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.
A BB gun even. My goodness if you get shot with one a them things it'll take your head plumb off! There oughta be a law!
My first thought to an injured kid on my front porch would be to make sure the kid of ok, and doesn't need medical treatment. Not to tackle the kid while screaming stuff like "I'LL EFFING KILL YEW! Y'ALL DAYUM KIDS GIT OFF MAH LAWN!!"
Disproportionate? Try bat-**** crazy.
Perhaps you don't know much about guns. BB guns kill an average of four people per year.
The officer found the bag with the gun first. So imagine that alarm going off in your head. Then he finds one injured kid on his porch, and one walking away. It's not at all out of line for him to detain the kid. It's just the way he did it that was out of line.
That joke of a press release pretty much says everything we need to know. They're going to do nothing. They're already painting a narrative different than the video, making it sound as though the off duty officer was the aggrieved party because he was "approached" by "suspects involved in the fight". Then they use the blanket phrase "detained ... until on duty officers arrived". Because, you know, pinning down a kid with a choke hold and threatening to kill him is just "detaining" him.
Their investigation will be a sham, they'll find the officer did nothing wrong and let the power tripping ego maniac back on the streets with his gun and license to kill, I mean badge. It's a telling that a cops first reaction isn't to ask what's going on when there's kids in his yard, but rather fly off the handle, rough one of the kids up, and threaten their life.
And of course the usual's on here have a massive hard on.
768.21c Use of deadly force by individual in own dwelling; "dwelling" defined.
(1) In cases in which section 2 of the self-defense act does not apply, the common law of this state applies except that the duty to retreat before using deadly force is not required if an individual is in his or her own dwelling or within the curtilage of that dwelling.
(2) As used in this section, "dwelling" means a structure or shelter that is used permanently or temporarily as a place of abode, including an appurtenant structure attached to that structure or shelter.[28]
In castle doctrine states, I can confront any trespasser on my property. I can also use deadly force if I feel threatened.
That will depend on the state. In Arizona, you cannot use trespass as a justification for deadly force.
As ever, the issue is around the proportionality of force used. Would a reasonable person conclude that the degree of force used was proportional to the situation in which this off-duty officer found himself in.
That joke of a press release pretty much says everything we need to know. They're going to do nothing. They're already painting a narrative different than the video, making it sound as though the off duty officer was the aggrieved party because he was "approached" by "suspects involved in the fight". Then they use the blanket phrase "detained ... until on duty officers arrived". Because, you know, pinning down a kid with a choke hold and threatening to kill him is just "detaining" him.
Their investigation will be a sham, they'll find the officer did nothing wrong and let the power tripping ego maniac back on the streets with his gun and license to kill, I mean badge. It's a telling that a cops first reaction isn't to ask what's going on when there's kids in his yard, but rather fly off the handle, rough one of the kids up, and threaten their life.
And of course the usual's on here have a massive hard on.
I'm afraid this won't be the last time we'll be hearing of this fine, upstanding model officer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
I did say most countries, parts of the US being the exception rather than the general rule.
The tragic deaths of Japanese exchange student Yoshihiro Hattori, Scottish businessman Andrew de Vries, German student Diren Dede and 19-year-old African-American woman Renisha McBride, all being well known cases, alomg with the now famous Joe Horn 911 telephone conversation before he went out and shot two men.
Whilst the controversial Trayvon Martin case in relation to 'stand your ground' also demonstrated the difference between US Law and that of other countries.
There are of course numerous such cases, there were 200 from 2005 to 2012 when this article was published, and there has probably been hundreds more between 2012 and 2017.
In terms of English Law there is no specific requirement that a person must retreat, only that force be reasonable in relation to the threat faced. What is reasonble is generally what a reasonable person would do in a similar situation, there is no legal defintion of what is reasonable and it is for a jury to decide as to what constitutes reasonable.
You have to remember this isn't the UK where disproportionate force can get you a jail sentence. In the US, it doesn't necessarily work like that.
That will depend on the state. In Arizona, you cannot use trespass as a justification for deadly force.
As ever, the issue is around the proportionality of force used. Would a reasonable person conclude that the degree of force used was proportional to the situation in which this off-duty officer found himself in.
In Missouri, the law states that I can use deadly force if I think it is necessary to protect myself, my family, my property and/or my neighbors and/or their property. This law has been found legal in state courts many times.
In Missouri, the law states that I can use deadly force if I think it is necessary to protect myself, my family, my property and/or my neighbors and/or their property. This law has been found legal in state courts many times.
Somehow I think if you used deadly force against a cop, you'd be given the needle, and if you did that to somebody else and they had no weapon and didn't make any threatening moves and just walked on your property, you'd get the needle too.
In Missouri, the law states that I can use deadly force if I think it is necessary to protect myself, my family, my property and/or my neighbors and/or their property. This law has been found legal in state courts many times.
"Missouri 563.031
Extends to any building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance of any kind, whether the building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile (e.g., a camper, RV or mobile home), which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, whether the person is residing there temporarily, permanently or visiting (e.g., a hotel or motel), and any vehicle.
The defense against civil suits is absolute and includes the award of attorney's fees, court costs, and all reasonable expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff."
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.
