• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

justified use of self defense ?

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zX-ZuIOJKk

Man with a gun threatens great bodily harm or death.

Are you seriously suggesting that the LEO's statements give you the right to draw a firearm and shoot him in "self defense?"

While the officer's comments may be actionable in a civil case or complaint -- and you SHOULD pursue a complaint against him -- the idea that you could shoot him -- or ANYone -- for making that statement is just wrong.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Legally, probably not.

Morally, I'd say, probably the same, because it would seem that he's just blowing smoke.

Which are you asking about? If you're asking about the legality of using lethal force in a situation such as that one, I'd say that almost certainly lethal force would not be justified based on what can be seen and heard in the video, but if you knew where this video was taken the law could be gandered at anyway.
 

Samopal

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
66
Location
Northville, MI
No, a person threatening to "break your ******* face" does not just justify the use of force. As JamesCanby said, it's grounds for a complaint, but that's it. Only if the officer continued to escalate the situation and put you in fear of real harm would you be justified in defending yourself.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I would, as a jurist, make a finding of self defense. Based on the video.

Just shows the variety of answers one can expect.
 
Last edited:

onus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
699
Location
idaho
When a man with a gun approaches you and threatens great bodily harm or death it defies common sense to wait until he starts to beat or kill you to defend yourself.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I would, as a jurist, make a finding of self defense. Based on the video.

Just shows the variety of answers one can expect.

Me too. Are folks supposed to wait for a guy to actually punch us in the face to defend ourselves? Or are people balking because a costumed state agent made the threat?
 

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
When a man with a gun approaches you and threatens great bodily harm or death it defies common sense to wait until he starts to beat or kill you to defend yourself.

First, you were dishonest in your original characterization. It wasn't just "a man carrying a gun." It was an on-duty police officer in uniform -- of course he had a gun. The officer's conduct was wrong on several counts and a complaint should be filed, but other than using "fighting words," the officer did not touch you. From the video it is evident that there were several other officers around and had you drawn your firearm "in self defense" I suspect the last thing your camera would have recorded was your death. Admit it -- you were there to bait the officer into this reaction, and he fell for it. Now you come here and present a false scenario, aided and abetted by "the usual cop-bashing suspects," one of which even posted that if he were a juror at your trial he would vote to acquit. Unfortunately, he would never get the chance to acquit because you would have become deceased moments after drawing your firearm.
 

JustJack

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2013
Messages
82
Location
Findlay, Ohio, United States
I neither agree, nor disagree with anyone's comments up to this point. Everyone has, and is entitled to, their own opinion. However, I have to ask myself, if the aggressive gentleman had NOT been a uniformed police officer, and simply been a larger, aggressive man, with an openly carried firearm, would any of your opinions change?
 

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
I neither agree, nor disagree with anyone's comments up to this point. Everyone has, and is entitled to, their own opinion. However, I have to ask myself, if the aggressive gentleman had NOT been a uniformed police officer, and simply been a larger, aggressive man, with an openly carried firearm, would any of your opinions change?

"Fighting words" are just that -- words. Until and unless there was a physical attack or a drawn firearm, and I was completely blameless in instigating that attack (which I posit Onus was NOT), and depending on your location where one may have the duty to retreat ... deadly force is not justified.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
"Fighting words" are just that -- words. Until and unless there was a physical attack or a drawn firearm, and I was completely blameless in instigating that attack (which I posit Onus was NOT), and depending on your location where one may have the duty to retreat ... deadly force is not justified.

So when would the person be OK, legally?

1) When he makes a threat (and its not "fighting words" in this case ... its a threat - they guy has a gun, its a real threat).
2) When he then touches his gun?
3) When he begins to draw?
4) When he fully draws?
5) When he cocks the gun, if single action
6) When he points it at him
7) When he shoots him
8) After he shoots him
9) When he is are en-route to a hospital
10) After he is buried

Wait until #2 and you may as well be dead ... right?

If a cop says he is going to kill him and he has the immediate means to do so; I would take him at his word that this is exactly what will occur w/o any intervention. Because I'm a trusting individual.

This is the thought processes I would bring to bear as a jurist in such a case.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I neither agree, nor disagree with anyone's comments up to this point. Everyone has, and is entitled to, their own opinion. However, I have to ask myself, if the aggressive gentleman had NOT been a uniformed police officer, and simply been a larger, aggressive man, with an openly carried firearm, would any of your opinions change?

Exactly. +1

I would give no deference to the fact he was a LEO in a jury room.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
When a man with a gun approaches you and threatens great bodily harm or death it defies common sense to wait until he starts to beat or kill you to defend yourself.

I would find you not-guilty by way of self-defense if I was a juror, but I'll never be called again I am pretty sure of that.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Me too. Are folks supposed to wait for a guy to actually punch us in the face to defend ourselves? Or are people balking because a costumed state agent made the threat?

Yes, that is what, I believe, is happening.

If you had done that to me or visa versa, I believe that more people would have said yes, that self-defense was warranted.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
"Fighting words" are just that -- words. Until and unless there was a physical attack or a drawn firearm, and I was completely blameless in instigating that attack (which I posit Onus was NOT), and depending on your location where one may have the duty to retreat ... deadly force is not justified.

It's not 'just words' there was the closing of distance to instigate an attack on the holder of the camera. It was a directly threatening move.

It is 'just words' IYO if the camera had be snatched, slapped, destroyed, etc? The camera holder was not visibly breaking any laws. Making threats on someone's life, especially whiled armed, is illegal.
 

Medic1210

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
298
Location
Rockingham, NC
So if you beat or shoot the guy, and get arrested for assaulting or killing an officer, just claim you beat him as a person, not as a police officer...


Joking aside, just a quick personal example of how the officer's threat would be looked at in court. A buddy of mine took his ex wife's new husband to court for several things, one of which was issuing threats. Basically the guy said to my friend, "If you talk to my wife again, I will kill you."

The judge ruled that the fact he said "If" it couldn't be treated as a valid threat, because it indicated a separate event needed to occur before he would act. Sounds utterly ridiculous, but that is what was ruled.

Reason I mention all this is, the officer said, "If you take my picture..." It could be ruled it wasn't an actual threat because it indicated something that might happen only if another photo was taken.

The law can be stupid sometimes.
 
Last edited:

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
SNIP

If a cop says he is going to kill him and he has the immediate means to do so; I would take him at his word that this is exactly what will occur w/o any intervention. Because I'm a trusting individual.

SNIP

Well, we ARE supposed to trust cops to tell the truth. :rolleyes:

So, as a juror I am supposed to believe that the cops cannot be trusted? :uhoh:
 
Top