TexasCHLforum.com

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Sat Aug 29, 2020 11:48 pm

srothstein wrote: ↑Sat Aug 29, 2020 11:32 pm

philip964 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 29, 2020 10:41 pmKenosha Police association releases vital details on Jacob Blake shooting.

“Here are the actual and undisputed facts:

I will not dispute these statements since I was not there. From the videos and pictures I have seen, I do believe these are the actual facts of the situation.

But I want to point out that the statement that these are the "actual and undisputed" facts is not necessarily true. These are the statements from one side of the issue. If they were truly undisputed, Blake would already have plead guilty. I don't like when the media lies, so I have to call out the improper wording of the police association. As an additional point, I would also say that if these were the undisputed facts that the investigators believe, we would see a statement from the police department, not just the police association.

IMHO, it does not matter if the thug had a weapon or not. He resisted arrest. He got himself shot for resisting arrest. Them is the breaks. Nobody, that I am aware of in recent history, has been shot by police after complying with lawful orders. Maybe I have it all wrong but I thought how it works is if the officer decides to arrest you, the discussion is over. Time to allow the courts to determine your innocence or guilt. The common denominator in every one of these police killings is the dead person decided they were not going to be arrested. If their mammies really are telling them to fear the police, maybe they should tell them not to fight the police.

oljames3 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 4:55 pm

RSX11 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 3:33 pm

"In case it turns physical," your pistol is still not a good option. While "production of a weapon" as a threat of deadly force can be legal (TPC 9.04) against mere force, what do you do if the threat fails?

If a mob of people crowded around me, screaming and threatening me, starts beating me, I think I'm reasonably going to fear death or serious bodily injury (I'm 66 and not as tough as I used to be). Would not deadly force be appropriate in response to this situation? Or should I count on the goodwill of the Communists, and just hope for a light beating? One thing's for sure, I'll go down fighting under a hailstorm of fists, bootheels and skateboards before I'll be coerced into making a gesture of support for any movement.

We must each decide for ourselves which risks we are willing to manage and which benefits matter most to us.

Attorney Andrew Branca explains the law of self defense. https://lawofselfdefense.com/beginjourney/

Yes, disparity of force or number of attackers can alter the justification of the use of force or deadly force.

You are talking about three separate fights; screaming and threatening, beating, and fear of death or serious bodily injury. TPC 9 requires that our response to a threat be proportional. Against verbal provocation alone (screaming), no force is justified. Against mere force (fists), only mere force is justified. Against deadly force, "when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary", force and deadly force can be justified. Proportionality also comes into play with the disparity of number of attackers or disparity of force which can alter the justifiable response.

"When and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary." Reasonableness does not mean what is reasonable to the defender, but what is reasonable to the jury. The jury members likely have never been confronted by a number of angry persons and thus have no conception of what the defender experienced. Also, the jury will deliberate in comfort and safety, having sufficient time to arrive a reasoned verdict. Branca says:

What’s reasonable to one person may not be reasonable to another, however. This element of reasonableness is partly a reflection of the particular defender under the specific circumstances. The reasonable perception of, and defensive options for, a defender who is young, healthy, and fit may well differ from the reasonable perceptions and defensive options of an elderly, ill, or disabled defender.

I can see a viewpoint from which all five elements of a valid claim of self defense could be made in this incident. So much depends on the subjective reasonableness of the defenders actions.

While the use of force, or even deadly force, could be justified, the tactical situation is fraught with peril.