Dr. Bricker, Dr. Parker, Code Blue. Dr. Bricker, Dr. Parker…
Why? Because I pointed out that witness statements conflict with the officer’s version of events? Seems one of us isn’t keeping an open mind. To be honest, I hope the officer is exonerated unambiguously and completely. I recognize, however, that there is a very real chance that the officer may have unnecessarily killed someone.
It is not. But if you deliberately “shoot someone in the leg”, then you invalidate your self-defense argument and you go to jail. Same result.
Is evading arrest for the felony not a close enough nexus for the felony murder rule? (Assuming that Wilson learned that Brown was a suspect in the robbery during the stop and that this escalated the situation.)
On the broader point, would you ever advise Johnson to admit the he was with Brown during a robbery in the absence of some immunity or some plea negotiation? It seems like a dicey move to me.
I could see how on a particular set of facts a judge or jury might infer a lack of subjective perception of sufficiently imminent harm because the person fired a warning shot–though even that inference seems barely strong enough to survive post-trial scrutiny.
I very much doubt this is such a consistent inference that it is the equivalent of a legal rule that warning or limb shots invalidate a self-defense claim. Do you have any sort of citation for this?
That seems an absurd way of thinking. So, if for instance, I have a man running at me with a knife yelling, “I’ll kill you” and I decide not to shoot for center mass, but hit him in the leg, thereby halting the attack, all of a sudden my life wasn’t in danger in the first place?
This is false. Both the affirmative defense of self defense and any categorical stand your ground self defense laws do not necessitate where you aim when engaging in said defense.
That being said, it is not typical procedure for police to aim anywhere other than center mass. Higher effective rate.
[QUOTE=Terr]
It is not. But if you deliberately “shoot someone in the leg”, then you invalidate your self-defense argument and you go to jail. Same result.
[/QUOTE]
You’re being silly. Not shooting to wound or warn is defensible on practical grounds. Trying to defend it on the grounds of criminal liability is a non-starter.
The robbery is complete at the moment they reach a temporary place of safety; i.e. they aren’t being actively chased anymore. My understanding is they were pretty much just walking down the street and had been doing so for a few minutes, so I think on those facts the felony is probably complete. But I think there’s an argument, at least.
If you have the time, or “leisure” if you will to shoot a warning shot instead of straight at the person, then the threat to you is not that “immediate”. It may not be a “legal rule”. But it has been argued and that point of view won.
In short, don’t draw your firearm until you honestly believe you are in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm. And if that is truly your belief, you don’t have the leisure of brandishing, shooting to wound, or firing a warning shot.
Just because some jury or judge somewhere has bought a bad argument, that doesn’t mean it is likely to be used against you if you ever need to use self-defense. There are millions of court cases across the United States. I guarantee a judge or jury somewhere has denied a self-defense claim for even stupider reasons than this. If you tried to adjust your practices for each of them, I’m sure you’d be unable because they are probably internally contradictory.
I guess if this sort of thing were being used to successfully overcome self-defense claims on a regular basis then I would take it seriously. But there’s no evidence of that, right?
So last night, a cop (appears to be state police) in Ferguson pointed his gun at protesters and said “I will fucking kill you.” http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/20/1323262/-Officer-to-protesters-I-will-f-king-kill-you
Right. But it was argued in defense of a theory that no right to lethal force attached in the first place. If the individual in that case had shot to kill instead of shooting to warn or wound, that would have been a much worse outcome. Shooting to kill would not have bootstrapped the self defense theory into legitimacy.
The takeaway is don’t draw your gun until you need it to safe your life. The takeaway is not if you need your gun to save your life, you must kill someone with it.
It is bad enough that Florida legislature is considering a law that legalizes warning shots. And, IIRC, Arizona already passed one.
The text that he quotes does not support this conclusion. (It supports the first sentence, but not the second.)
Ken Hanson’s point is that drawing your gun is not legally held to a lower standard than shooting the guy. And hence, in any situation in which you can’t shoot the guy you also can’t draw your gun.
But the weak link is the notion that if you have the leisure to shoot a warning shot you must not have been in immediate danger. I don’t think this follows. You could argue that you were in great danger and the steps you took to minimize this danger were to draw your gun or shoot a warning shot and so on, so as to scare the guy off and eliminate the danger. Where has this argument ever been rejected?
Post #1673.
What proof do you have that this officer had an automatic weapon?
It appears to me that the lame stream media is doing it’s best to harass the police. Maybe the media is just trying to get more exciting pictures that they could then sell for higher prices?
If the legislature has to pass a law to legalize warning shots, it must be because its presently illegal to fire warning shots. Does Shotgun Joe Biden know this? 
This is a two-fold misunderstanding. First, warning shots may well be illegal, but that has nothing to do with whether they are sufficient to disprove an otherwise legitimate case of self-defense. And second, legislatures pass laws to make things legal that are already legal all the time. Pretty much every year there’s a legislature that passes a law making private prayer in school legal. They know it’s already legal, of course, but it gets 'em votes anyway.
Coming from you, I can’t tell if this is supposed to be sarcastic or not.
Why would it matter if the gun is automatic or not? Are you telling me that you think the officer’s behavior is professional and apprpriate?
Even if the officer is being provoked, don’t you think that the kind of person who can be provoked into pointing his gun in someone’s face and saying “I’m going to fucking kill you,” is the kind of person who shouldn’t be a police officer?
ETA: I’d love to hear your defense of the British soldiers at the Boston Masacre.