You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Don't Let This Happen to You
- Thread starter Old Bill Dibble
- Start date
Just because you could have the right to do something doesn't mean its a good right or sensible thing to do. People like that running about with firearms are a danger to the public, what he should have done is what he would have if he was not armed drove off and reported the incident to the police. I doint buy the i was fearful excuse and hopefully the jury wont either and lock him up for good.
bill, what in the name of god does that case have to do with anything, and I mean anything that is being discussed? The guy who had a history of violence and provocation? he went to the neighbors home (not his castle) committing the crime of trespass, aggravated by the presence of his weapon. He provoked the neighbor and instigated the incident, (not covered by law). and didn't even remotely provide justification. The fact that he violated all of those laws, especially the one that involved him walking down the side walk and shooting someone in his own yard is why he was convicted. Pretty clear. he was not convicted because he "stood his ground."
The article even contains incorrect information regarding the zimmerman trial. but despite the error in the text, I'm not going to blow this off as all BS.
The article even contains incorrect information regarding the zimmerman trial. but despite the error in the text, I'm not going to blow this off as all BS.
Lohman, did you read the laws before you posted? The reasonable belief is, as was clearly stated, decided by the shooter
it is the burden of a prosecutor to prove that it was a clear violation, that he either lied about the event or deliberately chose to violate the law, and that the defendant has, in fact, not committed a justified shooting, but instead committed a felony level crime of second degree manslaughter or whatever other charges apply.
We keep coming back to the same issue. This is the law within this state. Unless you clearly violate some passage of that law, you are protected under that law.
it is the burden of a prosecutor to prove that it was a clear violation, that he either lied about the event or deliberately chose to violate the law, and that the defendant has, in fact, not committed a justified shooting, but instead committed a felony level crime of second degree manslaughter or whatever other charges apply.
We keep coming back to the same issue. This is the law within this state. Unless you clearly violate some passage of that law, you are protected under that law.
Manta, that is absolutely correct. He chose to handle that situation in a manner that would have provoked the crazy SOB that had already committed the crime of assault and possible battery. That was stupid.
Depending on the legal state in his jurisdiction, he may walk without charges, he may be charged. He seems to meet the test of this set of laws, but I suspect that he did not kill the guy in a justifiable manner, and that the prosecutors may go ahead and try him.
Depending on the legal state in his jurisdiction, he may walk without charges, he may be charged. He seems to meet the test of this set of laws, but I suspect that he did not kill the guy in a justifiable manner, and that the prosecutors may go ahead and try him.
Lohman, did you read the laws before you posted? The reasonable belief is, as was clearly stated, decided by the shooter
So if I am an un-diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic and I am convinced that an individual is acting in a threatening manner and presents the threat of imminent injury I would be justified in shooting that individual and there would be no argument against the reasonableness of my belief?
You are making the argument that the shooter, and only the shooter, decided the reasonableness of the belief.
The man may be prosecuted, he may plead off, but it's pretty certain that he will not be let off completely free.
I read as much of the law as I could decipher. He violated the terms of the castle law in several ways.
There may be other sections that provide legal protection, But I could not find them.
I read as much of the law as I could decipher. He violated the terms of the castle law in several ways.
The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
There may be other sections that provide legal protection, But I could not find them.
Old Bill Dibble
New member
I see where the problem is. You have no understanding of what the "reasonable person" standard is.
Sure the shooter decides what he believes is reasonable at the time of the shooting.
However a jury determines if the action taken was actually reasonable at a trial.
You understand the difference right? These two perspectives may or may not agree. The perspective of the jury is the only one that really counts from a going to prison perspective.
Sure the shooter decides what he believes is reasonable at the time of the shooting.
However a jury determines if the action taken was actually reasonable at a trial.
You understand the difference right? These two perspectives may or may not agree. The perspective of the jury is the only one that really counts from a going to prison perspective.
If a paranoid schizophrenic shoots someone in a psychotic episode, and he is determined to not be sound in mind at the time, will that be prosecuted?
probably not, that is why there are numerous laws that cover insanity and temporary incapacitation.
if you had carefully read, you would have seen that the shooter is the person who decides whether he is in fear of serious injury, as codified in this very law. He is the one who decides if he "reasonably believes " that the threat is real. If he acts on it, then, the legal system must prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that he is either lying about his actions based on his belief that he was in danger, or in some other way provide proof that the shooter violated one or the other laws of the state.
The shooter decides whether or not he feels threatened enough to engage in force. Then, if there are genuine doubts or clear violations of the code, it is up to the police whether to pass it to the prosecutor, then up to the prosecutor to determine within reasonable doubt before he can be charged.
probably not, that is why there are numerous laws that cover insanity and temporary incapacitation.
if you had carefully read, you would have seen that the shooter is the person who decides whether he is in fear of serious injury, as codified in this very law. He is the one who decides if he "reasonably believes " that the threat is real. If he acts on it, then, the legal system must prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that he is either lying about his actions based on his belief that he was in danger, or in some other way provide proof that the shooter violated one or the other laws of the state.
The shooter decides whether or not he feels threatened enough to engage in force. Then, if there are genuine doubts or clear violations of the code, it is up to the police whether to pass it to the prosecutor, then up to the prosecutor to determine within reasonable doubt before he can be charged.
The reasonable belief is, as was clearly stated, decided by the shooter
What a "reasonable belief" is or is not will be decided by the Jury, if the State decides to prosecute. I note that the first part of the statute simply defines when someone can lawfully use "physical force". The use of "deadly force" is stated in the negative (a person may not use deadly force...unless...) in another part of the statute. That makes makes this a defense to murder. As a defense, the killer now has the burden of proof to show that he was justified in his belief and in the use of deadly force.
So using the scenario and Missouri law:
1. Is someone siting in a van who experienced someone throwing a plastic cone at the van the initial aggressor?
2. Did the guy who allegedly threw the cone withdraw from the encounter?
3. Was the deadly force used by the guy in the van reasonably believed to be necessary to protect himself against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony? Let's not forget that the dead guy was unarmed.
then, the legal system must prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that he is either lying about his actions based on his belief that he was in danger, or in some other way provide proof that the shooter violated one or the other laws of the state.
No. This is wrong. The State can and will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the van passenger killed the passerby. He's admitted to this - the State's initial burden has been met. Now, the Defendant has the burden of proving his defense, i.e. that the killing was based on a reasonable belief that he was protecting himself from death or serious physical injury. This is HIS burden of proof. And, all the state has to do is sit back and try to poke holes in it.
I think a prosecutor can make a plausible case against the guy in the van, under Missouri law. Who knows who wins, but after spending $100,000+ in attorney's fees, the Defendant will have his answer.
Last edited:
So your telling me that if I decide the person walking towards me on a sidewalk is walking aggressively and presents a threat of imminent harm and draw my pistol and shoot him or her I will not be prosecuted? What if I believe it of the group of nuns? I'm the shooter - you may not question my belief. At least that is the argument you seem to be making.
ammo.crafter
New member
Presentation.
I sure do miss the days when the news was merely the news and not a "news show".
When did news people start giving their interpretation of events rather than letting the public make their own opinion?
I sure do miss the days when the news was merely the news and not a "news show".
When did news people start giving their interpretation of events rather than letting the public make their own opinion?
dibble, you continually choose to lay ridiculous claims out. READ THE LAW.
I have quoted this legal document over and over.
THE VICTIM IS ALLOWED TO DECIDE WHEN FORCE IS USED. Isn't this pretty clear? if the victim is not allowed to make this decision on his own, wouldn't there have to be an enormous document detailing ad nauseum when and why a person can use pepper spray, a club, knife, pistol, etc.
Seriously, who's bloody right is it to decide when a situation calls for dangerous force during an attack? it is the victims right to decide.
Once again, here you go.
The defendent must make an accurate accounting of his actions, his actions must be supported by law. If he fails to fulfill these obligations and his statement or actions are suspect, if a prosecutor can prove within reasonable doubt that he violated the laws (there you go, not reasable belief, that doesn't belong in the legal system at all) the prosecutor has discretion to act, and only if he can prove, within reasonable doubt, that a crime was committed.
I have quoted this legal document over and over.
THE VICTIM IS ALLOWED TO DECIDE WHEN FORCE IS USED. Isn't this pretty clear? if the victim is not allowed to make this decision on his own, wouldn't there have to be an enormous document detailing ad nauseum when and why a person can use pepper spray, a club, knife, pistol, etc.
Seriously, who's bloody right is it to decide when a situation calls for dangerous force during an attack? it is the victims right to decide.
Once again, here you go.
The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section. If a defendant asserts that his or her use of force is described under subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of this section, the burden shall then be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of such force was necessary to defend against what he or she reasonably believed was the use or imminent use of unlawful force.
The defendent must make an accurate accounting of his actions, his actions must be supported by law. If he fails to fulfill these obligations and his statement or actions are suspect, if a prosecutor can prove within reasonable doubt that he violated the laws (there you go, not reasable belief, that doesn't belong in the legal system at all) the prosecutor has discretion to act, and only if he can prove, within reasonable doubt, that a crime was committed.
THE VICTIM IS ALLOWED TO DECIDE WHEN FORCE IS USED. Isn't this pretty clear? if the victim is not allowed to make this decision on his own, wouldn't there have to be an enormous document detailing ad nauseum when and why a person can use pepper spray, a club, knife, pistol, etc.
There is. Its called the reasonable person standard and has a mountain of case law referencing it (I imagine). Its not the "victim" - its a hypothetical "reasonable person" inserted in place of the "victim". The jury decides what that "reasonable person" would have considered reasonable given the evidence presented them.
Your use of the word victim slants the conversation.
So your telling me that if I decide the person walking towards me on a sidewalk is walking aggressively and presents a threat of imminent harm and draw my pistol and shoot him or her I will not be prosecuted? What if I believe it of the group of nuns? I'm the shooter - you may not question my belief. At least that is the argument you seem to be making.
Again and again the people on this thread throw absolutely ridiculous straw man arguments out. do you really, seriously, even in your craziest notions, believe that these laws, as they stand and have been repeatedly provided for your perusal, are going to allow you to go shoot nuns on the street?
For the love of god, man what in the world makes you believe that this is even remotely relevant? CASTLE LAWS DO NOT PERMIT YOU TO WALK DOWN THE STREET AND SHOOT PEOPLE WHO SCARE YOU!S
so, if you really want to go shoot a gaggle of nuns and pretend that they threatened, you be my guest, and maybe your friends will visit you as you rot.
Dont be ridiculous.
For the love of god, man what in the world makes you believe that this is even remotely relevant? CASTLE LAWS DO NOT PERMIT YOU TO WALK DOWN THE STREET AND SHOOT PEOPLE WHO SCARE YOU!S
You are kind of making my point.
You have argued, repeatedly, that the only person who determines what is reasonable is the shooter.
I have presented several examples of why this simply cannot be and defies logical interpretation of the law.
You are pointing out that the shooter cannot be the sole determiner of reasonableness (in the case of the group of nuns) but you are arguing that the shooter IS the sole determiner of reasonableness.
I am pointing out that it is not the shooter who is the sole determiner but the "reasonable person" standard.
You once again choose to read whatever you want to read. The person who has been placed in jeopardy is at the time, the only "reasonable person" who knows the situation and can advise him, is that correct? where is he supposed to find legal advice when he is being menaced, threatened, whatever.
Reasonable doubt is another concept entirely, isn't it? the prosecutor must prove within " reasonable doubt" that a crime was committed, and then, so must a jury, if it goes that far.
Reasonable doubt is another concept entirely, isn't it? the prosecutor must prove within " reasonable doubt" that a crime was committed, and then, so must a jury, if it goes that far.
This part of the discussion was started when a person suggested that a person walking up and down beating on a car with a baseball bat didn't justify dangerous force, and that unless that man with the lethal weapon broke out the window and physically attacked the driver, that driver had no right to defend himself. over and over, there have been ridiculous notions tossed out, like whether I can go down the street and shoot nuns because I am afraid of them.
The laws, clearly and succinctly are stated, nobody gives a rat's butt about them, and all you guys want to do is argue that I'm wrong, you're right, and that anyone who follows those laws is at risk of imprisonment because he has no rights to decide when he or another has been exposed to imminent threat of serious injury or a felony crime against his person.
This is just the most ridiculous argument I have ever been involved in since debate in high school.
READ THE LAWS, IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT THEY SAY, WHAT THEY MEAN, AND QUIT WASTING TIME ARGUING WHAT THE HECK THE LAW SAYS AND MEANS! Read it for yourself, figure it out, and learn something, rather than jumping all over my hind end!
The laws, clearly and succinctly are stated, nobody gives a rat's butt about them, and all you guys want to do is argue that I'm wrong, you're right, and that anyone who follows those laws is at risk of imprisonment because he has no rights to decide when he or another has been exposed to imminent threat of serious injury or a felony crime against his person.
This is just the most ridiculous argument I have ever been involved in since debate in high school.
READ THE LAWS, IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT THEY SAY, WHAT THEY MEAN, AND QUIT WASTING TIME ARGUING WHAT THE HECK THE LAW SAYS AND MEANS! Read it for yourself, figure it out, and learn something, rather than jumping all over my hind end!
I don't get your argument any longer. You are saying that only the shooter can determine what is reasonable. I am saying the standard is that of a "reasonable person" I have no idea why we would discuss reasonable doubt.
You are pointing out that in the case of the group of nuns (out walking aggressively in the mall - maybe power walking) the shooter would find himself in great legal jeopardy. If the shooter is the only person who may determine what was reasonable why would he be in great legal jeopardy?
Your basically arguing if the shooter says he or she was in danger of great physical harm you cannot question the assertion. I am arguing you most certainly can and the standard that one would use to question it is the "reasonable person" standard. You would question the reasonableness of that perceived threat.
We are "jumping over your hind end" because someone following your advise is likely to find him or herself in great legal jeopardy. It is based, as near as I can tell, in an untrained reading of the law.
You are pointing out that in the case of the group of nuns (out walking aggressively in the mall - maybe power walking) the shooter would find himself in great legal jeopardy. If the shooter is the only person who may determine what was reasonable why would he be in great legal jeopardy?
Your basically arguing if the shooter says he or she was in danger of great physical harm you cannot question the assertion. I am arguing you most certainly can and the standard that one would use to question it is the "reasonable person" standard. You would question the reasonableness of that perceived threat.
We are "jumping over your hind end" because someone following your advise is likely to find him or herself in great legal jeopardy. It is based, as near as I can tell, in an untrained reading of the law.
lohman, just one more explanation. have you paid any attention whatsoever to these posts? This is about castle law, nothing but castle law, and only castle law as it is posted in this unedited copy of the legal statement.
Again, why in the world would your suggestion even come within the most ridiculous reach of being covered under the castle law as defined by those statures that by now, you should have read?
Just another ridiculous straw man attack.
Again, why in the world would your suggestion even come within the most ridiculous reach of being covered under the castle law as defined by those statures that by now, you should have read?
Just another ridiculous straw man attack.