One reason to "not go off" on a driver. (Page 3)

Maybe it is...

I guess I'm not going to go blasting away people that punch me and trust my fate to a couple laywers and 12 jurors.

Now if the guy was in my home?  Had a weapon?  I was clearly outnumbered?  I could feel more confident I could convince 12 people I felt my life was in danger and I would drop him.

Getting punched with through a window of a steel car door?  Willing to take that chance that it's cut and dry?

I can already see the arguement that if there was any way to escape, or if the driver of the car had the presence of mind to pull a gun, why not put the car in drive and go, that there leaves enough doubt they had no choice.

Honestly, I don't mind that much the jerk is gone.  I think anyone that resorts to violence has problems (again, save for self defense).  The guy might have gotten exactly what he deserved.  Not arguing if the shooting is justified, but the statment that it's not TOUGH to prove it was justified.

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.

So, had the cyclist, instead of punching the driver, pulled a gun after being knocked down by the truck, and shot and killed the driver, would it be justified?

So, had the cyclist, instead of punching the driver, pulled a gun after being knocked down by the truck, and shot and killed the driver, would it be justified?

You're ignoring the facts throughout this.  And that's the issue.  

Who caused the accident is irrelevant.

If the driver had another avenue to avoid defending himself is irrelevant.

This type of case would never get in front of a jury, assuming that what is written in the article is factual and presented correctly.  No DA in his right mind would prosecute this unless there is some other extenuating circumstance (i.e. the driver has had a previous record of violent crime).

How did you come to the conclusion he was knocked down by the truck and didn't fall down after hitting the truck? Are you saying the truck driver was at fault in the initial accident?

How did you come to the conclusion he was knocked down by the truck and didn't fall down after hitting the truck? Are you saying the truck driver was at fault in the initial accident?

well said.  So many different problems in that scenario.

Oh, I didn't know you were a lawyer.  So it's not tough to prove?  Good to know.  I guess we can shoot anyone that punches us!  Nice!

When I was attending my gun safety classes and CC classes in Colorado, they said that you had to convince a jury you felt your life was in actual danger OR if you were a woman, you can also see if you felt you were going to get raped.

There was even a "joke" that if you shot someone in your house, put a knife in their hand to make the case.

So if you can kill someone that punches you, or INTENDS to punch you, that really makes it easier to dispatch people.  Good to know.

No matter what the situation was...If somebody was punching me through my window and I was bound in a seatbelt...I would also do whatever it took to defend myself.  At that point the Cyclist|Biker was no longer a pedestrian.  They were an attacker.

You're splitting unnecessary hairs here. I would not need to be knocked down or fallen over if a truck hit me (on a bike or as a pedestrian) to reasonably believe that a truck (weighing as much as it does) poses an imminent threat of great bodily harm to me. And the way that the quoted law reads, that is enough to claim the use of deadly force.

I guess my problem with this issue between the two threads is less with whether or not the cyclist was in some way "correct" for punching the driver (for the record, I don't think that adding violence to an interaction tends to improve outcomes) and more so the idea that shooting a person is the reasonable response when one is in a vehicle that can be sealed up and/or driven away. The idea that adding a MORE aggressive response is the correct outcome is troubling to me.

So, had the cyclist, instead of punching the driver, pulled a gun after being knocked down by the truck, and shot and killed the driver, would it be justified?

It was me Jim, I pushed him down. 

Wouldn't it have been easier and safer to have just shot him?

...

I may have been splitting hairs to some extent in an effort to point out based on all account who was at fault for the initial accident.

If this is the position and reasoning you are going with I think you are presenting a scenario that is too ridiculious for me to engage in any meaningful discussion. It seems you just want to say guns are bad and people assulting others is no big deal.

You are trying to bring together two separate issues that are being discussed simultaneously (something that seems to happen as these threads end up all over the place).

I was merely pointing out the inaccurate assumption you made.

One issue is whether or not assaulting people (with fists or guns) is a "big deal" - clearly it is, and I am not suggesting that the cyclist was acting reasonably or appropriately when he attacked the driver. However, the driver had options, only one of which was to shoot the cyclist. As has been repeatedly mentioned, he could have rolled up his windows, or driven further away.

Again you are making assumptions I'm not in a position to make.

1. Was the vehicle still running?

2. Did the driver turn off the vehicle and pull out the keys?

3. Was there anything/anyone in front of the vehicle?

4. Was it a standard or an automatic, was it in gear?

GB you are a physiologic aren't' you? When someone is being beaten repeatedly in the face and head, how does that alter one's ability in decision making?

The other issue is whether the driver should face any consequences for shooting the cyclist. The law quoted states that it is not a criminal act if the person is responding to the "threat of imminent harm". My point is that had the cyclist shot the driver, it would seem, on the surface, to meet that definition. Yet it would still have been wrong - morally and ethically, if not legally. 

I think you are confusing accidents an intentional criminal battery.

I'm not making the blanket statement that "guns are bad". I am saying that when the first response is not how to avoid shooting someone but how to justify it, that I see that as bad. I have enough belief and faith in the system that if indeed there were no other options, that would come out, and the shooter would not be punished.

I don't know and have refrained from commenting if the shooting should be prosecuted or accepted as self defense, there are a lot of factors that will and should go into that decision and irregardless our opinions won't matter to those charged with making that decision.

They did release him last night without charging him, they are in the process of reviewing it further.

You are trying to bring together two separate issues that are being discussed simultaneously (something that seems to happen as these threads end up all over the place).

One issue is whether or not assaulting people (with fists or guns) is a "big deal" - clearly it is, and I am not suggesting that the cyclist was acting reasonably or appropriately when he attacked the driver. However, the driver had options, only one of which was to shoot the cyclist. As has been repeatedly mentioned, he could have rolled up his windows, or driven further away.

The other issue is whether the driver should face any consequences for shooting the cyclist. The law quoted states that it is not a criminal act if the person is responding to the "threat of imminent harm". My point is that had the cyclist shot the driver, it would seem, on the surface, to meet that definition. Yet it would still have been wrong - morally and ethically, if not legally. 

I'm not making the blanket statement that "guns are bad". I am saying that when the first response is not how to avoid shooting someone but how to justify it, that I see that as bad. I have enough belief and faith in the system that if indeed there were no other options, that would come out, and the shooter would not be punished.

If ya don't wanna get shot, don't hit someone who is carrying a gun.

Well, I think we have found our point of agreement here...