BCGlocker wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2016 8:27 am
If there is no immediate substantial risk of death or serious injury to you or another, deadly force should not be introduced.
The problem with that is after the punch lands, you can't undue the damage to respond. Just in the last year or so there have been several people killed or permanently injured by a sucker punch.
If someone hit you and then stopped, and was not about to do so again, no justification. Call police. But if you are in the midst of an assault, and don't have the ability to end it post haste [with fisticuffs] most people would be in reasonable fear of serious injury or death... which meets the threshold, legally speaking.
BCGlocker wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2016 8:27 am
If there is no immediate substantial risk of death or serious injury to you or another, deadly force should not be introduced.
The problem with that is after the punch lands, you can't undue the damage to respond. Just in the last year or so there have been several people killed or permanently injured by a sucker punch.
If someone hit you and then stopped, and was not about to do so again, no justification. Call police. But if you are in the midst of an assault, and don't have the ability to end it post haste [with fisticuffs] most people would be in reasonable fear of serious injury or death... which meets the threshold, legally speaking.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
Lousy situation. The deceased started this by disrupting a church service. The shooter should have handled this a lot differently. He should have approached the deceased and asked him to calm down or leave. If that doesn't work, you call 911 and get 3 or 4 brothers, ushers, Deacons elders, whatever and try to isolate him until the police arrive.
Even with this, it seems like self defense. The deceased started the whole situation. The deceased also threw the first punch which can be deadly force. Then the shooter killed him. That seems like self defence.
Having said that, I am not surprised that he was convicted. Just bad optics.
I agree with E. Marquez, but also with all of these recent mass shootings, it seems almost criminal to not step forward, especially in a Church service. I love my brothers and sisters in Christ. Does one wait until the agitated man pulls a knife or gun? Or, what if he grabbed a child and swung the child forcefully into a pew? The question is, when does one respond? Also, how does one respond? Its tough and I sure don't know the answer, but maybe if someone would have responded in the Synagogue in Pittsburg earlier, like if the individual first came in and started yelling, prior to shooting, who knows? I am not saying that is what occurred, but often folks start acting all agitated before getting fully aggressive. Because sure as all get out, if you wait until that knife or gun is pulled out, or you get sucker punched and he takes your firearm, it is going to get a whole lot worse.
Unless we keep the barbarian virtues, gaining the civilized ones will be of little avail. Oversentimentality, oversoftness, washiness, and mushiness are the great dangers of this age and of this people." Teddy Roosevelt"
DEB=Daniel E Bertram
U.S. Army Retired, (Sapper). VFW Life Member.
The shooter might have gotten off had he been a frail elderly man. This shooter seems to be a stout 48 year old male who looks like he had options other than shooting someone.
