You were the one willing to murder someone before you even knew they had intentions of hurting you. Maybe there had been home break-ins in the area and he saw a stranger standing about possibly scoping out the neighborhood and his intentions was to find out what you were doing there and at most run you off if you didn’t have a good reason to be there.
All you had to do was tell him you just finished up doing some work and were waiting for your ride. But you didn’t answer thus increasing the tension and then got in a car and left probably making him think you did have bad intentions and that he now needs to keep an eye out for you.
Some people have their “Everyone is out to get me.” glasses on all the time and see things through that lens.
Exactly. The scenario that you described doesn’t appear to rise to the level where you have the right to use force. While it certainly is a situation where I’d be wary, probably would feel nervous, and would take some actions to either de-escalate the situation or to put myself in a safe position, none of that includes preemptively attacking this person.
No one is saying that this guy wasn’t up to no good. He may have very well have been planning to mess you up. But under our system of law you need more than a gut feel and some potentially suspicious activity to attack someone.
You may have felt threatened, but you were NOT threatened. No offensive action was taken toward you. If you had used lethal force at that point, you’d be justifiably tried for murder.
Because in the most favorable interpretation of what you said, a guy walked up to you while daring to possess the same level of armament as you and asked what you were doing. You didn’t try to resolve the situation, get away, or find out if he was actually threatening you. Instead, you wanted to kill him on the spot (if lethal force is justified, that means it’s OK to kill him on the spot), and felt that it should be legally OK to do so, and that we should back you up on this morally. When people said that you’re not justified in killing the guy for this offense, you decided that they were saying you have to bow down to him, completely ignoring the huge range of possibilities between ‘bow down to him’ and ‘kill him on the spot.’
In general in the US, perfectly fine for someone to arm himself with a non-firearm like a 2x4 or blackjack, walk in a public space, and ask someone a basic question. Anywhere where picking up a large solid object results in a weapons charge is going to be a place carrying a concealed blackjack is at least as bad (for example, neither of you would be in the clear in the UK, though he has a better chance at defending his 2x4 than you would your blackjack). He hasn’t actually done any kind of overt threat, and his actions are actually consistent with a concerned citizen who wants to check out something that’s going on.
Right, so you carry a weapon for personal protection because you feel that some neighborhoods are dangerous, but (presumably) you don’t think people should be allowed to kill you for that. So why can’t the other guy do exactly what you’re doing (carrying a weapon) for exactly the reason you are (personal protection) without making it OK for you to kill him?
Might be relevant that split p&j is a dedicated 9/11 truther, and most of his posts are about that. This thread two years ago was started by someone positing a slightly more implausible theory than his own, and his response was that that OP was part of a “disinformation campaign” to help pave the way for our imminent invasion of Syria.
Not trying to be a dick, but I think it goes to outlook, paranoia, etc.
I think that openly carrying a weapon can mean ‘don’t mess with me’ or ‘I’m worried that guy might try to fight me, maybe this will deter him if he’s a bad guy’, while carrying a hidden weapon can mean ‘I’m going to attack you by surprise’, and the legal system tends to frown on concealed weapons much more than openly carried ones. So they signal different things, but not necessarily in the way that you appear to be implying.
I definitely don’t agree with the contention that carrying a 2x4 openly and asking questions warrants death while carrying a concealed blackjack is perfectly fine.
But the thing is, a stranger isn’t going to know you’re carrying a concealed weapon unless you tell them, so how can it signal anything to them? The fact is it doesn’t; an exposed weapon sure as hell does. That is my point.
I question why you think concealed weapons are frowned upon more than open ones. More states allow concealed carrythan open carry, so the law doesn’t seem to support that.
Common sense doesn’t either. Unless you’re expecting me to believe you would react to a man pointing a gun at you the same way you would if the man had nothing in his hands.
How do we know that he was a thug? What about him was thuglike in his appearance or his demeanor? What does being a hardworking person have to do with anything?
If you believe this person was threatening to you, you must be able to articulate what evidence led you to this conclusion. No one is saying you have to bow down to him. Practically everyone on this thread has asked you to supply more information so we can understand your perspective.
FWIW, understanding your perspective is precisely what the jury will be asked to do. If you cannot articulate your observations in a way a reasonable person can understand and agree with, then you would stand no chance at trial.
And to address this. If the guy thought the OP was dangerous enough to warrant a 2x4 for protection, he acted imprudently by approaching him and demanding to know what he was doing.
First, it’s stupid because if the OP was up to no good, he sure as shit wouldn’t be indulging his questions with the truth. So what is the point of the question? It was provocative by design. He should’ve just kept an eye on the OP from afar, if he was that intrigued about his presence.
Second, it’s stupid because if the OP was up to no good, a 2x4 is no contest against a gun or whatever firearm the OP could’ve been packing. So I infer from this that the guy assumed the OP was unarmed and wanted to scare him.
I think the OP’s belief that he was entitled to use lethal force hasn’t been supported, but I don’t think his assumptions about the guy being a hostile jerk are unfounded. It seems like you’re bending over backwards (as evident by your claims about concealed carry being frowned upon moreso than open) to portray the stranger as a just a curious bloke who didn’t mean no harm.
This seems wrong to me. I would think the fact that it’s public ground implies it’s not okay to ask someone what they’re doing absent special circumstances.
If I’m on private property, nothing further than that fact needs to be true in order for the owner to be perfectly understandable in asking me what I’m doing.
If I’m on public property, then I can’t make sense of someone asking me what I’m doing unless they believe I am in some way infringing on them or on the public.
That’s for carrying firearms, not weapons in general, and the vast majority of those states don’t allow concealed carry as a general rule, but require that someone go through training, background check, and licensing in order for it not to be a crime. We were talking about a 2x4 and a blackjack, not firearms, and there were no permits involved. I think that openly carrying a 2x4 while walking around a neighborhood is legal or much more minor of an offense than carrying a concealed blackjack in every state, I don’t know of any counterexamples. In North Carolina, for example, the guy with the 2x4 is completely fine, the guy with the concealed blackjack is committing a crime even if he has a concealed carry permit (though wouldn’t if he was carrying it openly). In New York, the 2x4 doesn’t count as a deadly weapon but the blackjack does, and concealment doesn’t matter.
It’s not common sense to equate a guy carrying a 2x4 in his hand with a guy pointing a gun directly at you.
OP, your question is a difficult one. I think every single post I’ve read in this thread has been far too pat, and frankly, (generally unconsciously) racist.
Comparisons with “reverse the race” scenarios are absolutely not helpful here, because there are important facts about how the actual races actually interact with other in this country that are directly relevant to the OP’s question.
OP, from a legal standpoint, you’re not justified as far as I know in attacking the person you describe.
From a moral standpoint? I’d absolve you of the crime (or at the least, give you the benefit of the doubt). White people need to learn to stay the fuck away from black people who are just doing their job and not bothering (or even interacting) with anyone else. Pay them the same goddamned courtesy you’d pay your own people.
Even if the guy was imprudent, stupid, and should have done something differently, none of that warrants the use of lethal force against him. The OP acted imprudently too, and that doesn’t mean the other guy would be justified in killing him.
At no point have I claimed that the stranger was just a curious bloke who meant no harm. I haven’t even argued that the guy wasn’t a hostile jerk, just that he didn’t actually do anything that warranted the OP killing him. And please point out a single state where carrying a 2x4 openly is illegal but carrying a blackjack concealed isn’t.
I’m kind of surprised how flippantly people are treating this question, and sadly, it only supports the OP’s preemptive accusation about this board’s bias. Calling it “just a question” takes a galling amount of obtuseness.
I’ve never been asked “what are you doing here?” by a stranger, like ever. But if the happened, the question better be prefaced with a “excuse me, miss” or “I’m sorry, but I need to ask” or something that implies the person has only innocent intentions and most importantly, assumes the same of me.
Because if you come at me demanding to explain my existence like I’ve done something wrong even though I’m acting sane and civilized, I can’t promise you I will react kindly towards you. I will instantly perceive you as an enemy.
Sorry for so much cursing but I’m feeling one of those Frylock meltdowns coming on as a result of this thread. Like you I’m kind of surprised and now I’m feeling foolish because I probably shouldn’t be surprised. FRYLOCK ANGRY.