depends on his mindset. was he reasonably in fear of his life or bodily injury?
thats not even close to what you said, it is however what i corrected it too. what you said isâŚ
which is wrong⌠reasonable response, not proportional. it is reasonable to shoot someone coming after you with a knife, it is not proportional.
you followed this with this
which is again wrong as i demonstrated
No, it doesnât just depend on his mindset. Itâs a âreasonable personâ standard - whether a reasonable person in his shoes would be in that mindset.
1 Like
How does that affect the verdict?
1 Like
Proportional Response
Self-defense law requires the response to match the level of the threat in question. In other words, a person can only employ as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat. If, however, the threat involves only minor force and the person claiming self-defense uses force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, the claim of self-defense will fail.
did you miss what i said
please stop now, youâre embarrassing yourself
was he âreasonablyâ in fear⌠is the reasonable person standard.
get your money back, you wasted it
Right back atcha.
1 Like
kinda hard to be embarrassed by correcting your completely wrong assertions, especially given your claim of stating things you did not state after being corrected.
your problem here is even after being shown to be wrong, you keep digging in. for example, the âproportionalâ response standard deals with deadly force vs deadly force. gun vs knife is not proportional in affect, but the are both âdeadly forceâ, as would be a base ball bat or any other instrument capable of causing death or bodily injury including fists if the situation and circumstance suggested it. but the example you gave was specific and âcertainâ.
[quote]
which is wrong. circumstances dictate whether it would be reasonable
Iâm pretty sure you misunderstood what I was saying. Youâre making up arguments that I havenât made.
Again, youâre fighting straw men. You brought up knives vs. guns, not me. You chose to interpret my statement incorrectly, and made a fool of yourself in the process.
Nothing I have said contradicts anything youâve said.
Read my post again.
1 Like
In a country where âreasonableâ people donât fight back and is a virtual police state.
1 Like
Incorrect. Read the quote again.
For example, you canât kill someone because you were afraid they were going to punch you.
Yes you can.
misunderstood? i quoted your statements.
i will accept that when you said âproportional responseâ you meant âdeadly force vs deadly forceâ and that your example was unfortunate. a woman (almost any woman) or person of diminutive stature, can shoot a male assailant (almost any assailant) whoâs intent on assaulting her even if they have no weapon. why? because it would be reasonable for that person to be in fear of bodily injury.
fear of bodily injury.
does the person know when the assailant will stop punching them?
does the person know what injury may come of it?
a reasonable person may conclude the beating will not stop, that severe bodily injury may ensue, and would be perfectly justified in shooting the assailant before that happened. you have no duty to protect someone assaulting yiou
âŚand misunderstood them.
I donât disagree. But in this narrative, weâre no longer talking about simply being afraid of being punched.
certainly are⌠no punch has been thrown yet.
what it boils down to is is the âfearâ of being punched in the first place reasonable. the standard iâve set throughout. as opposed to your blanket statement assuming that being âafraidâ of being punched would be unreasonable from the start. was the fear reasonable? if so, then yes, you can shoot someone you fear is going to punch you.
I hope he is acquitted fully.
Then I hope he sues the hell out of everyone who called him a racist white supremacist thug vigilanteâŚcnn/MessNbc/the girls on the view/candidate BidenâŚ
All of them. The dirtbags in the media who forgot thereâs a reason you use words like âallegedâ and âaccusedâ when reporting on stories he this one.
I hope they all have to pay.
2 Likes
Again, youâre misunderstanding me.
I said afraid of being punched in comparison to being afraid of bodily injury - as an example of a fear of possible harm that doesnât rise to that of bodily injury or death.
I apologize if that wasnât clear.
Youâre building up narratives that are entirely different that what Iâm trying to say.
While no doubt you can come up with contradictory narratives, in a general sense, the fear of being punched would not reasonably translate to a fear of bodily harm.
you seem to assume someone who fears âbeing punchedâ somehow knows it will be only one punch, that the assault will stop, and they would not be harmedâŚ
how would they know that?
still, i agree, if you do not fear bodily injury as a result of being punched, then shooting would be unreasonable. as a blanket rule however⌠no. the proximate cause of the injury you could sustain is the punch, the fear is not severable. the fear of injury and fear of being punched are one and the same, after all, if you werenât âafraidâ of being punched, then you would have no fear of being injured.
I am saying that a punch is objectively not deadly force.
