|
flakeloaf posted:
Not true for like 15 years now.
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:13 |
|
|
Yeah the wind has shifted a bit since the days of WIllie Horton. poo poo if Bill Clinton can admit those policies were a mistake, it must have shifted. He has the instincts of a weasel in heat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
He is a weasel in heat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:Can't be "soft on crime", like those filthy euros with their vacation prisons and miniscule incarceration & recidivism rates, you gotta punish them This is a trifle, but it is important to note that cross-comparisons of recidivism rates are exceptionally hard to make due to different methodologies, study lengths and vocabulary across nations. Still, even controlling for those differences as best we can, recidivism rates between the US and Euro countries aren't that different (with the noted exception of the Scandinavian countries, which have excellently low recidivism and incarceration rates). This masks a larger truth though--one that actually points to even greater problems with the US justice system. The problem (as noted in this Pell Center report) is that recidivism in other countries doesn't massively bloat their prisoner rolls. The U.S. sends people to jail for non-violent crimes that are adjudicated differently in many Euro countries; the U.S. sentences more harshly for violent crimes than many Euro countries, keeping prisoners in the system longer; and mandatory minimum sentencing and other facets of the U.S. system create a situation in which recidivism adds long-term growth to the prison population. All the above leads to a pretty obvious conclusion: if we have good, comparable data between countries that shows some level of parity in recidivism; and, if we have a group of countries with both smaller prison populations and more lenient sentencing than their outlier counterpart; then, the country with a larger prison population and harsher sentencing should reevaluate from root to branch its method of meting out punishment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Its kind of amusing to watch this thread go from "never call the police" to "you don't need a gun that's what police are there for" without even pausing to take a breath.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Its kind of amusing to watch this thread go from "never call the police"* to "you don't need a gun that's what police are there for" without even pausing to take a breath. *Offer only valid in United States of America.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:It's a drat rare thing for me to be proud of my country. You just made me feel proud of Britain, I hope you are happy. Only in a couple states, most places, like the US, Germany, France, etc. have provisions in their laws that allow the use of deadly force if threatened in your home. I guess people who don't like that can go to the UK since their laws seem pretty strict on the matter. Woozy posted:Well, ordinarily we think of morality in terms of ends and means with the understanding that individuals with fewer available means have a diminished obligation to achieve the best possible ends (I'm explaining this to you as if you were a child because that's what you're acting like hth). Sure, technically, in some universes, under a very specific and highly questionable version of right and wrong, dying from exposure as a gesture of good will towards your fellow man both counts as both a noble sacrifice and a less irresponsible course of action than being a squatter, but it on no loving planet except the moon you live on is squatting more irresponsible than deliberately confronting and then executing squatters (ends) despite about a hundred different alternatives (means) available. You're quite simply wrong on this, most states have self defense laws that would have covered the situation. It has nothing to do with squatting, it has to do with threatening someone in their own home. Generally the benefit of the doubt goes to the homeowner and not the meth-heads in these sorts of situations, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
An abandoned building where you do not live is not your home.Jarmak posted:Its kind of amusing to watch this thread go from "never call the police" to "you don't need a gun that's what police are there for" without even pausing to take a breath. Yeah that happens when people who reasonably fear death by gun because their neighbours unreasonably fear death by gun talk to people from countries where the general public hasn't yet descended into that kind of insanity. That's not because we're superior creatures, society here just hasn't deteriorated quite as quickly. So, today I learned that a red light ticket is about $80 plus an absurd $420 in "fees". And that's if you pay on time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Where does this duty to not enter property I own come from again? Sounds like you're getting pretty close to blaming victims here- wanting to secure your property from invasion and possible adverse possession is perfectly understandable (even if you think it may not be prudent (and I actually agree to a point- carrying a gun was prudent, entering the place probably wasn't even though it was his right). The duty is not to vigilante up to stop property crime. There are plenty of places I have a legal right to be, that doesn't mean if I know they've been broken into that I can just get my gun and barge in, firing into the dark at movements that make me jumpy. This is why we have cops, this is one of the things they're best at. Flashing some lights, going in and roughing up some homeless people to make them move along. Waco Panty Raid posted:But why are we only expecting prudence from the property owner again? Are the squatters incapable of it? They're the ones who got the ball rolling here and really they're the ones who created the "explosive situation" (a situation they had no right to create, unlike the property owner) in the first place- there wouldn't have been a confrontation had they not broken in and ignored the calls to come out (then acting in a manner that could be interpreted as aggressive when confronted didn't help). They didn't ignore the calls to come out, they were asleep. The squatters weren't even armed. Literally nothing they were doing was ever going to result in the death of another human being. How is that reckless: is just being homeless a reckless thing in your mind? There aren't a lot of places you can sleep that aren't trespassing or loitering, I guess by existing they were just asking for someone to get scared and shoot them  They had been squatting at that place on and off for three years. You're telling me if you were homeless, you'd just stoically die of exposure rather than take shelter in a building that's been abandoned for most of a decade? Waco Panty Raid posted:Squatting doesn't deserve the death penalty, but simply carrying a gun while entering your property doesn't deserve a murder conviction either. Taking a gun to the site of a property crime you know is happening, and then killing someone with it might. You keep leaving out that part. There are plenty of places I have a right to be, that doesn't mean I have a right to go play John Wayne. Call the cops if you think a crime is in progress, especially a victimless loving property crime like sleeping in an abandoned building.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Its kind of amusing to watch this thread go from "never call the police" to "you don't need a gun that's what police are there for" without even pausing to take a breath. Calling the police > killing people over an abandoned duplex
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
Woozy posted:Well, ordinarily we think of morality in terms of ends and means with the understanding that individuals with fewer available means have a diminished obligation to achieve the best possible ends (I'm explaining this to you as if you were a child because that's what you're acting like hth). Sure, technically, in some universes, under a very specific and highly questionable version of right and wrong, dying from exposure as a gesture of good will towards your fellow man both counts as both a noble sacrifice and a less irresponsible course of action than being a squatter, but it on no loving planet except the moon you live on is squatting more irresponsible than deliberately confronting and then executing squatters (ends) despite about a hundred different alternatives (means) available.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Its kind of amusing to watch this thread go from "never call the police" to "you don't need a gun that's what police are there for" without even pausing to take a breath. Why hello there. Glad you're back to, I guess make some kind of observational generalization of a thread comprising dozens of people as if it's some sort of contradictory consensus of everyone? If you'd still care to point how how I was both wrong and had no idea what I'm talking about, I remain as receptive as ever. Indignantly, yours truly
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Calling the police > killing people over an abandoned duplex I thought according to this thread calling the police means they kill everyone? I mean people have argued in this thread that people who call the police should be considered (at least morally) at fault for deaths when they call the police because they should know they'll just show up and start shooting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
hobotrashcanfires posted:Why hello there. Glad you're back to, I guess make some kind of observational generalization of a thread comprising dozens of people as if it's some sort of contradictory consensus of everyone? Oh I already did, it was literally the thing I did that started that argument, as did other people, there isn't anything wrong with cops possessing fixed blade knives, much less absurd.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Oh I already did, it was literally the thing I did that started that argument, as did other people, there isn't anything wrong with cops possessing fixed blade knives, much less absurd. So it's wrong to think that there's no reason they need bayonets? Okay then. Aren't opinions fun? e: Or maybe you were just confirming that you're here to make sweeping generalizations with no regard to context. Hard to tell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I thought according to this thread calling the police means they kill everyone? I mean people have argued in this thread that people who call the police should be considered (at least morally) at fault for deaths when they call the police because they should know they'll just show up and start shooting. I concede the point that the Reno police may have decided it was easier to roll up and shoot both squatters and the homeowner just to make sure, so if that is your argument then perhaps this did save lives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
hobotrashcanfires posted:So it's wrong to think that there's no reason they need bayonets? So you still don't understand that a bayonet isn't anything more then a fixed blade knife with the additional capability to attach to a gun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The duty is not to vigilante up to stop property crime. There are plenty of places I have a legal right to be, that doesn't mean if I know they've been broken into that I can just get my gun and barge in, firing into the dark at movements that make me jumpy. So what if he took your advice and had called the cops but they didn't respond? Can he "vigilante up" then? VitalSigns posted:They didn't ignore the calls to come out, they were asleep. The squatters weren't even armed. Literally nothing they were doing was ever going to result in the death of another human being. How is that reckless: is just being homeless a reckless thing in your mind? There aren't a lot of places you can sleep that aren't trespassing or loitering, I guess by existing they were just asking for someone to get scared and shoot them VitalSigns posted:Taking a gun to the site of a property crime you know is happening, and then killing someone with it might. You keep leaving out that part. There are plenty of places I have a right to be, that doesn't mean I have a right to go play John Wayne. Call the cops if you think a crime is in progress, especially a victimless loving property crime like sleeping in an abandoned building.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:So you still don't understand that a bayonet isn't anything more then a fixed blade knife with the additional capability to attach to a gun. Sure, I do. I also don't think there's any need whatsoever for police to carry a fixed blade knife. Theres a variety of better tools, including tools with blades, that are much more useful. Added benefit of not having a drat fixed blade knife hanging off you if you're in close quarters with someone. It's okay for me to think this. It's also okay for you to disagree.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
They specifically told us not to carry knives, because they aren't issue and using weapons of opportunity is a good way to get yourself in a lot of poo poo in a very "we aren't going to pay for your legal defense and might just join the other side" kind of way. We ignored that direction because knives are damned useful for other things, and just resolved not to stab people with them if it could at all be helped. The one open handcuff-trench knife is just as fearsome and a lot easier to justify anyway.Waco Panty Raid posted:I'm not ignoring that, it just isn't in question that someone was shot to death. The question is if entering one's property can be considered aggressive towards those who have no right to be there for determining legal consequences. In this particular case, the question involves entering one's own property without a pressing need to do so immediately, while reasonably expecting that violence will ensure, and deliberately bringing a firearm into the situation for the purpose of winning that conflict by killing people. This guy was acquitted anyway because meth heads are scary or something, but in many other places your own property rights over a place where you don't even live don't trump the rights of other people to be alive, even if they are otherwise lovely people and are yelling mean words at you out your own window. Going out of their way to pick fights isn't the public's job, even if they're in the right. We aren't supposed to take the law into our own hands if a reasonable opportunity to not do that exists, we're supposed to ask law enforcement to come and enforce the law. Dude's still allowed to be mad about it and all, but maybe storming in there and killing everybody wasn't the most morally sound plan. flakeloaf fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:I'm sorry why does the possibility of someone having broken into your house mean you can't "barge in" to your property? I get that it may not be the best idea but subjective second guessing something that isn't a crime shouldn't necessarily impact the legality of an action. Being a vigilante is not, actually, legal. Waco Panty Raid posted:So what if he took your advice and had called the cops but they didn't respond? Can he "vigilante up" then? No. It is not legal to exact vigilante justice on squatters. Waco Panty Raid posted:They were asking for it by breaking and entering a house, then not leaving (clearly the jury didn't believe they were asleep) when asked, then acting in an aggressive manner when confronted. Trespassing on unoccupied abandoned property does not carry the death penalty even if convicted, so no they were not asking for it. You're relying an awful lot on which story 12 random people decided to believe and how much worth they put on the lives of meth-heads. You can find similar fact patterns that went the other way, so if I were you I wouldn't rely on the arguments you're making here if you hear about a property crime happening and you feel the need to cowboy up and stop it yourself. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:In this particular case, the question involves entering one's own property without a pressing need to do so immediately, while reasonably expecting that violence will ensure, and deliberately bringing a firearm into the situation for the purpose of winning that conflict by killing people. This guy was acquitted anyway because meth heads are scary or something, but in many other places your own property rights over a place where you don't even live don't trump the rights of other people to be alive, even if they are otherwise lovely people and are yelling mean words at you out your own window. Furthermore accepting that conflict might occur and being prepared is not evidence of murder house vigilante intent. Just as easily it is intent to inspect and secure one's property (neither of which is a crime, nor should it be) while showing a bit of prudence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Yeah the idea that you can face legal sanction for entering/"storming" (the guy was 74 how much storming do you think he was doing btw?) your own property without "pressing need" is absurd. That's one way to look at it. Another way would be to say that it's totally not. The Alberta Court of Appeal explains: quote:"Under the present law the same requirement, namely that the force used should be reasonable in the circumstances, is applicable to all cases where force is used in the prevention of crime and the common law rules are co that extent superseded. In determining whether the force used was reasonable the court will cake into account all the circumstances of the case, including the nature and degree of force used, the seriousness of the evil to be prevented and the possibility of preventing it by other means. This provision is of general application and is not limited to arrestable or any other class of offences, but it would not be reasonable co use even slight force to prevent very trivial offences. The circumstances in which it can be considered reasonable to kill another in the prevention of crime must be of an extreme kind; they could probably arise only in the case of an attack against the person which is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury and where killing the attacker is the only practicable means of preventing the harm. It cannot be reasonable to kill another merely to prevent a crime which is directed only against property … Also the idea that you can somehow "stand" ground you aren't actually on is insane. Yes he had every right to be there, and to have a gun, and to be old and cranky. Deliberately doing all of those things knowing he'd provoke a fight that didn't need to happen over loving trespassing, knowing and planning to kill the people responsible, has to be at the very least immoral. flakeloaf fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Being a vigilante is not, actually, legal. VitalSigns posted:Trespassing on unoccupied abandoned property does not carry the death penalty even if convicted, so no they were not asking for it. VitalSigns posted:You're relying an awful lot on which story 12 random people decided to believe and how much worth they put on the lives of meth-heads. You can find similar fact patterns that went the other way, so if I were you I wouldn't rely on the arguments you're making here if you hear about a property crime happening and you feel the need to cowboy up and stop it yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
It would be a lot easier for liberals to support gun rights if the people who advocated for guns didn't talk about how some people have lives that are worth protecting, and others are less valuable than property. Makes them look like they're racist, sexist, etc.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:That's one way to look at it. Another way would be to say that it's totally not. The Alberta Court of Appeal explains: 2. He didn't kill to "merely" protect property. He killed to defend himself from what he perceived to be a reasonable threat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
I'm explaining how others might come to the conclusion that, generally, shooting someone for being in an abandoned house might not be in line with the morals of everyone in this thread. ABCA judges are more articulate than I am.quote:I'm relying on the word of a 74 year old retired teacher who wanted to inspect and secure his property (which is not a crime). You're relying on the word of Methy McAccomplice and some handwaving about what you suspect a jury might believe. I'll take your warning under due notice Once the fight started, he was well within his rights to protect himself from the very real threat of death from two people high on drugs, half his age who were being belligerent dicks to him in a place he owned. What I, and I suspect others, are saying is that he exercised awful judgment in deciding to pick that particular fight right there and then, when another non-violent (for him) option was practicable. The prosecution alleged that he reasonably believed there actually were people in his house at that time and the fact that he had a gun in each hand does lend credit to that story. If you accept that he did honestly believe that, he probably should've gone for help. Trespassing ain't a hangin' crime, but jumping someone who could very easily be killed during a fistfight, on his own land, while already committing other crimes, strips away your protections somewhat. flakeloaf fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:I'm explaining how others might come to the conclusion that, generally, shooting someone for being in an abandoned house might not be in line with the morals of everyone in this thread. ABCA judges are more articulate than I am. flakeloaf posted:Once the fight started, he was well within his rights to protect himself from the very real threat of death from two people high on drugs, half his age who were being belligerent dicks to him in a place he owned. What I, and I suspect others, are saying is that he exercised awful judgment in deciding to pick that particular fight right there and then, when another non-violent (for him) option was practicable. The prosecution alleged that he reasonably believed there actually were people in his house at that time and the fact that he had a gun in each hand does lend credit to that story. If you accept that he did honestly believe that, he probably should've gone for help.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:It wasn't even on point. Hence the "merely." When you've abandoned your property for a decade then decide to visit it at night, yeah it kinda is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
When you know someone's inside who might not want to leave, and you decide to go in after him anyway, I'd say that a fight of some kind is the sort of thing a reasonable person might expect to happen. It should follow that the police should be called in to do that sort of thing, as an alternative to going into that property that very instant, because they're better-equipped to handle it safely and might be able to avoid the risk of harm or death to everyone - including yourself - completely. On the other side of the coin, rights are called rights because you don't need a reason to exercise them, and he can go into that house whenever he wants to even if it's not necessarily a good idea. Legally defensible, morally and ethically odious. Now a fun thought: A reasonable person blasted out of his skull on meth might not recognize his duty to flee and might react to an old man waking him up (e: if you're high on meth you're unlikely to be asleep, so let's say he's coming down and strung out) by yelling and waving guns around with violence of their own. Supposing they'd killed him, could they sensibly argue self-defense? flakeloaf fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:Now a fun thought: A reasonable person blasted out of his skull on meth might not recognize his duty to flee and might react to an old man waking him up (e: if you're high on meth you're unlikely to be asleep, so let's say he's coming down and strung out) by yelling and waving guns around with violence of their own. Supposing they'd killed him, could they sensibly argue self-defense?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
You are a 76 year old man. You are standing outside a house that you believe that you own the title to, that has been vacant for several years. You think there are dangerous squatters in the house. It's night time. WHAT DO YOU DO? I'm not going in that house, that's stupid and dangerous. I'll call the police tomorrow. BUT WAIT, YOU ALSO HAVE TWO GUNS ON YOUR PERSON. Well, then I can go in the house right now because I can just shoot anyone who presents a danger to me! Look out, it's two of those squatters I thought were in here! Bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang! (This should be manslaughter or murder, in a more just society)
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:I'm relying on the word of a 74 year old retired teacher who wanted to inspect and secure his property (which is not a crime). Yeah, why don't we ask the people who he shot? Oh, right. Waco Panty Raid posted:2. He didn't kill to "merely" protect property. He killed to defend himself from what he perceived to be a reasonable threat. Alternatively, he is lying and we can't ask the people who he shot because they're dead, and noted coward Waco Panty Raid is reflexively defending guns because otherwise he wouldn't feel safe if he thought people might do bad things with them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:Now a fun thought: A reasonable person C'mon, the counterfactual still holds if the squatter is stone-cold sober, and in fact, "a reasonable person" is not on meth. The squatters clearly have a right to self-defense in this situation, if the owner enters in the middle of the night with guns drawn. Indeed, any reasonable person would expect them to react with violence if approached in that manner. The owner obviously expected violence to occur.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
I made the squatter high on drugs because impairment can diminish his capacity to the point where he believes all kinds of things to be true. After a rough night of drinking I've woken up in one place thinking it was another.twodot posted:I can imagine a series of escalations where they could sensibly argue self-defense in a variety of jurisdictions, but that didn't happen, so why are we discussing a counter-factual? Lawchat is more interesting than gun control chat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:When you know someone's inside who might not want to leave, and you decide to go in after him anyway, I'd say that a fight of some kind is the sort of thing a reasonable person might expect to happen. It should follow that the police should be called in to do that sort of thing, as an alternative to going into that property that very instant, because they're better-equipped to handle it safely and might be able to avoid the risk of harm or death to everyone - including yourself - completely. On the other side of the coin, rights are called rights because you don't need a reason to exercise them, and he can go into that house whenever he wants to even if it's not necessarily a good idea. Legally defensible, morally and ethically odious. Every jurisdiction will probably have its own standards for reasonableness in perception of the threat. While self-intoxication isn't entirely a bar to self defense it will be factored in to judging the reasonableness of the perception of the threat. Practically speaking it also depends on where someone is (a defensive drunk at home who grabs a gun from the nightstand will likely be given more leeway than an armed drunk at a bar, as the drunk at the bar is likely breaking a lot of laws already).
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
The Mattybee posted:Yeah, why don't we ask the people who he shot? Edit - lol you even edited out references to the person who survived. Waco Panty Raid fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:I made the squatter high on drugs because impairment can diminish his capacity to the point where he believes all kinds of things to be true. After a rough night of drinking I've woken up in one place thinking it was another. Lawchat is worse because people tend to use interpretations current laws as a shield to hide or even prop up the heinous beliefs that they have about the value of human life (among other things, such as drug use, minorities, poverty, etc.), while conveniently ignoring laws within the past century that objectively caused harm to people and had to be changed as a result.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
The Mattybee posted:Alternatively, he is lying and we can't ask the people who he shot because they're dead, and noted coward Waco Panty Raid is reflexively defending guns because otherwise he wouldn't feel safe if he thought people might do bad things with them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:13 |
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:One of them survived and testified. You should spend more time keeping up with the thread and less demonstrating your ignorance and weak burns. She certainly did, and it didn't sound very good. quote:She said she was later awakened by what sounded like someone crashing through the front door, followed by an angry voice saying, "What are you doing in my house?" And she wasn't the only one. quote:Two neighbors testified Wednesday that Burgarello told them years earlier that he might arm himself and wait for people responsible for repeatedly vandalizing and burglarizing the vacant duplex. "He told me, 'I'm going to be waiting inside with a gun,'" Kevin Morgan said. Eek. He was mad as hell and he just wasn't going to take this vandalism lying down anymore, somebody was just gonna hafta pay. That bit of tough talk made it sound like he went in after them - he knew they were in there because someone phoned him and told him - with the intention of shooting them. Apparently the stand your ground in Nevada says you can't do that: quote:Nevada's "stand your ground" law . . . allows deadly force against attackers who pose an imminent threat, regardless of whether they are armed, but specifies the shooter cannot be the initial aggressor. But he was acquitted anyway, either because the jury really hates druggie vandal squatters or because they believed his claim that Devine, who was very much hosed up on drugs, tried to resist Burgarello's good-faith attempt to evict them from his house, and he believed that the flashlight that Devine allegedly picked up with his non-dominant hand on the other side of his body for some reason, looked like a gun. To his credit, Devine didn't know he was trespassing so he may actually have been fixing to "defend himself" from Burgarello's aggression.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:48
|
|