Refresh my memory of NC law

imported post

This is a very interesting topic.

What if someone pointed a fake gun a you that looked real. You shoot and AFTER THE FACT it's discovered the gun was fake. So there was no imminent threat but I don't see how any jury would convict the shooter.

Likewise I think the hand in pocket is the same.

If LEO's are acquitted for shooting unarmed people who they suspect are armed but actually have a candy-bar, a wallet, or a hairbrush, the same standard should be set for non-LEO's.

http://cornellsun.com/node/26276

imported post

Think about it - Hand in the pocket - Even if he had a gun, BG would have to draw it and point it before firing.

Object, held and pointed as if it were a firearm. Whether it's a real gun, fake gun, or a snickers bar, if I were the one being pointed at, I'd assume it was a real gun.

You're talking about time differences in less than a second, but how long is some attorney going to have to make you look guilty.

imported post

BigDogOps wrote:

Think about it - Hand in the pocket - Even if he had a gun, BG would have to draw it and point it before firing.

Click to expand...

Why would the BG have to draw to fire?

imported post

Need to refine your "duty to retreat" You can be under a threatat any time, the key is that the threat must be immediate of imminent death, great bodily harm or sexual assultwhere duty to retreat does not apply. It also does not apply if you are on your own personal property which could be your home or place of business.

imported post

Well, you got me on that one - I'm thinking pants pocket, not coat pocket. You have a point.

Sig45man, you are also correct about your own property.

imported post

Real or fake doesn't matter as you have to believe that you are under immediate threat. If it looks real then it was real in your mind. Someone telling you that they have a gun doesn't pass the test, someone brandishing an item that would be reasonably believed to be a gun does.

Does that mean you may end up in a situation where you are danger and legally unable to take a life? Yes. You could get shot through the pants. You could also get shot by someone walking down the street who didn't try to rob you. Unfortunately we have to draw a legal line, or people would get away with murder.

imported post

this is where hand to hand combat COULD come into play!

imported post

Found this while I was surfing the net tonight
and My mind went back to this post

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm




"when threatened violence exists, it is the duty of the person threatened to use all prudent and precautionary measures to prevent the attack; for example, if by closing a door which was usually left open, one could prevent an attack, it would be prudent, and perhaps the law might require, that it should be closed in order to preserve the peace, and the aggressor might in such case be held to bail for his good behaviour. Secondly, if after having taken such proper precautions, a party should be assailed, he may undoubtedly repel force by force, but in most instances cannot, under the pretext that he has been attacked, use force enough to kill the assailant or hurt him after he has secured himself from danger; such as if a person unarmed enters a house to commit a larceny, while there he does not threaten any one, nor does any act which manifests an intention to hurt any one, and there are a number of persons present who may easily secure him, no one will be justifiable to do him any injury, much less to kill him; he ought to be secured and delivered to the public authorities. But when an attack is made by a thief under such circumstances, and it is impossible to ascertain to what extent he may push it, the law does not requite the party assailed to weigh with great nicety the probable extent of the attack, and he may use the most violent means against his assailant, even to the taking of his life. For homicide may be excused where a man has no other probable means of preserving his life from one who attacks him while in the commission of a felony, or even on a sudden quarrel he beats him, so that he is reduced to this inevitable necessity. And the reason is that when so reduced, he cannot call to his aid the power of society or of the commonwealth, and being unprotected by law, he reassumes his natural rights which the law sanctions, of killing his adversary to protect himself. "