OldMarksman
Staff
That's quite an oversimplification.
"Beating on your car"?
What kind of a weapon?
What is the basis for your "expectation"?
What is it that would make you reasonably believe the use of deadly force to be immediately necessary?
Don't Let This Happen to You
- Thread starter Old Bill Dibble
- Start date
"Beating on your car"?
What kind of a weapon?
What is the basis for your "expectation"?
What is it that would make you reasonably believe the use of deadly force to be immediately necessary?
As he said beating on the car with a bat, by law in my jurisdiction , my expectation is whether I am really worried that he's going to go through that glass and possibly injure me, (the attacker has already given me legal justification for use of lethal force by coming though the legal "castle" zone and attacking me in a manner that makes me fear for my life.
That was absolutely not a simplification, that is the legal situation here in my state.
Frankly, if a person approaches my car with a gun in his hand, I will put him Down. Walking up to me armed with a gun is sure as the sun rises and sets going to fear for my safety. I don't even have to wait until he gets close. If I killl him, it's really simple, I am legally justified in use of lethal force in defense of me or any passenger in my vehicle.
How can that be any simpler? That is state law.
Everyone should learn state law, and act accordingly, and ignore anyone who says that state laws of immunity can be avoided because there are limitations, like the guy should be allowed to hurt you before you engage in legal means of defense.
LEARN YOUR LAWS.
That was absolutely not a simplification, that is the legal situation here in my state.
Frankly, if a person approaches my car with a gun in his hand, I will put him Down. Walking up to me armed with a gun is sure as the sun rises and sets going to fear for my safety. I don't even have to wait until he gets close. If I killl him, it's really simple, I am legally justified in use of lethal force in defense of me or any passenger in my vehicle.
How can that be any simpler? That is state law.
Everyone should learn state law, and act accordingly, and ignore anyone who says that state laws of immunity can be avoided because there are limitations, like the guy should be allowed to hurt you before you engage in legal means of defense.
LEARN YOUR LAWS.
OldMarksman
Staff
"Possibly" may not cut it, and your worry, while necessary, is not sufficient. It will be a matter to what others, knowing what you knew at the time, would have done under similar circumstances.
You may find yourself unpleasantly surprised to find that not everyone would have believed that pounding on your car constituted attacking you.
A clear attempt to enter would be one thing. You had better pray for clarity.
Yes--and that state law is not intended to permit citizens to harm others in the absence of immediate necessity.
Possibly is clearly covered by the law.
If this person invades the space of my vehicle and that's kind of vague, and he attacks my vehicle violently, I've already got all the legal justification I need. It's my decision whether a guy who is inches away from my face beating on my car with a crowbar, bat, or whatever, presenting me with the concern that in less time than I can draw, he can kill me.
According to the law, I don't have to prove diddly or squat if he attacked me in a manner that could have lead to injury and showed any possible intent to harm me. I can't imagine how a person could even conceivably choose to believe that a violent attack on a vehicle doesn't present as a probable threat to personal safety. It's that simple. I don't have to run, I don't have to let him hit me, I don't have to wait until he bashes in my glass, If he presented in any way inside of my castle, which goes outside of my home and my car, unless I have clearly and without legal questions violated another overarching law I will be immune to prosecution.
I have no idea why people insist on undermining clear understanding of the law. Whatever laws apply, they should be followed. I believe that every state will have clearly written laws concerning assault, battery,and defense against any attack.
I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't cast any more doubt on the clearly and simply stated law of my land.
If this person invades the space of my vehicle and that's kind of vague, and he attacks my vehicle violently, I've already got all the legal justification I need. It's my decision whether a guy who is inches away from my face beating on my car with a crowbar, bat, or whatever, presenting me with the concern that in less time than I can draw, he can kill me.
According to the law, I don't have to prove diddly or squat if he attacked me in a manner that could have lead to injury and showed any possible intent to harm me. I can't imagine how a person could even conceivably choose to believe that a violent attack on a vehicle doesn't present as a probable threat to personal safety. It's that simple. I don't have to run, I don't have to let him hit me, I don't have to wait until he bashes in my glass, If he presented in any way inside of my castle, which goes outside of my home and my car, unless I have clearly and without legal questions violated another overarching law I will be immune to prosecution.
I have no idea why people insist on undermining clear understanding of the law. Whatever laws apply, they should be followed. I believe that every state will have clearly written laws concerning assault, battery,and defense against any attack.
I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't cast any more doubt on the clearly and simply stated law of my land.
marines6433
New member
Seems to me there would be some video footage of all of this, I mean right outside a police station and all? 
Just one more point to state.
Should a citizen of my state be involved in a questionable shooting, if he is prosecuted, the burden of proof is on the state. Unless the sub categories have been clearly violated, and even if there were violations of those categories, the citizen is still protected. Prosecution must, as clearly stated in the law, must prove within reasonable doubt, that the shooter was not expecting the use of unlawful force upon himself, or any other person in such danger. Whether or not the attacker intended to cause harm, or whether the shooter misread the situation, it remains the prosecutions burden to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the shooter deliberately misused his rights of defense.
I just don't know how I could make it any more clear. the laws here, and in many states, protect the public from dangerous attackers.
Not that long ago, an unarmed attacker in a stand your ground state beat a guy to death and ate his face. Should an armed individual have allowed him to get in the first punch? Not here. Not there. A crazed individual who runs screaming at a bystander and ignores instructions to stop can be shot with absolute impunity here in my state if the laws are followed.
Is the shooter allowed to drop three rounds in the chest and a couple in the head after he's down? maybe. If he complied with all other laws, the two in the head will be certainly judged to be wrong, but killing him but those first shots would have cleared him as long as he violated no laws. If the attacker has taken three rounds to the chest and still presents a threat, of course he would.
Shooting him in the head could always be prosecuted as desecration of a corpse. That also depends entirely on the laws of the jurisdiction.
Read and learn the laws and act accordingly. innocent lives depend on this right.
Should a citizen of my state be involved in a questionable shooting, if he is prosecuted, the burden of proof is on the state. Unless the sub categories have been clearly violated, and even if there were violations of those categories, the citizen is still protected. Prosecution must, as clearly stated in the law, must prove within reasonable doubt, that the shooter was not expecting the use of unlawful force upon himself, or any other person in such danger. Whether or not the attacker intended to cause harm, or whether the shooter misread the situation, it remains the prosecutions burden to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the shooter deliberately misused his rights of defense.
I just don't know how I could make it any more clear. the laws here, and in many states, protect the public from dangerous attackers.
Not that long ago, an unarmed attacker in a stand your ground state beat a guy to death and ate his face. Should an armed individual have allowed him to get in the first punch? Not here. Not there. A crazed individual who runs screaming at a bystander and ignores instructions to stop can be shot with absolute impunity here in my state if the laws are followed.
Is the shooter allowed to drop three rounds in the chest and a couple in the head after he's down? maybe. If he complied with all other laws, the two in the head will be certainly judged to be wrong, but killing him but those first shots would have cleared him as long as he violated no laws. If the attacker has taken three rounds to the chest and still presents a threat, of course he would.
Shooting him in the head could always be prosecuted as desecration of a corpse. That also depends entirely on the laws of the jurisdiction.
Read and learn the laws and act accordingly. innocent lives depend on this right.
Old Bill Dibble
New member
I bet there is some footage of uncertain quality. Since the police were not directly involved in the shooting I doubt they will release it until after legal actions are complete.
That is a pretty broad statement too. You have means and opportunity but no intent.
That is a pretty broad statement too. You have means and opportunity but no intent.
Last edited:
That is the LAW IN MY STATE, or did you choose to ignore the entire part, where I even copied a pertinent passage, copied directly from the actual written ordinance, drawn directly from The page put out by the government of this state?.
Are you suspecting that I am some kind of retard that's going to shoot any guy with a weapon? Since you do think that I am some sort of idiot, I will clarify once again.
If I believe that this man who is coming up to my vehicle presenting a lethal weapon that can kill me from across the street intends To cause me harm, I have full rights to prevent the attack, and if I believe that he intends to fire his weapon i will fire mine. The smart thing is going to be retreat, just to save my own life and try not to get hurt in a gunfight.
I'm not stupid enough to shoot a guy who happens to be carrying a deer rifle who has a flat and wants help. how would that make me believe that I was in grave danger? that isn't covered by the law, and I'm not an idiot.
You guys can keep challenging me on this until the apocalypse, suggesting publicly that I'm irresponsible, suggesting that the law of my state just doesn't apply to the people here, that police and prosecutors will take a case to court even if the case is absolutely, clearly a frivolous and impossible case that applies to the laws governing that event.
What is irresponsible is to repeatedly post th a a person must submit to an attack before defending himself, and all of the other posts that make people believe that they will go straight to prison if they defend themselves.
If you don't know the actual laws of that jurisdiction, the wise thing to do would be to withhold advice, and advise people to find out the absolute, clearly written facts straight from the government that wrote them.
Are you suspecting that I am some kind of retard that's going to shoot any guy with a weapon? Since you do think that I am some sort of idiot, I will clarify once again.
If I believe that this man who is coming up to my vehicle presenting a lethal weapon that can kill me from across the street intends To cause me harm, I have full rights to prevent the attack, and if I believe that he intends to fire his weapon i will fire mine. The smart thing is going to be retreat, just to save my own life and try not to get hurt in a gunfight.
I'm not stupid enough to shoot a guy who happens to be carrying a deer rifle who has a flat and wants help. how would that make me believe that I was in grave danger? that isn't covered by the law, and I'm not an idiot.
You guys can keep challenging me on this until the apocalypse, suggesting publicly that I'm irresponsible, suggesting that the law of my state just doesn't apply to the people here, that police and prosecutors will take a case to court even if the case is absolutely, clearly a frivolous and impossible case that applies to the laws governing that event.
What is irresponsible is to repeatedly post th a a person must submit to an attack before defending himself, and all of the other posts that make people believe that they will go straight to prison if they defend themselves.
If you don't know the actual laws of that jurisdiction, the wise thing to do would be to withhold advice, and advise people to find out the absolute, clearly written facts straight from the government that wrote them.
Old Bill Dibble
New member
I was starting to wonder, then I read your sig line.
That nulls out pretty much everything you wrote. Most of which you wrote is confrontational, makes affirmations about things you could not possibly know (such as what I am thinking), brings up things that I haven't written (like subjecting yourself to an attack) and tries to dismiss what I did write without any cohesive argument at all.
Intent, means, opportunity. It is the same in every state in the US.
That nulls out pretty much everything you wrote. Most of which you wrote is confrontational, makes affirmations about things you could not possibly know (such as what I am thinking), brings up things that I haven't written (like subjecting yourself to an attack) and tries to dismiss what I did write without any cohesive argument at all.
Intent, means, opportunity. It is the same in every state in the US.
You know, that is just the most insulting thing I've ever had thrown in my face at this place.
Your exact words about a broad statement clearly implied hat you believe that I would ignore common sense and legal process. Throw in all the subtext and it's clear enough. want to say, yet again, even if this person is not fully intending to cause any one of the people who are in my car, all that is necessary is that he threaten me to the point that I believe he presents a threat.
Once again, anyone can read the laws and find out that there is nothing to say.
That Sig tag is intended to remind people that making a joke is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. I guess I need to get rid of it if you and other people are young to repeatedly toss it in my face when they want to make me look ridiculous.
I give up. Anyone who wants to continue passing on dangerous and incorrect information and washing off the reality of law can continue to do so.
Your exact words about a broad statement clearly implied hat you believe that I would ignore common sense and legal process. Throw in all the subtext and it's clear enough. want to say, yet again, even if this person is not fully intending to cause any one of the people who are in my car, all that is necessary is that he threaten me to the point that I believe he presents a threat.
Once again, anyone can read the laws and find out that there is nothing to say.
That Sig tag is intended to remind people that making a joke is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. I guess I need to get rid of it if you and other people are young to repeatedly toss it in my face when they want to make me look ridiculous.
I give up. Anyone who wants to continue passing on dangerous and incorrect information and washing off the reality of law can continue to do so.
OldMarksman
Staff
Not really. "Possibly" does not equate to immediate necessity.
Ya think so? We were discussing someone beating on your car.
It will be your decision what to do, but not whether it was justified.
It is not a matter of what you "have to prove". It is matter of what the triers of fact would have reasonably done under similar circumstances, knowing what you knew at the time.
Many people have spent long periods wondering just why others did not see things their way.
Are you by any chance suggesting that, should a circumstance arise in which you believe that the use of deadly force would, according to your interpretation, be excused (or deemed "justified", if you prefer), that you should use deadly force?
Old Bill Dibble
New member
Sometimes held in places against their will for long periods of time.
That is exactly how that firefighter got in trouble down in Texas. He tried to create the exact circumstance that would justify a shooting according to his (poor) understanding of his state laws and then record it as evidence of how right he was. It did not work out for him at all.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/raul-ro...bor-after-claiming-stand-your-ground-defense/
Back to the OP's scenario and the article. There are several things about the shooter's story that I don't believe:
1. Someone walks up to the vehicle and asks "are you cops?" - ok, lets assume this is correct.
2. Drescher (guy in the car) allegedly told passer-by to "go away" - I don't believe this is what was said. First, the passerby could be a cop himself. Second, no one says "go away". That's just the version the shooter told the cops after they he shot someone. Do you believe it? I don't.
3. These guys were sitting in a van outside of a police station waiting to do a FTF deal to purchase a firearm. Ok, I suppose there is some precedent for this i.e. doing craigs list transactions at the police station, but don't you usually inform the police inside first if it involves a firearm? I think I'd be a little nervous openly handling a firearm in front of a police station without the cops being aware of this. I admit, I could be missing something here, but something's missing IMHO.
4. "Carlsen then threw a traffic cone into the open passenger window of the van." Really? Just because someone said "go away?" I don't think so. Where did the cone come from? how did a traffic cone get through a van window? How close was the guy when throwing the cone? Those things are pretty large. Think about throwing a cone into the window of a car - if you want to get it in the window, you really need to pick it up by the nose, aim and throw it base first, and even then it's unlikely to go inside the window of where someone was sitting. Perhaps the guy threw a cone, but I highly doubt it ever made it inside the window. This is important, because if the cone never made it into the van, then there is no doubt Drescher got out to confront Carlsen out of anger.
5. He says "when got out to put the cone back Carlsen walked quickly toward [me]". Put the cone back? Why? Why not just throw it back out the window? No, what I believe (but cannot prove) happened is that Drescher got out of his car to yell something and/or pursue Carlsen. Then Carlsen turned to confront Drescher and Drescher shot the guy.
1. Someone walks up to the vehicle and asks "are you cops?" - ok, lets assume this is correct.
2. Drescher (guy in the car) allegedly told passer-by to "go away" - I don't believe this is what was said. First, the passerby could be a cop himself. Second, no one says "go away". That's just the version the shooter told the cops after they he shot someone. Do you believe it? I don't.
3. These guys were sitting in a van outside of a police station waiting to do a FTF deal to purchase a firearm. Ok, I suppose there is some precedent for this i.e. doing craigs list transactions at the police station, but don't you usually inform the police inside first if it involves a firearm? I think I'd be a little nervous openly handling a firearm in front of a police station without the cops being aware of this. I admit, I could be missing something here, but something's missing IMHO.
4. "Carlsen then threw a traffic cone into the open passenger window of the van." Really? Just because someone said "go away?" I don't think so. Where did the cone come from? how did a traffic cone get through a van window? How close was the guy when throwing the cone? Those things are pretty large. Think about throwing a cone into the window of a car - if you want to get it in the window, you really need to pick it up by the nose, aim and throw it base first, and even then it's unlikely to go inside the window of where someone was sitting. Perhaps the guy threw a cone, but I highly doubt it ever made it inside the window. This is important, because if the cone never made it into the van, then there is no doubt Drescher got out to confront Carlsen out of anger.
5. He says "when got out to put the cone back Carlsen walked quickly toward [me]". Put the cone back? Why? Why not just throw it back out the window? No, what I believe (but cannot prove) happened is that Drescher got out of his car to yell something and/or pursue Carlsen. Then Carlsen turned to confront Drescher and Drescher shot the guy.
Last edited:
I wonder if people who have been involved in justifiable shootings ever look back and wonder if they had done that one thing different (not followed that man, called the police at the first encounter, not stepped out of the vehicle) if the shooting would not have had to occur. I wonder if they look back and wish that they had done things differently or attempted another route.
I think the taking of another life, even when justified, has to weigh on a person. I have not ever been in that position and I hope to never be.
I think the taking of another life, even when justified, has to weigh on a person. I have not ever been in that position and I hope to never be.
Skans I think you are missing a point in your discussion even if one accepts the bit of information given at face value. Carlsen threw the cone AND WALKED AWAY (after all how does one walk "aggressively" towards someone if they had not walked away)
Again with the little bit of information given its very easy to interpret this as a move about honor or aggression "no one throws a cone at me and gets away with it"
Again with the little bit of information given its very easy to interpret this as a move about honor or aggression "no one throws a cone at me and gets away with it"
Good point. Carlsen was walking away. But, according to Drescher, he HAD TO get out of the van to put the cone back. I don't think the cone ever made it into the van! There was a passenger in the seat. Cones are big and cumbersome to throw. Even if part of the cone made it through the window, the natural reaction would be for the passenger to use his arms to deflect the flying cone. I contend that the cone never made it inside of the window.
Yes, Carlsen was walking away. And, Drescher (IMHO), didn't exit the vehicle to put the cone back as he claimed. He exited the vehicle for some other reason.
OldMarksman
Staff
What?
it is really not a good idea for a person unfamiliar with legal theory to apply dictionary definitions to the written code, and in particular to individual elements of the code taken in isolation without relevant case law.
It is extremely important to not attempt to find interpretations of the law that would permit one citizen to harm another without the all-important condition of immediate necessity.
It is also extremely important to understand that what the actor may have thought at the time time will be judged after the fact for reasonableness by persons who have been instructed by a trail judge.
i'll repeat it one more time.
This is the whole passage from state law.
Don't get started on reasonably believes again. The shooter alone defines when he felt at such great risk that he had to resort to force, he has to testify as to why he felt that he was in risk of being killed, injured, or having a violent felony committed on either his person or a companion, as long as he is within the boundaries of his castle. It seems to be assumed that there are going to be huge numbers of people too
It is, as was clearly written into law, the prosecutions burden to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the shooter lied to police, and deliberately committed an illegal shooting, a deliberate homicide, and he is still innocent until proven guilty.
Are you an attorney who specializes in case law? This information is provided by the state, it is the law. time after time this law has been upheld.
Maybe you just want to argue, and don't care a whit for the clear and simple law of this state, it doesn't matter to me what you believe.
I have tried to pass factual information on. Instead of reading the laws that state absolutely the situation and circumstances, there have been, over and over, arguments that the law doesn't apply. There have even been statements implying that I'm ready and willing to violate those laws by shooting without full legal justification. There have even been bald faced insults, that my words weren't worth reading because I tried to avoid this very sort of criticism by posting in my signature.
Anyone who continues to play games saying that anyone can go to prison because he shot an attacker, whether there are legal protections in place or not, is doing a grave disservice to the whole of society.
Let them look it up themselves, and don't tell them what the facts are in their individual situation. Right now, over and over and over, the posts in this thread have put unsupported and incorrect information in the hands of every one of the six million people who live in my state.
Have you wondered why I haven't named this state? It's because I don't want someone going on line to look up this information, finding this thread, and believing what is being posted here. I'd prefer that he read the actual law.
This is the whole passage from state law.
Don't get started on reasonably believes again. The shooter alone defines when he felt at such great risk that he had to resort to force, he has to testify as to why he felt that he was in risk of being killed, injured, or having a violent felony committed on either his person or a companion, as long as he is within the boundaries of his castle. It seems to be assumed that there are going to be huge numbers of people too
It is, as was clearly written into law, the prosecutions burden to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the shooter lied to police, and deliberately committed an illegal shooting, a deliberate homicide, and he is still innocent until proven guilty.
Are you an attorney who specializes in case law? This information is provided by the state, it is the law. time after time this law has been upheld.
Maybe you just want to argue, and don't care a whit for the clear and simple law of this state, it doesn't matter to me what you believe.
I have tried to pass factual information on. Instead of reading the laws that state absolutely the situation and circumstances, there have been, over and over, arguments that the law doesn't apply. There have even been statements implying that I'm ready and willing to violate those laws by shooting without full legal justification. There have even been bald faced insults, that my words weren't worth reading because I tried to avoid this very sort of criticism by posting in my signature.
Anyone who continues to play games saying that anyone can go to prison because he shot an attacker, whether there are legal protections in place or not, is doing a grave disservice to the whole of society.
Let them look it up themselves, and don't tell them what the facts are in their individual situation. Right now, over and over and over, the posts in this thread have put unsupported and incorrect information in the hands of every one of the six million people who live in my state.
Have you wondered why I haven't named this state? It's because I don't want someone going on line to look up this information, finding this thread, and believing what is being posted here. I'd prefer that he read the actual law.