What did the baboon say?

[13511]

Thanks, it says exactly as what the criminal attorney said. Everything you've said so far is complete rubbish.

There is more than that... the above pertains strictly to "self defense" but doesn't go into (fully) when deadly force can be used. If you notice, that doesn't even go into the part of protection of property (theft/criminal mischief) at night. Was wondering if you'd get suckered in and you did. Thanks for playing.

 

Here ya' go... from one of your "official interwebz lawyer sites" that goes into an easy to understand example. Instead of charging with a chair, replace threatening with a flame throwing device.

And before you go "well, they didn't overturn his sentence", the pertinent part is

Under Texas law, the use of deadly force to defend yourself is justified if: 1) the actor would be justified in using deadly force to defend against an attack because the actor reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to protect the actor from the unlawful use of force; or 2) when the actor believes that deadly force is necessary to defend against illegal use of unlawful deadly force. In layman’s terms, this means if the average person is in a situation where someone is using unlawful force, deadly or not, in an attempt to harm the person in question.

 

And here

"If you can articulate that you or someone else was in fear of your life, or that you were afraid that someone else was going to get hurt or someone in your family, then you might have the ability to use deadly force, if you have trouble articulating that or you could not say that you're in fear of your life or that someone else might be hurt, then you should think twice because you're probably are not justified in using deadly force," he explained.

from yet another attorney

 

And here -

Texas Penal Code 9.33 allows a third party to use deadly force in defense of another. However, the person using deadly force must reasonably believe:

 

1. That the person being attacked would have been able to use deadly force in self-defense, and
   
2. That his or her intervention is immediately necessary to protect the person being attacked.
   

from yet another attorney

 

Oh, and it's either defense attorney or prosecutor. A criminal attorney typically would not be practicing in Texas (or probably anywhere else) as they would be disbarred, but I think we know what you were trying to say.

 

That's why it's typically left to a judge/jury/grand jury to determine if self-defense was justified or not. The individual may be charged with an offense, but may skate on a self defense (3rd party) charge... whether you like it or not. The dismissal would depend on if the triers of fact determine that waving an item discharging a 2-4 foot flame is a deadly weapon or not and that a reasonable (ordinary) person felt that a 3rd party was being threatened by the use of said deadly weapon if they have found that it qualifies as such.

Again, that would apply to Texas statutes - I don't know about where it occurred at as not all jurisdictions are so liberal in the allowance of use of deadly force for protection of property/person.

 

The same ability (law) that gives a police officer the right to use deadly force to protect a 3rd party extends to civilians to protect 3rd parties. If law enforcement was not able to use deadly force to protect third parties then in many situations then an officer would have to sit and watch someone be murdered since they were not able to prevent it with the use of deadly force (think sniper in a hostage situation).

Edited September 12, 2017 by 13511

[Kent.S]

From the police chief in his own country:

[ATTACH=full]1594._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

I am now convinced Vice was violated with a police batton, hence his hatred for police and authorities.

[SneakyDave]

It doesn't take much to trigger chickenscratches

[fool]

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. You are trying to defense your fellow nazi by invoking Section 9.33;

 

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

---

 

Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

 

(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

 

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

 

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

 

---

 

SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS

 

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

 

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

 

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

 

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

 

© was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

 

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

 

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

 

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

 

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

 

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection ©;

 

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

 

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

 

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

 

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or

 

(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

 

(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or

 

(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

 

© The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

 

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

 

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

 

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

 

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

 

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

 

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

 

Amended by:

 

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 378), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.

 

 

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

 

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

 

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

 

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

 

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

 

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

 

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

 

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

 

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

 

© was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

 

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

 

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

 

© A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

 

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection © reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

 

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

 

Amended by:

 

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 378), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007.

 

---

 

Which point justify your fellow nazi?

[fool]

The phrase in 9.33 (2);

 

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

 

Must be understood within the context of the whole section;

 

---

 

Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:

 

(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;

 

(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and

 

(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

 

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

 

---

 

Your fellow nazi satisfy neither of these requirements.

[fool]

And why the fuck are we talking about Texas' law? Virginia's law is clear;

 

---

 

1.3. Unlawful force, serious bodily harm, or death

 

There is an important distinction between threats involving mere unlawful force and threats involving serious bodily harm or death. Threats involving mere bodily harm do not permit a person to use deadly force, only threats involving great bodily injury or death justify the use of deadly force.

 

A person may only use deadly force if there was a present danger of great bodily injury. Words alone are not sufficient to justify the use of deadly force.13

 

For instance if you were defending yourself from someone trying to commit:

 

A murder

A malicious wounding

Or a rape

 

You may be justified in using deadly force in self defense, provided the other elements of the defense are met.

 

Deadly force is defined as force intended or likely to cause death or grievous bodily injury. This definition focuses on the likely outcome as opposed to the actual result.

 

In contrast, many batteries do not constitute deadly force. This is true even if the victim subsequently dies unexpectedly from the injuries. However, if the person injured is elderly or very sick, or otherwise a person who would be likely to die from a battery, the battery may constitute deadly force.

 

1.4. Force used must be reasonable under the circumstances

 

In Virginia, a person is only allowed to use the amount of force necessary to repel the force used against him.14

 

This rule requires that the force used must be proportional to the harm threatened. Excessive force is not protected. Therefore, when threatened with a non-deadly attack, a person is not justified in using deadly force to repel the attack.

 

---

 

Virginia's Self Defense Laws: What You Need To Know

[13511]

Because I told you what I would do if I was faced with that situation.... and I do happen to live in Texas. If you review backwards, I clearly state that I don't know what the law is in the state in question.

 

And pretty sure that this section here

A person may only use deadly force if there was a present danger of great bodily injury. Words alone are not sufficient to justify the use of deadly force.13

of your post will get him off. Being burned with an item that is ejecting a flame presents a danger of great bodily injury.

 

Oh, and from that page I bring your attention to

The reasonable appearance that the use of force was justified is assessed from the subjective viewpoint of the defendant at the time he acted.

 

Which means it is assessed from the view of the actor (the person using the deadly force), not from the view of an arm chair quarterback.

 

And I further bring your attention to

An aggressor may be defined as one whose "affirmative unlawful act is reasonably calculated to produce an affray foreboding injurious or fatal consequences."

So, Mr Flamethrower is clearly the aggressor.

 

Oh, and I'll leave you with this thought from that page also

defendant must reasonably fear death or serious bodily harm to himself at the hands of his victim. It is not essential to the right of self-defense that the danger should in fact exist. If it reasonably appears to a defendant that the danger exists, he has the right to defend against it to the same extent, and under the same rules, as would obtain in case the danger is real. A defendant may always act upon reasonable appearance of danger, and whether the danger is reasonably apparent is always to be determined from the viewpoint of the defendant at the time he acted.

- courtesy of McGhee v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 560 <emphasis added by me>

 

So, thank you for affirming the fact that the individual in question will most likely use a self defense of 3rd party claim and will be very likely to get off on it under Virginia state law.

 

Oh, and you better play close attention to 1.2 also on that page

As the Court in Bryd stated, in the context of the threat of serious bodily injury, "There must be . . . some act menacing present peril. . . [and] the act . . . must be of such a character as to afford a reasonable ground for believing there is a design. . . to do some serious bodily harm, and imminent danger of carrying such design into immediate execution."

I do think (and most reasonable persons would) that waving a flame ejecting item at someone and then taking a step/leaning towards them with it would be a menacing present peril and the very act has the ability (presents an imminent danger) of being burned by that individual (and said burns presenting a high possibility of SBI or even death) and most persons would also agree you must be unstable to be doing threaten someone with a ignited can of flaming material and unstable persons actions are usually not predictable.

 

But, now I move onward to more important things like seeing if the new iPhone can be ordered on Verizon. Gotta keep those Chinese workers earning their yen.

Edited September 13, 2017 by 13511

[Sandyman]

Tool, owned again, so sad. He needs to argue with someone like Gary, who is more at the same IQ and intelligence level as himself...trying to take on Tracy isn't working out so well for him.

 

Sorry Tool - but Gary is waiting for you, go take him on, much easier target.

 

LOL.

[Kent.S]

Tool, owned again, so sad. He needs to argue with someone like Gary, who is more at the same IQ and intelligence level as himself...trying to take on Tracy isn't working out so well for him.

 

Sorry Tool - but Gary is waiting for you, go take him on, much easier target.

 

LOL.

 

As crazy and silly as Gary is, I think he would still win arguments with Vice.

[fool]

will get him off

 

Of course no. The key point here is:

 

This rule requires that the force used must be proportional to the harm threatened. Excessive force is not protected. Therefore, when threatened with a non-deadly attack, a person is not justified in using deadly force to repel the attack.

 

Through out the video clip we can see people passing back and forth in front of the flame nor will the flame hurt anyone under reasonable ordinary typical scenario where simple reflects will avoid any harm. Indeed, through out the video clips we witnessed these back and forth actions where no one was in any immediate threat of any major bodily injury or death.

 

The only major threat in the video clip is the gun itself due its nature that no one can possibly avoid by simple reflexes. Proportionality is the key point here, not the blood lust of a white supremacist lunatic.

[13511]

Indeed, through out the video clips we witnessed these back and forth actions where no one was in any immediate threat of any major bodily injury or death.

 

The only major threat in the video clip is the gun itself due its nature that no one can possibly avoid by simple reflexes. Proportionality is the key point here, not the blood lust of a white supremacist lunatic.

You and I apparently are looking at 2 different videos... I clearly saw the guy with a flag swinging to force the flame thrower guy backwards (in fact, I'm pretty sure I included a photo with a highlight of said indvidiual... and a reasonable person would believe that he felt threatened.

Here, let me refer you back to said post - What did the baboon say?.

[fool]

You and I apparently are looking at 2 different videos

 

Apparently so. I'm watching this video released by ACLU covered by Al Jazeera;

 

 

 

You can see clearly that neither the guy with the flag nor the guy with the flame were moving from the spot where they stand.

[13511]

You can see clearly that neither the guy with the flag nor the guy with the flame were moving from the spot where they stand.

You apparently did not pay attention to the two screenshot excerpts that were in the thread linked.

 

Here, let me give them to you again

Looks like he's pulling backwards to me.

 

Looks like he's taking an action with the flag to force the idiot with the flame thrower back to me.

 

And you DO realize that most states (at least ones that believe in self defense) do not require you to retreat, correct?

Is There a Duty to Retreat Under Virginia Criminal Law?

[fool]

Looks like he's pulling backwards to me.

 

I'm not sure what's the point of your still images. In the video clip, from when the guy was swinging his flag pole at 0.00 to 0.05 when the shot was fired, he was standing at the same exact spot on the ladder. No pulling backward nor moving onward.

[13511]

No pulling backward nor moving onward.

Yes, he leans backwards (the still shot clearly shows that, then uses the flag to try to force the aggressor away.

And he has no incumbency on him to retreat.

[fool]

leans backwards

 

Thus proportionality matters. It's not pulling backward but leaning backward and then onward (as he moved around the pole). Swinging around the flag pole while not moving an inch from the spot is enough to prevent any major bodily harm or death.

[13511]

Thus proportionality matters. It's not pulling backward but leaning backward and then onward (as he moved around the pole). Swinging around the flag pole while not moving an inch from the spot is enough to prevent any major bodily harm or death.

He's not even required to do that.

[fool]

We're not talking about your animalistic law, we're talking about Virginia's law;

 

This rule requires that the force used must be proportional to the harm threatened. Excessive force is not protected. Therefore, when threatened with a non-deadly attack, a person is not justified in using deadly force to repel the attack.

[13511]

We're not talking about your animalistic law, we're talking about Virginia's law;

 

This rule requires that the force used must be proportional to the harm threatened. Excessive force is not protected. Therefore, when threatened with a non-deadly attack, a person is not justified in using deadly force to repel the attack.

Let's see... what can flame do to you.. it can catch your happy ass on fire... and being caught on fire can result in serious bodily injury or death... so proportionally using a firearm to plant lead can result in the same results - serious bodily injury or death... Looks equivalent to me.

Or are you trying to imply that people are impervious to flames and being burned?

The fact is, the idiot was trying to use force to intimidate people.. and not everyone WILL be intimidated and they are NOT required to back down to idiots.

[fool]

what can flame do to you..

 

Thus the logic of a lunatic. You can insert anything here because virtually everything can cause major bodily harm or death. Context matters and that determine proportionality.

 

use force to intimidate people

 

Not a justification to use deadly force per the law.

 

NOT required to back down

 

Nor did he. He was literally standing his ground, not moving an inch. The movement leaning back and forth is part of his defense, not part of his retreating action.

[13511]

Not a justification to use deadly force per the law.

Again, context... IF that individual felt in imminent fear, then yes... see..... that's the part of the law YOU apparently have difficulty understanding. It doesn't matter what YOU think is appropriate... it matters what HE thought at that time (or a 3rd party coming to the defense of another).

 

As I said, let's watch.... can almost guarantee you that the shooter will use a defense of 3rd party argument and will get off.

Actually the dumb-ass with the ignited can should have been taken to jail also.

 

I'll let you ruminate on this

Appellate courts have gone on to say that "the nature and quality of an overt act cannot be judged in a vacuum" and that "the acts [relied upon] must be viewed through the eyes of the person allegedly threatened."

 

You can legally defend your loved ones or a 3rd party with deadly force if you are able to “step into the shoes” of the person you are defending (ie if that person has a legal right to use force in self-defense, then you are allowed to use force to defend them).

[fool]

context

Correct. The court will determine whether it is reasonable for the shooter to believe that the guy was under imminent threat.

 

So far, the charge is;

 

discharging a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school – a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

 

Man charged with shooting at Charlottesville counter-protesters arrested after video goes viral

 

Hopefully the lunatic end up staying in prison for a long time.

[13511]

As I said, his attorney will probably run with the defense of 3rd party argument and will win.

Still don't know why the idiot with the can was not arrested... as he was obviously threatening people with a deadly weapon.

[13511]

Now, if the statement that he is alleged to have made of

The man identified by police as Mr Preston turns to the crowd and draws his weapon, yelling, “Hey n*****!” Someone in the crowd warns others to get down.

is factual, then his attorney will have a harder time of it.

 

Like I said though, honestly, let 'em go at it... as long as they don't injure any innocent 3rd parties I could care less if they killed each other off.

And if you are at the protest either as a participant or counter-protestor you are not an innocent 3rd party.

[fool]

threatening people with a deadly weapon

 

Apparently only lunatics like you believe that. Virginia's cops aren't as dumb as those in Texas (Austin excluded).