comfort to the victim of a violent attack.

But things would be so much better if we were still hacking away at each other with sharp/blunt objects cause guns are bad, right?



Knowledge isn't everything, huh? So my years of experience and wide breadth of knowledge on the topic of firearms, including a degree in the area, are trumped by you "knowing you're right"... Well I suppose it's nice to know that I'm dealing with a closed mind from the start, but I can't help but encourage you to at least try and gain a bit of actual knowledge on the subject before setting your opinion in stone, accurate information is pretty useful in determining the truth of things.

We have a saying here in PPR, "evidence, please?", so if it's a "fact" that we'd be better off without guns, it should be no problem at all for you to prove it, right? Or do you still not care enough?

Can anyone here make sense of Tadzio's post? I think he was trying to insult me in some way, but it could also have just been a nonsensical non sequitur; it's hard to tell with him.

*cues attack on my reading comprehension*

If a professional police force has difficulty determining "threat" and it's extent, I don't see how hobbyists are going to do it well. I also don't trust gun owners to secure their weapons and think they contribute to the violent crime problem when they are lazy about it. Many seem to believe that criminals are armed by magical gun factories. Guns arent VCRs, it requires some responsibility.

As an aside, there is a generation or three that cannot throw or take a punch. They werent raised that way. So I think you have some men who are afraid of fighting, afraid of losing and would rather kill other people than lose a fight, if given the chance. Army training had to be adjusted because we don't have that scrapper culture any more. Was it a better world when men would just have a punch up and be done? Beats me. But there is a change.

Once upon a time, "I had to kill him, he was going to punch me", would have been one sorry defense for a man.

Tadzio likes to communicate in some kind of abstract form which, in effect, is nonsensical.
Yes, it probably was an insult.

simon_says wrote:

Not all police are professional and not all “hobbyists” are stupid. Believe it or not, you actually have to justify your actions in a defensive shooting. You alter your public lifestyle to accommodate carrying a firearm in public for this very reason (e.g. avoid trouble spots, avoid confrontation, practice situational awareness, etc….).


If they are in my locked house, locked vehicle, or even on my person then they are secure. I keep most of mine in a safe but that is primarily to protect my investments. Breaking and entering to steal from someone is a crime in itself. I don’t leave milk and cookies out for burglars, either.
There are several channels for procuring firearms legally and illegally but it’s the act, not the tools used, that should be fought.


VCR? I almost forgot what one of those is. We’re well into the DVD and Blu-ray era now.


For the most part you can thank overprotective and negligent parenting for that.


It still is a sorry defense, believe it or not.
There are guys and gals sitting in prison because they didn’t have the right mindset about their self-defense and capped someone for less than a good reason. As I stated above, you still have to legally justify your actions in a defensive shooting. You must provide believable rationale that you were in fear of life and limb before that pistol comes out of the holster. Even if that is successful there is still the possibility of a civil suit for wrongful death or injury for violating their rights.
Choosing to go armed is a burden with several considerations to take into account. My state is awash in concealed weapon permit holders and our castle doctrine applies anywhere we are yet the kind of shootings you seem to be concerned with are quite rare.