From Ricky:
I'm not saying that we should run around pulling guns on people.
Good. Let's all avoid committing crimes that can result in felony conviction, permanent loss of gun rights for ourselves, and potentially, severe civil penalties, not to mention possible additional restrictions on the rights of the populace.
I think that if as a society we stopped looking away and more of us stepped up then the world would be a better place.
Yes, too many people have failed to act when trouble occurs. But what's the thing to do? Yell for help? Cell phone call? Honk your horn? It's going to depend on the situation.
Where I live, it is
legal to use deadly force to defend a third person (when necessary as last resort, etc.), but attorneys strongly advise against it. The citizen does not have the immunities that the community grants to the law enforcement officer, nor does he have the training. Finally, to one happening along at the scene, what he perceives to be happening may not match reality, and his intervention could be very wrong indeed.
What any of that has to do with the case at hand (one person encountering two others) I fail to see.
The comment was that today's political correctness has allegedly somehow altered the constructs of the legal use of deadly force, when history tells us that that is not the case.
From KLRANGL:
For example, in HS, defending yourself in a fight will get you expelled. There is just something wrong there...
Yeah, things have gone way too far, but suppose there's no evidence of "defending yourself?" Your word against theirs? I think that's probably where the duty to retreat came in centuries ago.
Here's something from a legal publication on what a defense attorney has to navigate in a case involving self defense; I think it's worth bookmarking:
http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/f587d7d10c34fff2852572b90069bc3c?OpenDocument&Click=
These excerpts in particular would seem to apply in the locale in question:
Duty to Retreat
“The law is well settled that, while a man may kill another in self-defense, he may not do so if he has other probable means of escape. When his back is to the wall, and the question is whether he shall die or his assailant, he may slay his assailant to preserve his own life; but, if he has probable means of escape without doing so, he must resort to such means before he is justified in killing his adversary. Human life is too sacred to be taken unnecessarily.”
– Comm. v. Ware,
137 Pa. 465, 479, 20 A. 806 (1890).
“A stubborn unwillingness to walk away, even in the face of a perceived affront to the defendant’s manhood, does not equate with an inability to retreat.”
– Com. v. Toon,
55 Mass. App. Ct. 642, 654 (2002).
Emphasis added. Note that the first case took place 118 years ago.
Do not take this as legal advice.
I have provided the excerpts because I think they may add constructively to the discussion of the OPs post. I do think the entire article is worth reading and saving for anyone who chooses to carry a weapon.
