One reason to "not go off" on a driver. (Page 2)

DanielG - 2012-08-30 12:00 PM

inmyelement - 2012-08-30 12:53 PMIf it is proven that the driver could have driven off safely,is it still as cut and dry of a case?

Yes.http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(qfvabxrhptnl0fy51er0xd45))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-780-972

SELF-DEFENSE ACT (EXCERPT)Act 309 of 2006780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following appliesa) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

I guess it does look to be that cut and dry.  As a CC permit holder, this is one of the failure of CC, IMO.

That's the rubbing point...

You say that's not tough to prove in this case.  I contend it is.

Based on people that have weighed in just in this thread, at's at LEAST 50/50 people felt he might have had other options and wouldn't buy he "honestly and resonably believed..."

If the jury is 50/50 as well...  Is it worth the risk to kill someone and go to gail for it if they punch you?  Those aren't good odds to me.  If I'm going to put someone down, I'm going to exhaust any other option first, then I know I "honestly and resonably believed".

If this was a story of someone breaking in with a weapon and got killed?  I would be cheering.  But there seems to be too much doubt, that I wouldn't want to put my life in a juror's hands.

First of all escape but if you can't...  I am not going to sit there getting punched.  This is not a cyclist but an attacker no diferent than anyone else of the streets.

We have a few young guys that ride with us and of course if any car even comes the least bit close they need to yell and flip them off.  That does a lot of good.  The driver might not retaliate right then because there are a lot of us but who knows when they see someone out alone. 

Duane

Leeaving the scene entirely vs driving a hundred yards up the street are 2 completely different things.  If you drive up and he follows you pull up a little more.  The cyclist will get tired sooner or later, all the while expanding the "scene".

The story made it sound as the cyclists was riding on the sidewalk and rode from the sidewalk into the crosswalk and hit the truck in the side when the Do Not Cross was showing.

Let's be reasonable, that's a little silly, don't you think?  I'm sure if you were in a car accident and the cars were on fire, they would not charge you with leaving the scene.

Or in this case, if they prove the driver really did feel his life was in danger, they are not going to say he should stick around and get hurt/killed to not break the "leaving the scene of an accident" law.

That would be like charging bystanders for running into a street to pull someone out of a burning car for J-walking.

Quite possibly, while getting punched in the face repeatably  the ability to evaluate all of your options is not as easy as reacting with a solution that will stop the assault asap. Hindsight is 20 20, we have the ability to do something the victim did not and that is to talk and decide what she/he should have done with unlimited time to think about it, when the victim/shooter did not.

Not to mention the other variables.   This wasn't a guy walking down a street that punched someone and then got shot. This biker got hit by a car first, injecting a heightened emotionally variable to the situation. The person getting punched was in a car (a deadly weapon in itself) belted in. We don't know what the traffic was like (could they escape the assault), what the conversation prior to the assault and shooting. Way to many varaibles that affect judgement and ones feeling of "life threatening".

That's pretty interesting... because a very well known public case in Colorado involved a old man that was known to drive around looking for "bad drivers" and confronting them. A young man known to be violent drew his attention. Even thought they both pulled over, once the young kid started wailing on him, he shot him in the chest with his 44 and killed him. He was acquitted on self defense, but lost a civil trial.

Also in Colorado, we have a "make my day" law for the home. If someone is in it, you can use deadly force no questions asked. No knife and fake story needed.

But that is great that gun classes are advocating planting false evidence and making false claims to police investigators.

The fact is, in just about every state that supports "stand your ground" laws as Texas does.... getting punched is sufficient grounds for self defense. If you do not want to get shot punching someone, best advice would be not to punch someone.

inmyelement - 2012-08-30 11:05 AM

DanielG - 2012-08-30 12:00 PM

inmyelement - 2012-08-30 12:53 PMIf it is proven that the driver could have driven off safely,is it still as cut and dry of a case?

Yes.http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(qfvabxrhptnl0fy51er0xd45))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-780-972

SELF-DEFENSE ACT (EXCERPT)Act 309 of 2006780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following appliesa) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

I guess it does look to be that cut and dry.  As a CC permit holder, this is one of the failure of CC, IMO.

How do you figure?

hahaha!  That's awesome.

OK, you're right!

I highly doubt this was a "real cyclist.'  I used to work EMS in that area and know the intersection/roads well enough to know that trying to cycle on the roads is pretty much suicide except for perhaps early Sunday morning.  And that's iffy.  Telegraph is 4 lanes in each direction and Northline 2 in each.  If I were going to ride a bike there, it'd be on the sidewalk until I were a bit West of Telegraph.  I can tell you that there is no shortage of people on bikes in the area because they lost their license to DUI...

Still, the cyclist should have obeyed the crosswalk sign and further, not gone about punching the driver....but that's the sort of stuff that happens around there.  I'll stay out of the use of force/legal debate.

Good God.... When you sit on a jury, it does not matter what your internet opinion is, you have to go by what the law says.Texas law is pretty clear on what is permitted. It does not matter what 50% of people on a internet thread "think".

Feel free to exercise your rights how ever your judgment dictates. You were not involved in this incident so you have no idea what the shooters decisions were based on. If you are so worried about defending your self in front of a jury, then leave your gun in the drawer. It's pretty simple.

Well said!  Since I don't think internet opionons EVER mattered, or opionions in general.  This is not news to me.  But thanks for the reminder!

powerman - 2012-08-30 1:49 PM

inmyelement - 2012-08-30 11:05 AM

DanielG - 2012-08-30 12:00 PM

inmyelement - 2012-08-30 12:53 PMIf it is proven that the driver could have driven off safely,is it still as cut and dry of a case?

Yes.http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(qfvabxrhptnl0fy51er0xd45))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-780-972

SELF-DEFENSE ACT (EXCERPT)Act 309 of 2006780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following appliesa) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

I guess it does look to be that cut and dry.  As a CC permit holder, this is one of the failure of CC, IMO.

How do you figure?

My hypothetical question involved the driver of the truck being able to safely drive away and end the assault.  Killing someone when there was a simple nonlethal option is not acceptable to me.

You mention that it doesn't matter what people on the internet think.  To a degree this is true, but being in a state that just passed CC, it could just as easily be taken away after the next election process or 2 if those people on the internet decide to vote.  These gray area cases do nothing to strengthen CC>

inmyelement - 2012-08-30 1:41 PM

powerman - 2012-08-30 1:49 PM

inmyelement - 2012-08-30 11:05 AM

DanielG - 2012-08-30 12:00 PM

inmyelement - 2012-08-30 12:53 PMIf it is proven that the driver could have driven off safely,is it still as cut and dry of a case?

Yes.http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(qfvabxrhptnl0fy51er0xd45))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-780-972

SELF-DEFENSE ACT (EXCERPT)Act 309 of 2006780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following appliesa) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

I guess it does look to be that cut and dry.  As a CC permit holder, this is one of the failure of CC, IMO.

How do you figure?

 

My hypothetical question involved the driver of the truck being able to safely drive away and end the assault.  Killing someone when there was a simple nonlethal option is not acceptable to me.

You mention that it doesn't matter what people on the internet think.  To a degree this is true, but being in a state that just passed CC, it could just as easily be taken away after the next election process or 2 if those people on the internet decide to vote.  These gray area cases do nothing to strengthen CC>

And that is your opinion... which is cool and I happen to share it. For me personally, I would have to know it was the last option. We just don't know what the victim was thinking.

Well it does not matter in a jury box when the laws they are determining were broke are the only guides. The ballot box is a different discussion. The problem is this is only a grey area on the internet when a bunch of people sit around talking about something they do not know. And we can sit here all day saying what should be and what could be... but the law on the books is the only thing that matters.

It is a common perception in police shootings that the officer should have just shot to wound, or shot the suspect in the leg. Every single police department trains that there is no such thing as shooting to wound. When an officer draws his weapon he has already determined deadly force may be warranted. When he pulls the trigger, he has determined deadly force is necessary. A gun is not a less than lethal solution, it is a deadly one. It is not there to wound.

Same with CC, the laws are pretty clear... once you have determined your life is in danger... then it's the end of story. There is no duty to retreat. There is no duty to maim, there is no duty to meet force with "equal" force... you have determined deadly force is necessary, and you can act on that decision.

Me personally... even with "make my day" law, I would not start shooting if someone was in my house... it would depend, for me personally... but the law is clear... the trespasser has given up his right to due process by crossing my threshold and deadly force is warranted, no questions asked.

There is no grey area here... if the shooter was justified to use deadly force, then he was. If he wasn't, then that is his problem, but not one for CC, because he was legally CCing. If he uses his weapon in an illegal act, then that is a different discussion. That is the problem with discussing opinions instead of the actual laws governing such instances.

You don't see any grey area of what is considered "justified"?  Even in your own statement "if" the shooter is justified.  So that has to be determined in a court of law.  Sometimes the decision is easy, sometimes it's not as clear.  Isn't that what "grey area" means?

I'm sure you know WAY more than me.  But if there is no grey area, the law now says I can shoot anyone that punches me if I feel it was justified to protect myself?

I am a former felony prosecutor in FL and have prosecuted these cases- the part about did the attack victim (driver) reasonably believe he was in imminent life or death situation? Who decides that?  A jury.  I'm a PRO gun 2nd Amendment nut, but I also know that in this day and age, you better do everything you reasonable can to avoid shooting someone and killing them before you absolutely have to shoot them etc.

Hell yeah, someone who is not just speculating (assuming your are truthfull with your stated credentials) and is in the know.

Let me clarify - "in the know" about the topic in general, not the specifics of this particular case.

Thanks for your input.

My Florida Bar Number is 0175250.

If you google "attorney Z. Taylor Panama City, FL" you'll see my credentials. I've been on Court TV several times for a death penalty case we did here. I've taught in the legal department of our local college as adjunct professor for years. I'm now in private practice.  Please don't take my post as a "know it all attorney" post- I was just making a small point based on what we know from the OP. That's all. I enjoy reading everyone's stuff. THanks.

I wasn't doubting you.  But anyone can say anything on the good old web!

Thanks again for your input.  Whether we agree or not, it's always good to hear from someone knowledgeble.