Helge and the Use of Force

D

Dennis

Staff Emeritus
Helge,
Different states (in the USA) have differing laws. For example, in Texas the
use of force is discussed in chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code. In your
example of robbery, the question occurs as to appropriate response.
Inasmuch as you like unique examples, permit me to do likewise.

I’m of average height and excessive weight. If a ten year old tried to
rob me by force of personality (no weapons), little force would be justified.

However, I’m also an old man with several physical handicaps. If the man
who tries to rob me is a 20 y/o in good physical condition, I’d ... Well, “a
person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he
reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force.” (PC 9.31(b)).

BTW, no reasonable person shoots to kill. *IF* the situation warrants deadly
force one shoots to stop and/or neutralize the threat. In my case, that
means two .45 slugs to the chest of the threat and one to the triangle formed
by his eyes and mouth. If the would-be robber dies, that is merely an
unfortunate byproduct of neutralizing the threat.

How would *I* feel about the incident?

1) I would be upset with myself for putting myself in a situation where I
could be so assaulted.
2) I would be offended that someone, anyone, would be such a cretin as to
try to take resources from me by force or threat of force.
3) I would be apprehensive about the possible criminal and civil proceedings
and the potential for physical, emotional, and financial strain on my loved
ones (and myself) due to this buttwipe’s attempt to rob me.
4) I would, somewhere in here, set aside a moment to feel remorse that I
took a life. But the consequences to my family more than override any
concern I would have for the social parasite who threatened my existence.

Questions?


------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
I agree with this sentiment. The purpose in shooting another individual is to stop him not to kill him neccessarily.

Killing is the province of the destroyer. The good (honest, lawful, concientious, whatever term you wish to use) merely attempts to eliminate the threat. The first tactic is avoidance, the second is talk your way out of it if possible, the third (some will disagree with me) is to just give up your wallet if it will end the threat. The last, final option is to use force.

I, personally, am 5'10" tall and rather scrawny and weak. Someone in good physical condition and of normal weight for their height could, easily conceivably, kill me in a mere fist fight. A firearm acts as my equalizer in the event I have to defend myself in a confrontation. I am not going to try to take on a muscular healthy specimen of crook with my barehands when I have better resources available.

Death, in this case, is incidental. Unfortunate, but merely incidental. It is not the intention.
 
Okay.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Imagine you have a bad liver. you are going to die soon. Are you justified in killing somebody else to get that persons liver, thus protecting your own life? [/quote]

Self defense is used against a direct and immediate attack. Someone else having a healthy liver does not pose a direct and immediate attack on your person.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Imagine you are a soldier protecting a little settlement with 100 people. An enemy soldier comes along wiht only one bullet. He can either shoot you or shoot the power generator of the village, blowing it up[/quote]

Slap my snout and call me dense, but I don't see where you're going with this one.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>A kid stops you on the street and wants to rob you. You COULD get killed by the kid if it attacks you with bare hands, likely not, but possible. Are you justified in pulling a gun and blasting the kid away?[/quote]

You have to apply the Reasonable Man test: Would a reasonable man, in your position, feel that he was in danger or death or serious bodily injury? If the answer is yes, then you are absolutely justified.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Smart guy. Yes, a lawful person will not become a murderer. Will s/he take lives though?
If you never break a law you won't be a murderer. Yet, if you never break the law and make a mistake, then you might well be charged for manslaughter.[/quote]

Yes. And the above argument holds true for any item. Drive your car wrong, and you can be charged with manslaughter. Matter-of-fact, you are statistically more likely to be charged with manslaughter in the operation of your car than you will with a firearm.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>In our current environment, yes. Overall, I am not sure. See, if the environment would be largely gun free, then criminals would not need to run around with guns either. Then suddenly running away becomes much more efficient (as in "nobody gets hurt, attacker AND defender"). A british bobby can execute the law with a hard rubber stick. He can do that, because the amount of guns out there is minimal.[/quote]

Couple of points here. Critters need an edge. If they can't have guns, they'll get something else. Knives, baseball bats, axes, cars--whatever it takes to take the resistance out of their victim. Critters also get the edge by ambushing their victims. Your example of running away from the critter doesn't hold up real well when he's jumped you from a shadow, or a dark alley or from behind cover. So...you've been ambushed by a critter with a baseball bat from a dark alley. I don't know about you, but I'd like something a little more effective than fingernails and harsh language in that situation.

British bobbies are now carrying expandible PR-24 batons and have a Firearms Squad on standby. Hell, I'd like a Firearm Squad on standby sometimes.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>It IS an illegal act to take life with a gun UNLESS you are acting in self defence. Self defence is NOT to blow away that robber we threatens you with a fist. I don't know if this is the case in the US, but in europe you are only allowed to defend yourself if your life or that of others is directly endangered AND you are supposed to defend yourself with adequat tools (a gun shot against the rubbers fists is NOT adequat!).[/quote]

I think we've covered the topic of when it's justified to take another persons life--but we'll do it again: Deadly Force may only be used to prevent the imminent Death or Serious Bodily Injury to yourself or a third party.

So, let's take an example: In one corner, you have my Evil Twin, Skippy. Skippy is six feet tall, weighs 175 pounds, has multiple black belts, can kick butt in any language known to man or gila monster and has spent the last thirty years proving it. In the other corner you have a Sweet Young Thing. 5 feet, 2 inches, 105 pounds, can maybe lick her weight in dust bunnies. Now, according to your statement above, (a gun shot against the rubbers fists is NOT adequat!), if Skippy attacks the lady, she can't use a gun.

I'm here to tell you, bub, she darn well better use a 'gun shot', because she's going to die if she tries anything else. Fact of life.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>To all the soldiers, marines, sailors and whatnot out there: You have sworn an oath to protect the constitution of the US, NOT the PEOPLE of the US. If they pass a law tomorrow that forbids guns and some rabid pro gun folks start marching (armed) towards Washington then that is simply: "bunch of freaks VS government. The constitution is not violated in any way. Not engaging the aggressive mob will not only get your court marshalled but also make you oath breaker. Simple as that. [/quote]

Ah, not exactly. Couple of quick civics lessons here: 1) The Bill of Rights was created because not enough people would ratify the Constituition. If the Bill of Rights is violated, then the Constituition is null and void.

2) The Federal Government may only exercise those powers which are specifically delegated to the Federal Government. If the Constituition of the United States does not specifically give a power to the Federal Government--then the Federal Government may not exercise that power. If the Federal Goverment does try to exercise that power, then the Federal Government is the oath-breaker.

Nowhere, I say again my last--NOWHERE, does the Constituition of the United States of America give the Federal Government the power to regulate weapons in any way, shape or form. PERIOD. As a matter-of-fact, the Constituition of the United States of America specifically grants the right (the power, if you will) of keeping and bearing arms, to the People of the United States, to wit:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

The Right Of The People.

Not The Right Of The Federal Government.

If the Federal Government passes a law tomorrow forbidding guns, then they sir, THEY, are the oath-breakers. Not I and not any military man out there.

LawDog

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited July 21, 2000).]
 
I have seen a picture of Lawdog's evil twin... Skippy. He is one scary dude.
If the Constitution does not allow the Feds to regulate weapons.....then how come they are...and what can we do to stop them???
 
Helge, aside from Texas, which is "different" from the rest of the United States, it's illegal to use deadly force except to halt an immediate threat of greivous bodily harm. This is true for the general population and police alike. The general criterea are:

1) Intent - the aggressor has to show that they intend to do some serious bodily harm. Something like "I'm going to kill you!" or some such statement, appropriate body language (like reaching in their pocket for a weapon), etc. can fill this criterea, providing the other two are met.

2) Capability - the aggressor has to be capable of doing greivous bodily harm to the defender. This means they have to have some advantage over the victim that is known to the victim. Examples of this include strength, a weapon, or some other reason known to the victim (e.g. Skippy, the killer black belt, et al). Note that this applies to each individual situation - I think your average person could put up a good justification of shooting a pro boxer rather than duking it out with him, but I think Lennox Lewis would have a hard time justifying shooting a guy in a wheelchair who approached him weilding a bat. Remember, all our trials are carried out by a jury - at what point would a complete stranger believe your life is in danger?

3) Proximity - The aggressor has to be close enough to inflict bodily harm utilizing whatever capabilities they have. Note that the proximity is different depending on the range - someone threatening you across the street with a gun meets the proximity threat, across the street with a knife does not.

ALL THREE REQUIREMENTS HAVE TO BE MET! 2/3 DOES NOT COUNT!

Hope that clears things up a bit. Now, you get into the question of "what is deadly force?" A gun? Absolutely. A knife? Probably. A bat? Probably. A baton? Maybe. Bare hands? Maybe - some hands/feet are more deadly than others. The point to keep in mind is we're adults here - there is no teacher to break things up, no referees to make the victor stop. Once violence begins, it's up to the victor when it stops. Think about it. There have been too many cases of someone attacking someone, then continuing to beat or choke (bare hands) someone until they die. Not to mention that once a fight starts, anything can happen - people have died because they got knocked down and struck their head on something. Conflicts are to be avoided if possible - they're all potentially lethal. But if you can't avoid the fight, you'd better come out on top, it's the only way you can control your own fate.

I think too many people have a misunderstanding of just what can happen once a fight begins.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Danger Dave:
Helge, aside from Texas, which is "different" from the rest of the United States, it's illegal to use deadly force except to halt an immediate threat of greivous bodily harm.[/quote]

Danger, this is not quite right. Here in NC, it's legal to use deadly force to prevent someone from entering your domicile against your wishes. Once they have made entry, however, you do have to fear bodily harm before you can legally use deadly force. In other words, if they get in without getting shot, you can't shoot them unless they threaten you in some way. It's an oddity of NC law that I don't believe is duplicated elsewhere.
 
This thread seems to highlight the need to know the laws in YOUR state. I've lived in Texas and Florida and there are some significant differences.

As for the "shoot to kill" issue, I think I'll start a new thread on that one.
 
"Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt
to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." --Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.


Also I think it was Blackstone or Tucker who said something along the lines (sorry couldn’t find the quote) “Self defense is the first law of nature. It has been the study of rulers to confine this right to the narrowest limits possible”.

Another point to answer your question. The 2nd amendment specifically states the right of the people, yet all of our lower federal courts have ruled that this means the rights of the states to maintain a militia… Why? Why are they lying? There is only one reason for it. He who has the power rules and arms are power. See my by-line.

What can you do? Exercise your primary rights…. Ie…

1. The ballot box
2. The Jury box (jury nullification)
3. Civil disobedience
4. Self defense

In other words get active. Find a good candidate for office in your area and volunteer to help with their election.




------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
"Hey! I've got just one question! How you gonna get back down that hill?"-great line. Too bad *Hombre* is so anti.

I keep reading this(these)thread and can't help but feel that on a list of importance, RKBA and self defense are less important than the worm composting seminar or just plain gettin laid on a Friday night to old HelgeS. The guy is really pushing the right buttons and getting a lot of response. Did you notice though how selective he is in answering? He is good though, I will give him that. Gotta appreciate talent no matter how misdirected.

I suspect he doesn't give a tweedly dee about guns or gun people, just the reaction of people to a hot topic. I doubt if your going to do anything other than give him some theme paper material on how people react.

[This message has been edited by RAE (edited July 22, 2000).]
 
There are two things I really enjoy about a good "anti-attack":<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>It makes me do additional or first-time research on what I say,<LI>and even though I may not convince the anti of the error of his ways, there are MANY others watching in silence that will receive the argument and start on their own path to finding the truth.</UL>

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com

[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited July 22, 2000).]
 
I note no response from HelgeS. Doesn't surprise me ... this kind of straightforward, focused debate doesn't appear to be his style. Not enough discussion of racism, Germans, the lower intelligence of RKBA folks, etc.

Regards from AZ
 
Jeff, you need not worry about Mr. ego, he'll be baccccck! Bet money on it...but no betting on TFL board...its again the FCC or some guberment agency, everything else is.

Jim Klanky
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top