• 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.

Philipsburg Town Council

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,123
Location
here nc
Color of Law, the comment he seems to dislike is when I said, "Let go or I'll cut you".
What bs taken out of the contextual during a 'testosterone driven event' potentially a "i fear for my life, great bodily injury" event where you were not the instigator but the victim!

my two cents ...
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,638
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Color of Law, the comment he seems to dislike is when I said, "Let go or I'll cut you".
Montana Code Annotated 2019
TITLE 45. CRIMES
CHAPTER 3. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
Part 1. When Force Justified
Use Of Force In Defense Of Person

45-3-102. Use of force in defense of person. A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary for self-defense or the defense of another against the other person's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm to the person or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
United States Supreme Court case of Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550, 562, 15 S. Ct. 962, 966, 39 L. Ed. 1086 (1895)
Supreme Court Justice, John Marshall Harlan, in Beard stated that:
“The defendant was where he had the right to be, when the deceased advanced upon him in a threatening manner, and with a deadly weapon; and if the accused did not provoke the assault and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life or do him great bodily harm, he was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such way and with such force as, under all the circumstances, he, at the moment, honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, was necessary to save his own life or to protect himself from great bodily injury.” (my emphasis)

Your warning to the aggressor is not fighting words. You have every right to give a warning to the aggressor. If anything the aggressor instigated an assault. Your AG is way out of line.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,123
Location
here nc
Comments that seem like they are a threat of physical violence.

At improper times could end up with one getting into trouble.
Sorry, when suddenly grasped unwanted; and forceable by an antagonist aggressive bully and a comment of "let go, with the explaination of consequences if they don't release you" isnt an escalation threat per se as it is a request to be heeded!

that the bully saw the light to resign, then they should stand down the ag from this frivolous nonsense.

duty to retreat is not an option
 

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,220
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
I will be visiting with the AG today. Hopefully he is just uninformed as to the circumstances. It will either be over today or we shall be getting difficult.
 

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,220
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
Comments that seem like they are a threat of physical violence.

At improper times could end up with one getting into trouble.
Well the "threat of physical violence" was immediately followed by an "act of physical violence" as I grabbed him by the throat. The timing of that act was proper not only in my opinion, but that of the Montana Code Annotated and the Attorney General.

I did meet with the AG and I was accompanied by my Mayor. I told him I assumed he was not completely informed as to the "incident". After reviewing the actual timeline, he reconsidered prosecution. In Montana it is the "Duty of the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the use of force was NOT justified" (MCA 46-16-131). In addition MCA 45-3-102 states "A person is justified in the use of force or threat of force against another when and to the extent necessary to defend himself or another against such others immanent use of unlawful force".
They are now reviewing the "incident" to determine if the "aggressor" will be charged with a felony under MCA 45-5-203, 1, (b) INTIMIDATION.

Truth, Justice, and the American Way prevails again!! Thank you all concerned for your "sounding board" activities during the last week. Long Live the Republic!!
 
Top