From what I know deadly force is justified if you're in danger of death or grave bodily harm. Rape is grave bodily harm. Therefore if somebody is trying to rape you or a loved one by law you are justified in killing them.
Self-Defense laws in your state?
- Thread starter Pepsiman
- Start date
lklawson
Grandmaster
"Bunnies and Light" pacifism seems to be very popular in Aikido circles, or at least it was when I was still actively practicing Aikido.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Some do, though. There are arts well-suited to them, and some are sometimes taught with a philosophy of never doing harm.
Captain Obvious. You had as I said tell this to the hedge knight, he's the one throwing around aspersions and tacky insults to those he disagrees with.
pacifistic? That is a truly weird word. what's wrong with pacifist
Cardiff doesn't get 'lots of rain'. There's storms which are coming in from the Atlantic that are causing rain here at the moment, nothing to do with mountains.
Psilent Knight
Blue Belt
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2017
- Messages
- 212
- Reaction score
- 46
How many degrees of separation are there between "in the act" and "would be" rapist? And what is the MIND STATE of both men in the two separate incidents? Mr. Diallo's incident was still "fresh" just as the Texas father's incident was "fresh". Two different degrees of how far the perp went with his crime but each man caught the perp within seconds of the crime, be it would be act or actual act. My main thing I am trying to get you to key in on is the mind state of each protector in the cases being that the incidents were still seconds in the making. BOTH INCIDENTS. I don't know if I can say for sure that I would be able to just let the "would be rapist" walk past me without him feeling a taste of my indignation for trying to rape my wife. And none of us here can say for sure unless we are actually faced with that grim situation (which I wouldn't wish on anybody).
But I think you're right in the letter and technicalities of the law. Your interpretation is correct imo but I think you should start looking at individual cases as individual cases and realize that sometimes the legal system does drop the ball. I also believe another reason the two cases have two different outcomes also have to do with Texas state and NYC local laws (local NYC vs TX state). If you live in Connecticut there's a chance that you would be familiar with NYC local laws. If the father in TX was in NYC instead do you think he still would not have been charged? If Mr. Diallo was in Texas instead of NYC do you think he still would have been charged? I was never talking about a conviction in these 2 cases, I was only talking about the fact that one person was charged and the other person was not charged. In my opinion Mr. Diallo never should have been charged to begin with. His case is not the same as the Alabama man who tracked his daughter's rapist down and killed him. Mr. Diallo was in a very "protect my wife" mind state when he came face to face with the deceased perp.
And BTW, the charges against Mr. Diallo were rightfully DROPPED:
Charges Dropped Against Man Who Killed Wife's Attacker
Actually, you're right. I agree in certain respects. There are times when we want to but cannot and there are times when we didn't want to or set out to do so but did it even though the law says we can't. That's when the legal problems creep in. Again, I really don't think any of the men here can say with 100%, absolute certainty that they would not accost the Bronx perp in some or fashion when the attempted break in and rape took place literally seconds ago. Please try to think of the mind state of Mr. Diallo at that time and how is his mind state considered any different than the Texas father's mind state at that time. Regardless of how far each deceased perp went in their crimes both protectors in each case had the exact same mind state. And in Mr. Diallo's case the deceased perp did commit a crime. An attempted break in and subsequent rape may not be as harsh as completing the act but he attempted the act which is every bit as scary to any female and every bit as angering to any father or husband.
An awful and very sickening event. That was one of the events that started me into looking at how we are surrounded by sociopaths and the things we must do to protect ourselves against them.
This! Interpretation. This is where I start to have a problem. Who here can deny that there are prosecutors AND defense attorneys who interpret the law in such a way as to either convict a person (in the prosecutors case) or help to acquit someone (in the case of defense attorneys)? That's what it's all about; leaving the letter of the law vague and open ended so prosecutors and defense attorneys can get in court and play their "legal interpretation chess matches". These court cases most times boil down to which of the two can play the better interpretation game and which of the two can persuade the opinions of the judges and jurors with their interpretation games. Who here can HONESTLY deny this? Why do you think they battle it out in courts? If the legal system was so fair, honest and cut and dried (as some of you would have me believe) then their should be absolutely no interpretation games. NONE. But there are and one defense attorney I know here in Pittsburgh is one of the best at doing so. I've seen him in court (in person) get a couple of obviously guilty thugs off of attempted homicide and robbery charges. He's good at what he does. I mean he is DAMN GOOD. But he got these people off because he knows how to play the loophole and interpretation game that is the legal system. This is why I say it's a sucker's game.
If I say that the legal system in America is a joke I would be attacked. But I shouldn't be attacked since I am not the only person who says this and thinks this. I know everyone here has heard or read other U.S. citizens express this at one time or another. If I was the only U.S. citizen who felt this way THEN I could see the validity of being scorned and attacked.
Yes, I was only talking about deadly force. The firearm was just the example I used as the weapon used. You can substitute it with any other weapon or object (bat, knife, a pair of scissors, monkey wrench, metal pipe, hammer, whatever). My point was that he can be charged because the legal system says he may have been able to stop the act without killing him. Depending on the state and the prosecutor (and let's not forget interpretation of the law) he may or may not face charges.
This was exactly my point.
Again, my point exactly. Not sure where we are in disagreement about this. Maybe you agree with the law and/or how can be interpreted whereas I find some SD laws and, most certainly, many ways the interpretation game is played highly questionable.
Yep, details DO count big time, hence my bringing up how the Texas father and Bronx, NY husband were in the exact same state of mind when they did what they did to their respective offenders. But one person was charged and the other was not charged. Thankfully, the one who was charged had the charges against dropped. He never should have been charged to begin with. And as far as black and white judgement.....I mean the two cases speak for themselves. One person was (rightfully) NOT charged and the other person WAS charged.
I don't know how many times I have to explain that this is definitely not my attitude. Can you post individual quotes I've made to prove this is my attitude? And quote them in context?
It's not so much as distrust of the law as a lack of confidence of the law and the legal system will always do what's right. Do you HONESTLY believe that mine (or anyone else for that matter) who lacks confidence in the law or does, in fact, distrust it is not justified and founded in reality and experience? Do you HONESTLY believe that? Can you HONESTLY say that?
You can't shoot someone who isn't a danger to you though. This is what was so hard for some to understand. You cannot 'defend' yourself from someone who hasn't said or done anything to threaten your life just because you think they might do something. Pknight doesn't think there's a difference here.
You cannot though use deadly force if you aren't in danger of your life or if you aren't being raped. This is what was trying to be explained.
It has indeed, you are correct! wettest places in UK are usually Welsh.. hope the folk were nice to you in Cardiff.. I like it there, like the people
lklawson
Grandmaster
One, known in legal terms as "Imminent Jeopardy" and it's enough to change a justifiable use of deadly for into murder. Stop talking because your ax grinding and ignorance is misinformation to the reader.
Irrelevant. People cannot read minds. Don't claim to be able to do so as part of your Legal Defense. It's stupid and the lawyers will rip you to shreds. Stop talking.
Absolutely and categorically wrong in the U.S. Stop talking because your ax grinding and ignorance is misinformation to the reader.
Gads, please, oh please stop talking. Go and read Deadly Force: Understanding Your Right to Self Defense by Mas Ayoob before babbling another word.
Deadly Force: Understanding Your Right to Self Defense: Massad Ayoob, Jeff Weiner: 9781440240614: Amazon.com: Books
Exactly. When using force to stop a bad guy your intention should be precisely that, to stop them. You're intent should not be to kill, your intent should not be to injure, your intent should be to stop.
This thread is being dragged in political arguments over the American legal system.
No Wales isn't one of the wettest places in the UK I'm afraid, that would be the Lake District and certain parts of Scotland. rain tends to fall more during the winter than the summers which admittedly aren't that warm compared to the south of England..
No Wales isn't one of the wettest places in the UK I'm afraid, that would be the Lake District and certain parts of Scotland. rain tends to fall more during the winter than the summers which admittedly aren't that warm compared to the south of England..
And once the threat has stopped you must stop the use of deadly force.
You use force to stop. That is the goal....too stop the threat....if death occurs you are fine as long as you were initially justified.
It has indeed, you are correct! wettest places in UK are usually Welsh.. hope the folk were nice to you in Cardiff.. I like it there, like the people
The people were quite nice, I do remember staying in a very seedy hotel and I had quite the experience staying there. Wales would be a nice place to revisit. Scotland would be nice to visit too, never been there.
I should check it out. I do have one of Ayoob's books. He is quite legitimate. I met him not long ago.
'Reasonable' force is the usual qualifier used in court. If reasonable force is used even if it results in the death of a perpetrator cases will rarely come to court. It is not reasonable force however to cause the death of someone you think may have an attack in mind, they have to show that they intend to harm you or someone else before a defence can be made. Put simply, you cannot go round attacking people just because you think you can read their minds and you think they are planning on committing a crime.
lklawson
Grandmaster
Pretty much, yeah. The expansion is:
Subject: 10 - Deadly Force and the Force Continuum
In the words of Jim Keating:
"To have a defensible self-defense case you need several
factors in your favor. They are simple and they must be
present or you are going to jail for a long time. These
factors are this:
* Opportunity
* Imminent Jeopardy
* Ability
* Preclusion
Leave out one or more of these factors and you lose. Have
these aspects present and provable and it's much more likely
that you'll win."
[Elements of Legitimate Self Defense]
As noted above, it's canonical that there are four elements of
legitimate Self Defense.
Ability:
This is the physical capability to kill or seriously injure.
Sometimes this means a weapon such as a knife, club, or gun. It can
also mean "Disparity of Force." Disparity of Force in this context is
when there is a large enough difference between the attacker and the
attacked that raw physical capability alone is enough to be recognized
as Deadly Force. The typical examples are a group attack, though
unarmed, against a single individual, or the proverbial attack by a
300 pound enraged linebacker against a 90 year old fragile boned
grandmother.
Opportunity:
Opportunity is similar to Ability, in that it reflects a raw ability
to inflict grievous harm. However, Opportunity is more often linked
to physical proximity. If the attacker is not within range to perform
the attack then there is no threat. An attacker with a knife 30 feet
away is no attacker at all. On the other hand, an attacker with a
firearm 30 feet away is most certainly within range to inflict bodily
harm. An attacker must have the "Opportunity" to use his "Ability"
for the attack to be credible.
Imminent Jeopardy:
This means that the threat is immediate and that a "Reasonable Man"
would believe, based on what information is available at the time,
that the aggressor's intent is to cause severe physical harm or death.
Threats by the aggressor of some future attack do not satisfy Imminent
Jeopardy while threats or actions that indicate an immediate intention
do.
Preclusion:
This means that all other options preceding Deadly Force were either
exhausted or were not viable. Some places have a Duty to Retreat law
or legal precedent. Essentially these address the same issue.
Legally and morally the individual must reasonably eliminate all other
methods to stop an attack before resorting to Deadly Force. This does
not mean that the individual must first "try, fail, discard, and then
try another" to eliminate all other option. Many options are
eliminated by immediacy of the threat. As an example, one simply does
not have time to call the police and report a burglar when an
aggressor is in the process of pounding you into jelly.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Psilent Knight
Blue Belt
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2017
- Messages
- 212
- Reaction score
- 46
A HUGE thumbs up to both posts. I am in full 100% agreement. Anyone involved in this thread can read every post I made here and they will see that I never, ever, ever said I would do something with the intent to kill. I will do something with the intent to end the threat. They are NOT the same thing. I think where the problem comes about is I said that I cannot afford to worry about reducing my use of force for fear of what some would say is going too far. I am only concerned with two things and two things only:
1). Ending the threat.
2). Protecting myself and my family.
In doing these two things the outcome may be very unfortunate in that the offender may lose his life. Even though I was not telling myself "I have to kill him" I may end up killing him anyway while attempting to do those two things that I just listed above. I've tried to explain this soooooooo many times in this thread but it was always in vain.
And I do believe that my mindset of "doing whatever it takes to survive and save myself and my family" is also being misinterpreted as "I am consciously aiming to kill him". This is far from true. I don't know WHY my position is still being misinterpreted and I don't know how many times I must explain that this is not true. What can a fella like me do?
But as far as me agreeing with PhotonGuy and CB Jones the questioned may be asked "so what's the problem then"? The problem is that now the people in both of their posts is not completely out of the woods. They now have to deal with the possibility of charges and possible conviction and I feel that this should not be so. I guess I just take up too strong of a moral stance with this issue to ever see eye-to-eye with the other posters who disagree with my position. For me it goes beyond SD laws and more into the base human condition and the subject of moral right and wrong and maybe THIS is where the real problem lies.
I take a moral stand against sociopaths. I think most posters here do as well. But I also take a moral stand against what I feel are unrealistic and far from correct applications of SD laws. I think most posters here do not take that stand and actually disagree with it. Fair enough. We all view the world based on our own respective inner compasses and experiences.
In spite of what some here say the arguments were not about me telling anybody that their opinions are wrong because I never said such thing. No one here can post a quote where I told anyone in this thread that their opinions are wrong. I have said that I disagreed with certain opinions and I ALWAYS explained WHY I disagreed. But I never, ever told anyone here that their opinion is wrong. But I have been told that I am wrong, that my position is wrong, that my interpretation is wrong, that my attitude is wrong. When I defend my position, my interpretation and the attitude that I have toward certain things, THEN some other posters come and tell me that this is my way of telling people that they're wrong.
This is what has been happening in this thread. Those who disagree with my views and possibly dislike me; Can they put aside their disdain for me and re-read this thread from the beginning up to now and prove that I am wrong about this?
Anyway, good posts CB and Photon. I agree with you both.
hoshin1600
Senior Master
- Joined
- May 16, 2014
- Messages
- 3,161
- Reaction score
- 1,681
lets turn this around a bit. in Massachusetts there was a case of a women who was abused by her husband. she was found guilty of murder because during one fight he threatened to kill her and went for a knife. she was convicted based on the distance he was from her at the time she fired the rifle and on the time duration between her 911 call and the time of the shooting. he was at the top of the stairs, she was at the bottom. it would be to long to describe the entire story but again the point is that details matter.
so if you were sitting in the "box of idiots" as a juror, how do we know if it was actual self defense with her in "imminent danger VS if it was revenge and retribution for her abuse? no one can read an other persons mind. every criminal has a list of excuses as long as a roll of toilet paper on how they are innocent. this is why it is very difficult know when it is actually self defense.
sometimes the difference between a conviction or not is the location of an entry and exit wound. every situation is different and you have to convince the jury of your side because everyone is a lair.
so if you were sitting in the "box of idiots" as a juror, how do we know if it was actual self defense with her in "imminent danger VS if it was revenge and retribution for her abuse? no one can read an other persons mind. every criminal has a list of excuses as long as a roll of toilet paper on how they are innocent. this is why it is very difficult know when it is actually self defense.
sometimes the difference between a conviction or not is the location of an entry and exit wound. every situation is different and you have to convince the jury of your side because everyone is a lair.
Psilent Knight
Blue Belt
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2017
- Messages
- 212
- Reaction score
- 46
Very, very informative and well thought out post hoshin. Thank You.
There is an extra benefit to this thread. This thread has convinced me that perhaps our efforts to avoid tragedies should be beefed up.
I am becoming more vigilant in practicing Awareness, Avoidance, Precautions, Deescalation, Escape and other precautionary measures. There is a saying that an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.
By examining the cases that were discussed here (the Texas father, the Bronx, NY husband and the poor family in CT.) we have the opportunity to ask ourselves two very important questions:
1). What would we do in those situations?
2). What can we do to greatly minimize the possibility of being in such situations?
#vigilance
@hoshin1600 I want to SINCERELY THANK YOU for your approach in our discussion. Even though you disagreed with me you were willing to read my posts to see where I was coming from and addressed where you felt I had the wrong way of viewing things. You didn't immediately go into "winning an argument" mode. This is where many others went wrong imo.
There is an extra benefit to this thread. This thread has convinced me that perhaps our efforts to avoid tragedies should be beefed up.
I am becoming more vigilant in practicing Awareness, Avoidance, Precautions, Deescalation, Escape and other precautionary measures. There is a saying that an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.
By examining the cases that were discussed here (the Texas father, the Bronx, NY husband and the poor family in CT.) we have the opportunity to ask ourselves two very important questions:
1). What would we do in those situations?
2). What can we do to greatly minimize the possibility of being in such situations?
#vigilance
@hoshin1600 I want to SINCERELY THANK YOU for your approach in our discussion. Even though you disagreed with me you were willing to read my posts to see where I was coming from and addressed where you felt I had the wrong way of viewing things. You didn't immediately go into "winning an argument" mode. This is where many others went wrong imo.
I have no sympathy for wife beaters. If I was on the jury I wouldn'tve given her a guilty verdict.
