Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If they did this and he shot them THEN it would have been self defense and there would not have even been a trial.
In New Jersey we have what is called "reasonable retreat" which basically means if you have any means of escape you must use it. It's a bunch of crap. In this state (and New York) you're basically dead before deadly force is justified. In this case it would have been a fatal mistake to retreat. The angry villagers with pitchforks and torches are only going to wait around for so long before they storm the castle walls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Peterson
It was his ego that made him go outside not fear for his family. He was not going to let some punk kids push his family around.
I just don't think that's a fair statement. Picture your child (whether you have one or not) running into your house and saying "Dad, there's a bunch of guys after me telling they're going to kill me and they're coming here right now." Can you honestly say that your ego is going to drive what you're going to do? Personally I'd be acting in best interests of my family's safety, not my reputation.
I'm wondering why this thread hasn't "caught fire" like the last one did-maybe everyone else is too busy Christmas shopping...
In New Jersey we have what is called "reasonable retreat" which basically means if you have any means of escape you must use it. It's a bunch of crap. In this state (and New York) you're basically dead before deadly force is justified. In this case it would have been a fatal mistake to retreat. The angry villagers with pitchforks and torches are only going to wait around for so long before they storm the castle walls.
I just don't think that's a fair statement. Picture your child (whether you have one or not) running into your house and saying "Dad, there's a bunch of guys after me telling they're going to kill me and they're coming here right now." Can you honestly say that your ego is going to drive what you're going to do? Personally I'd be acting in best interests of my family's safety, not my reputation.
I'm wondering why this thread hasn't "caught fire" like the last one did-maybe everyone else is too busy Christmas shopping...
There is a huge difference between retreating and taking the offensive. So big a difference in fact that there is a middle ground, "standing your ground".
Even if they did not have the choice, he was outside and asked them to leave all the while holding a pistol. I do not see anything in here about them then approaching him, all I see is that he then shot the boy. It does not seem to me that his or his sons life was threatened at this point yet he shot anyway.
Bottom line, the threat was diminished but he shot anyway.
I could see your argument if there was one guy outside, or even two, but there were five. When those guys saw guns they should have backed off. They bluffed-John White called it.
I could see your argument if there was one guy outside, or even two, but there were five. When those guys saw guns they should have backed off. They bluffed-John White called it.
Bottom line. By going outside he loses the ability to cite self defense.
Bottom line. By going outside he loses the ability to cite self defense.
So if I display a show of force to basically say "Go home before you get hurt" and the person still insists on continuing with the attack I've now lost the right to use said force to defend against said attack? IMO he did these guys a favor by showing them a weapon first. They could have turned tail and everyone could have gone home alive. I really hate to use a movie reference here, but remember in the old Wild West flicks where a brawl would be going on in barroom and the Marshall comes in, fires a gun into the air as a warning, and everyone stops what they're doing? It sounds like that's what John White did, and instead of ceasing and desisting, the guys continued their attack until Mr. White was finally forced to use deadly force against them.
So if I display a show of force to basically say "Go home before you get hurt" and the person still insists on continuing with the attack I've now lost the right to use said force to defend against said attack? IMO he did these guys a favor by showing them a weapon first. They could have turned tail and everyone could have gone home alive. I really hate to use a movie reference here, but remember in the old Wild West flicks where a brawl would be going on in barroom and the Marshall comes in, fires a gun into the air as a warning, and everyone stops what they're doing? It sounds like that's what John White did, and instead of ceasing and desisting, the guys continued their attack until Mr. White was finally forced to use deadly force against them.
The problem with your argument is that he went on the offensive by going outside.
Offensive just happens to be the opposite of defensive.
Even though they went to his yard he made the choice to approach them outside.
I probably would see this different if he went out on his porch and told them to leave. If they then still approached him he may have been within his right to defend but he did not do this. He went toward them. This goes completely against self defense.
I just don't see a difference between being attacked in your home, in your yard, in your car, on the street, etc... Especially after you've shown that you have the ability (and every intention) to defend yourself. I honestly think its scary that public opinion (so far) says that you're not within your legal right to display a show of force on your own property in an attempt to scare off an attacker WITHOUT actually using force and using it when the attacker ignores the warning and proceeds.
I hunt near a military base that has sensitive areas which are off limits to the public. The signs say "NO TRESSPASSING. USE OF DEADLY FORCE AUTHORIZED." If I go over that fence anyway and end up getting shot, is the military at fault because I ignored their warning? Yet another example-many people, myself included, keep a 12 gauge pump action shotgun for home defense. Why? Aside from the obvious stopping power and lack of a need for pinpoint accuracy, a pump action shot gun makes a loud, metallic, unmistakable sound when a shell is loaded into the chamber. To most rational people, that sound means that you mean business, and that whatever they were doing to cause that sound to be made, they ought to stop it because the only thing left to do at that point is to point the gun at something and squeeze the trigger. Again, these were given a warning, which they ignored, and they received nothing less than what they were warned about.
Last edited by Badfish740; 12-21-2007 at 04:14 PM..
I just don't see a difference between being attacked in your home, in your yard, in your car, on the street, etc... Especially after you've shown that you have the ability (and every intention) to defend yourself. I honestly think its scary that public opinion (so far) says that you're not within your legal right to display a show of force on your own property in an attempt to scare off an attacker WITHOUT actually using force and using it when the attacker ignores the warning and proceeds. I hunt near a military base that has sensitive areas which are off limits to the public. The signs say "NO TRESSPASSING. USE OF DEADLY FORCE AUTHORIZED." If I go over that fence anyway and end up getting shot, is the military at fault because I ignored their warning?
Another completely irrelevant example.
I am done with this because I have said it many times already.
He went on the offensive hence self defense is not now an option in a court of law.
He went on the offensive hence self defense is not now an option in a court of law.
So maybe it isn't, but do you think it is, or it should be? At the end of the day its what the 12 jurors think anyway. I'd really like to hear from the folks who commented on the Texas case because I'd say about 80% of the people posting on that thread basically said that those guys deserved to die just for stealing (which I strongly disagree with), so I wonder what they'd have to say about this?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
