Doorbell ditching

[NeuroTypical]

20 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

God bless America. That would never fly here. 

Yeah, well, you gotta keep an eye on MA, MD, ME, MN, NJ, NY, and RI when you say that.  

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/04/20/3-4-of-states-are-now-stand-your-ground-only-12-are-duty-to-retreat/

[LDSGator]

4 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yeah, well, you gotta keep an eye on MA, MD, ME, MN, NJ, NY, and RI when you say that.  

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/04/20/3-4-of-states-are-now-stand-your-ground-only-12-are-duty-to-retreat/

Oh, I understand and agree with you-to a point. If it’s naive of me to say, fine, but I think even in blue Massachusetts a situation like @Jamie123described would be hard to find. Not impossible though. 
 

[LDSGator]

50 minutes ago, Vort said:

That's just what I was thinking.

@Vort, how would a situation like Jamie described play in Seattle? 
 

In Boston-a city just as liberal-I’m almost certain that the sympathies would be with the victim here. I’m sure you could get a jury of Cambridge communists who would throw him in jail, but even the average liberal Bostonian would be sympathetic. 

[Vort]

12 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

@Vort, how would a situation like Jamie described play in Seattle? 
 

In Boston-a city just as liberal-I’m almost certain that the sympathies would be with the victim here. I’m sure you could get a jury of Cambridge communists who would throw him in jail, but even the average liberal Bostonian would be sympathetic. 

Same here, I think. Not sure about downtown Seattle proper. That place is infested with certified lunatics. But even there, I don't think people would look askance on someone who gave a home invader the beatdown, especially under the circumstances Jamie described.

[mikbone]

Edited April 17, 2023 by mikbone

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

Heh.  @ChudsOfTikTok.  Sort of the ideological opposite of @LibsOfTikTok.  Such sources can be a good starting place, but folks miiiiiiiight want to look around for additional sources of information before coming to any conclusions.

 

[mikbone]

40 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Heh.  @ChudsOfTikTok.  Sort of the ideological opposite of @LibsOfTikTok.  Such sources can be a good starting place, but folks miiiiiiiight want to look around for additional sources of information before coming to any conclusions.

 

https://www.kcur.org/news/2023-04-17/ralph-yarl-andrew-lester-shooting-charges-kansas-city-clay-county

Pretty awful case.  

Edited April 18, 2023 by mikbone

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

20 hours ago, mikbone said:

That is too bad, but I wonder if Social Media is a completely credible source for news. Is there an actual news story on this?

Edit, missed the story above. hmm, problamatic.

Edited April 18, 2023 by Emmanuel Goldstein

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

18 hours ago, mikbone said:

https://www.kcur.org/news/2023-04-17/ralph-yarl-andrew-lester-shooting-charges-kansas-city-clay-county

Pretty awful case.  

I wonder if this happened to my son that the outpouring of sympathy and the Go Fund Me would reach almost 3 million. Just wondering, not criticizing the outpour.

[NeuroTypical]

48 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

I wonder if this happened to my son that the outpouring of sympathy and the Go Fund Me would reach almost 3 million. Just wondering, not criticizing the outpour.

We already know the answer.  The exact same chances as any of the 20 people shot in Chicago last week.

https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-weekend-shootings-today-violence-police/13108671/

If it doesn't forward a liberal gun control or white racism narrative, nobody cares, nobody talks about it, nobody thinks about it.

Edited April 18, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[Still_Small_Voice]

23 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yeah, well, you gotta keep an eye on Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island when you say that.  

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/04/20/3-4-of-states-are-now-stand-your-ground-only-12-are-duty-to-retreat/

I am shocked to find out that Nebraska is a duty to retreat State except in your workplace or home.  With duty to retreat laws you want to ask the lawmakers if they realize criminals can also run and drive as well as we can.

[LDSGator]

23 minutes ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

I am shocked to find out that Nebraska is a duty to retreat State except in your workplace or home.  With duty to retreat laws you want to ask the lawmakers if they realize criminals can also run and drive as well as we can.

That surprise me too! Odd law for such a conservative state. 

[Jamie123]

8 hours ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

I am shocked to find out that Nebraska is a duty to retreat State except in your workplace or home.  With duty to retreat laws you want to ask the lawmakers if they realize criminals can also run and drive as well as we can.

If, in a state where there is a "duty to retreat", I am threatened but don't retreat (I don't actually use force against my attacker - I just don't retreat before him) would I be arrested and prosecuted for breaking the law?

[LDSGator]

8 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

If, in a state where there is a "duty to retreat", I am threatened but don't retreat (I don't actually use force against my attacker - I just don't retreat before him) would I be arrested and prosecuted for breaking the law?

Using deadly force, even if justified, will almost certainly get you detained and arrested. 
 

Prosecuted? Maybe. Many prosecutors care much more about headlines and their own careers then right and wrong so it depends. 

[Vort]

8 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

If, in a state where there is a "duty to retreat", I am threatened but don't retreat (I don't actually use force against my attacker - I just don't retreat before him) would I be arrested and prosecuted for breaking the law?

No. "Duty to retreat" refers to fleeing from an attack in preference to meeting the attack with deadly force. If you don't use force, "duty to retreat" doesn't apply. Even in Massachusetts, you don't actually have the duty to run away from an attacker.

[NeuroTypical]

36 minutes ago, Vort said:

9 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

If, in a state where there is a "duty to retreat", I am threatened but don't retreat (I don't actually use force against my attacker - I just don't retreat before him) would I be arrested and prosecuted for breaking the law?

No. "Duty to retreat" refers to fleeing from an attack in preference to meeting the attack with deadly force. If you don't use force, "duty to retreat" doesn't apply.

Although it's possible you might get charged if you brandish a weapon or act in an aggressive manner.  You might very well get arrested and prosecuted for such things, in certain jurisdictions.  Depends on the legal climate, and the politics of the law enforcement agency and DA's office.

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

Using deadly force, even if justified, will almost certainly get you detained and arrested. 
 

Fixed.

 

 

[LDSGator]

3 hours ago, mirkwood said:

Fixed.

 

 

No. 
 

Tell that to George Zimmerman. And the prosecutor who tried to prosecute him. 
 

Kyle Rittenhouse would also like to speak to you. 
 

So would Lamar Putney. 

I could go on. 

I’m 100% confident there are other people who used deadly force who were arrested and prosecuted, even if they were justified. 

There’s a right wing persecution complex where people are terrified that the government is coming for their right of self defense. I’m saying that’s somewhat justified. In fact, it’s the ONLY right wing alarmist dogma I think is mostly correct. 

Apparently it’s not? Which is it?

Edited April 19, 2023 by LDSGator

[Jamie123]

3 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Fixed.

We don't really use the word "detained" here - except perhaps in its normal non-legal sense of "temporarily delayed". I get the impression that what Americans mean by "detained" is more-or-less what the Brits mean by "arrested". Arrest in the UK does not require probable cause, only reasonable suspicion. People are arrested not as a judgement against them, but to give them rights under police questioning. An arrest would never appear on a person's criminal record (except in a very few extreme cases, and only then with the approval of a chief police officer).

[Just_A_Guy]

55 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Tell that to George Zimmerman. And the prosecutor who tried to prosecute him. 
 

Kyle Rittenhouse would also like to speak to you. 
 

So would Lamar Putney. 

I could go on. 

I’m 100% confident there are other people who used deadly force who were arrested and prosecuted, even if they were justified. 

There’s a right wing persecution complex where people are terrified that the government is coming for their right of self defense. I’m saying that’s somewhat justified. In fact, it’s the ONLY right wing alarmist dogma I think is mostly correct. 

Apparently it’s not? Which is it?

I don’t necessarily disagree with your larger point; but I would just note here that Rittenhouse’s offense was an open- and- shut case of “failure to allow your butt to be kicked while publicly conservative-ing”.  The prosecutor even (basically) said so in his closing argument.

[Ironhold]

9 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t necessarily disagree with your larger point; but I would just note here that Rittenhouse’s offense was an open- and- shut case of “failure to allow your butt to be kicked while publicly conservative-ing”.  The prosecutor even (basically) said so in his closing argument.

Shortly after Rittenhouse surrendered to the authorities, video footage ostensibly from the day of the shootings emerged showing that earlier in the day one of the three men he shot was arguing with an adult who was dressed similarly to Rittenhouse and had similar equipment. 

After seeing this video, I told people that instead of passing judgement they needed to wait for the matter to go to trial. If this was real footage and it was from the day it all went down, then Rittenhouse's defense team could use it to claim "self-defense" and argue that the first person he shot mistook him for the person from before and thus had motive to engage. 

From there, additional evidence came out, including the one survivor admitting that he falsely pretended to surrender before going for his weapon. International rules of warfare actually forbid this action because it can be used as an excuse to justify not taking prisoners. So yeah, the prosecution's case totally dissolved after that. 

Had the prosecutors gone for lesser charges, they likely would have gotten a conviction. But there was too much evidence in Rittenhouse's favor, and so if one took a *very* narrow view of events then it was self-defense. 

[LDSGator]

14 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t necessarily disagree with your larger point; but I would just note here that Rittenhouse’s offense was an open- and- shut case of “failure to allow your butt to be kicked while publicly conservative-ing”.  The prosecutor even (basically) said so in his closing argument.

Understand totally. 

The right is mostly correct on this issue but they take it out on the wrong people. 

Edited April 19, 2023 by LDSGator

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

There’s a right wing persecution complex where people are terrified that the government is coming for their right of self defense. I’m saying that’s somewhat justified. In fact, it’s the ONLY right wing alarmist dogma I think is mostly correct. 

Apparently it’s not? Which is it?

The folks who have given me firearms training put it this way:  If you ever need to use deadly force to defend your life (or the life of a loved one), you have three problems that you will need to deal with: 

First problem, is the bad guy trying to kill you.  Here's all the things we'll be practicing to help you deal with that problem.

Second problem, is the criminal proceedings.  Assume you'll be detained.  Don't be surprised if you are arrested.  You should plan to be charged.  Start thinking about losing jobs, friends, spouses, family.  It happens - even if something never makes it to court.

Third problem, is the civil proceedings.  No matter what the DA does with you, you can expect that bad guy's heirs will come looking for money.  "Ambulance chasers" is a slur on the legal profession, but absolutely, there are 100% lawyers in existence who read police blotters and hunt up next of kin.  It's almost guaranteed.

Assuming you deal with the first problem, a reasonable understanding of problems 2 and 3 mean you'll probably be down 2-3 years of your life and $10-20 grand poorer before you've dealt with those problems. 

 

But yes, you can find cases of self defense so cut-and-dried, that the cops don't even arrest, and no lawyer will touch the civil case.

[LDSGator]

2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

The folks who have given me firearms training put it this way:  If you ever need to use deadly force to defend your life (or the life of a loved one), you have three problems that you will need to deal with: 

First problem, is the bad guy trying to kill you.  Here's all the things we'll be practicing to help you deal with that problem.

Second problem, is the criminal proceedings.  Assume you'll be detained.  Don't be surprised if you are arrested.  You should plan to be charged.  Start thinking about losing jobs, friends, spouses, family.  It happens - even if something never makes it to court.

Third problem, is the civil proceedings.  No matter what the DA does with you, you can expect that bad guy's heirs will come looking for money.  "Ambulance chasers" is a slur on the legal profession, but absolutely, there are 100% lawyers in existence who read police blotters and hunt up next of kin.  It's almost guaranteed.

Assuming you deal with the first problem, a reasonable understanding of problems 2 and 3 mean you'll probably be down 2-3 years of your life and $10-20 grand poorer before you've dealt with those problems. 

 

But yes, you can find cases of self defense so cut-and-dried, that the cops don't even arrest, and no lawyer will touch the civil case.

I totally agree with all of that. Now, you need to tell the John Wayne wannabes who carry guns in their private home and think they can shoot children who just want their soccer ball back after it accidentally went into their yard. 

[LDSGator]

30 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

The folks who have given me firearms training put it this way:  If you ever need to use deadly force to defend your life (or the life of a loved one), you have three problems that you will need to deal with: 

First problem, is the bad guy trying to kill you.  Here's all the things we'll be practicing to help you deal with that problem.

Second problem, is the criminal proceedings.  Assume you'll be detained.  Don't be surprised if you are arrested.  You should plan to be charged.  Start thinking about losing jobs, friends, spouses, family.  It happens - even if something never makes it to court.

Third problem, is the civil proceedings.  No matter what the DA does with you, you can expect that bad guy's heirs will come looking for money.  "Ambulance chasers" is a slur on the legal profession, but absolutely, there are 100% lawyers in existence who read police blotters and hunt up next of kin.  It's almost guaranteed.

Assuming you deal with the first problem, a reasonable understanding of problems 2 and 3 mean you'll probably be down 2-3 years of your life and $10-20 grand poorer before you've dealt with those problems. 

 

But yes, you can find cases of self defense so cut-and-dried, that the cops don't even arrest, and no lawyer will touch the civil case.

And the fourth problem? The person you shot, even if totally justified, probably has friends, family, and even total strangers who will see you and your family as the enemy. And since you used lethal force, they’ll feel justified in using it too. No matter how amazing and indestructible you think you are, you are not.