[Politics] "Pregnant Woman Indicted For Baby's Death After Being Shot"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

ObsidianJones:
... Ok, as a gun owner, the fact that the police's depiction (although I rarely believe those any more without video tape) is what it is and people are ok with the shooting makes me horrified.

Literally, do any of you have any idea how many people are punched per day? Pushed? And if everyone was 'justified' with fighting back with a bullet, we would be losing literally millions of people every day.

I can understand the shooting more than if there was no physical violence.

Also, I assume that most gun violence in the US is unwarranted. The government just turns a blind eye

the December King:

This would be entirely on context, of course, but as a blanket statement, I have to disagree.

Rationality has no part in a physical assault, nor should the victim be forced to decide whether their life is in jeopardy when the attacker waives such considerations by launching the assault with intent to harm in the first place. People can be disabled or killed by a punch. By the time the victim can gauge that degree of violence, it might be too late. Not everyone attacking someone is going to be a martial artist capable of fully controlling the situation and minimizing long-lasting harm- if they choose- and even then, there are no guarantees.

Yeah, not all fights. But again, I don't want to find out if the violent attacker who jumped me and broke my nose and ribs was 'content' to leave it at that, when I could stop it before it gets any farther.

Right, but your illustrative example there is not what we're discussing. Of course you wouldn't know how far someone will go if they "jump" you and break your bones; they've already gone extremely far, and the phrase "jump" suggests a goddamn ambush.

Compare that with, say, someone shoving someone else in a corner shop because they thought they looked at them funny. That's far more common. Yes, rationality plays a big part in whether or not you think to yourself, "I'm going to fucking die today", and pull your gun.

the December King:
In the context of this incident? Uh... I think we need to know more. the definition of pinned and hit in this case would be appreciable (as in, was she being crushed/choked in the pin, and how hard was she struck). And as to how strong/dangerous a pregnant woman can be, well again, it would come down to this person in particular.

That we need to know more to make these judgements was precisely my point-- you'll notice the post I was responding to was claiming that the fact a "punch" and a "pin" took place was "more than enough" for lethal force.

ObsidianJones:

Lil devils x:

ObsidianJones:
... Ok, as a gun owner, the fact that the police's depiction (although I rarely believe those any more without video tape) is what it is and people are ok with the shooting makes me horrified.

Literally, do any of you have any idea how many people are punched per day? Pushed? And if everyone was 'justified' with fighting back with a bullet, we would be losing literally millions of people every day.

Of course we have no way of knowing other impacting factors, for example, did the woman have an underlying medical condition that could make such a struggle life threatening? There is a huge difference between a person with a heart condition, COPD or Asthma being pinned, for example, than a healthy athlete. The reality is though people really should not be pushing or hitting anyone, as people can be accidentally killed even if they are in the prime of their health. A guy who went to my school went to prison for punching another guy I went to school with just once outside of a pub because the guy he hit then hit his head on the curb and died from his injury. Both were athletic and 19 at the time, that is sadly the reality of getting into such fights. You don't know what will happen. I have been attacked by multiple men much larger than me, and yea I very well would use lethal force to get free as I have learned from previous experience what happens if I don't get free. All it can take is for someone to fall during a struggle for it to turn lethal quickly, or hell look at Eric Garners case. There is no way of knowing how this can turn out.

While I don't think everyone should be running around with guns planning on using them, I also think we have to address the violence leading to people thinking they need to protect themselves due to lack of protection by law enforcement. Why did this woman feel so threatened and afraid that she thought she needed to have a firearm to protect herself in the first place? He have to address the threats in order to reduce the people responding to the threats as well. There is no victim protection and no one to save you if someone wants to kill you and that is part of the problem fueling this.

But that's the issue. We're just going to go down the road to conjecture and Jones' story against Jemison's. I will not rule out a righteous shoot with actual evidence. But feelings are not evidence. They aren't even provable. We can't prove Jemison felt threatened for real. For all we know, she could have just felt vengeful. But she took the classes to get the license so she knows what to say she felt to justify anything she did.

It's actually an assumption of us all that she felt threatened. You know who else used 'My life was threatened' as an excuse?

George Zimmerman.

Michael Drejka. Yousef Hafza. Jason John. David Taylor. The Taylor Case is Special, because it shows the dangers of the law as Taylor threatened to shoot the victims before the altercation. So those who were shot at should have been able to have shoot him, as justified in the Uber Driver Robert Westlake (which is actually the only Stand Your Ground Case I've ever seen that seems justified.

And funnily enough, from the articles I've seen, Westlake was the only one who didn't say he feared for his life, even though video evidence showed he has absolute reason to.

The problem here is that you're a supremely decent human being. And you saw a scenario much akin to one's you faced when you were younger. And you can understand that. But we just need to look at the George Zimmerman's of the world and realize that people who 'know' the stand your ground law can literally get away with Murder if you just say the proper spell like this was Harry Potter.

"S/He Threatened my Life. I had no choice".

That's why I hate the 'Stand your Ground' law.

Someone pinning you down is reason to feel threatened. How can a person flee when pinned down? In my case, due to the permanent damage to my lungs, pinning me down could actually kill me. Just the act of doing so at this point is threatening my life. No one would know that from looking at me of course, I look like any other healthy, athletic person on the outside. That is why you cannot know the threat to one's life simply by assuming this will harm them the same way it would harm you.

Baffle2:
I think it's ludicrous that people are suggesting that being pinned to a car justifies shooting someone in the guts. You guys need your guns taken away or your manners improving or something.

The only 2 times I have ever been pinned down in my life I was violently raped the first time and the second I woke up with a cord around my throat and had to fight off a would be murderer who was later sent to prison on his second attempt when he stabbed my neighbor. Yes, I would have shot my attackers if able to do so at the time. According to the police, that is exactly what I would have to do to make it stop and what I should do if he tries again. Exactly what are you supposed to do in that situation if you are not strong enough to fight off the attacker? Politely die?

Manners= not attacking people in the first place.

Lil devils x:
The only 2 times I have ever been pinned down in my life I was violently raped the first time and the second I woke up with a cord around my throat and had to fight off a would be murderer who was later sent to prison on his second attempt when he stabbed my neighbor. Yes, I would have shot my attackers if able to do so at the time. According to the police, that is exactly what I would have to do to make it stop and what I should do if he tries again. Exactly what are you supposed to do in that situation if you are not strong enough to fight off the attacker? Politely die?

That is leagues apart from the case at hand -- a fight outside a shop. Now, I've never fought a pregnant woman, but I reckon I could see my way clear to ending such a fight without shooting her.

Baffle2:

Lil devils x:
The only 2 times I have ever been pinned down in my life I was violently raped the first time and the second I woke up with a cord around my throat and had to fight off a would be murderer who was later sent to prison on his second attempt when he stabbed my neighbor. Yes, I would have shot my attackers if able to do so at the time. According to the police, that is exactly what I would have to do to make it stop and what I should do if he tries again. Exactly what are you supposed to do in that situation if you are not strong enough to fight off the attacker? Politely die?

That is leagues apart from the case at hand -- a fight outside a shop. Now, I've never fought a pregnant woman, but I reckon I could see my way clear to ending such a fight without shooting her.

At this point due to the condition my lungs have been left in after surviving a superbug that nearly killed me, even pinning me down would be a threat to my life. Any struggle or fight could be life threatening to me now. Hell even being in temperatures above 70F (21.1C)is now life threatening to me. A woman being pregnant does not suddenly mean she is weaker than the person she is attacking. Obviously not if she was able to pin the other person down in the first place. Being pregnant does not necessarily make her any less of a threat.

Baffle2:
I think it's ludicrous that people are suggesting that being pinned to a car justifies shooting someone in the guts. You guys need your guns taken away or your manners improving or something.

I don't like having my safety violated. I'm sorry if my reaction sounds extreme to other people, but that's just how I feel about the matter. If you bring harm to people without justification, I can't bring myself to get upset if said people defend themselves.

CaitSeith:

Using lethal force for that goal is going too far (as the consequences here show why).

I feel like that statement is fairly subjective. It might be a proper legal statement, but at least in this case the consequences showed law enforcement siding with the victim(this is not to say cops are always trustworthy. But until we get more information, that's all we have to go on. All else is speculation). Sure, take it easy on your assailant if you can manage it. But I'm not going to fault anyone for not putting up with that nonsense.

Silvanus:

Even mid-fight, any rational person has some gauge of whether it's a threat to their life or not.

To take any physical altercation involving punches or "pinning" as grounds for lethal force is impossibly ridiculous. It would turn every single day into a global bloodbath.

Don't cause harm to your fellow human beings. You don't know how far they're willing to go to defend themselves and how much the fight will escalate. You state that mid-fight, someone is rational enough to know how much force they need to retaliate with. Well, the initiator by extension should have enough awareness to calculate the risks of the altercation and know that they may be forfeiting their lives by going through with it. They should look to incidents like these and ask themselves if it's really worth it in the long run.

Lil devils x:
Someone pinning you down is reason to feel threatened. How can a person flee when pinned down?

Again, I don't hate the idea of a justifiable shoot. But like it was said, we don't have words of actually what pinned down means. We don't even have a consensus of the fight

The fight stemmed from a long-simmering feud with a female co-worker, Ebony Jemison, 23, over a man who worked at the same company. Ms. Jones spotted Ms. Jemison in the parking lot and started a fight with her, according to a law enforcement officer with direct knowledge of the investigation who did not want to be identified. By the officer?s account, Ms. Jones was winning the fight and had Ms. Jemison pinned in her car.

After taking repeated blows, the officer said, Ms. Jemison reached for a gun, and fired point blank into Ms. Jones?s stomach. Ms. Jones was driven to a hospital in a car that apparently broke down on the way. Paramedics eventually arrived and took her to a hospital, but her fetus ? struck by a bullet ? died.

This account of the fight differs from others that have been offered in recent days, which have suggested that Ms. Jemison fired a warning shot at the ground and the bullet bounced up and hit Ms. Jones in the belly.

(Source)

Even in that quote, the fight isn't properly defined. The officer says one thing, but witnesses say other things. Completely different things. A warning shot that bounced from the street into her stomach? I mean, that's easy to disprove by just examining the scene to see if there's any bullet strikes in the floor. But the truth is Witness Testimony is sadly only as believable as much as you want to believe the person saying it.

But hey, the Huff Post supports it.

She said the argument had been about the unborn child's father and began when Jones spotted Ebony and jumped out of a car to attack her.

She said: "Ebony was afraid for her life and reached in her purse for the gun. She tried to fire a warning shot to get away from her."

But the shot ? which Earka says was aimed at the ground ? ricocheted into Jones instead.

(Source)

But in the quote we're now taking as fact posted earlier in this thread, even that differs from these accounts entirely.

davidmc1158:
Well, there's been an update in this sad state of affairs: They've decided to drop the charges against her.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48849040

In regards to the question of whether or not the use of a firearms was justified . . . . well, a little more information is here but details are still somewhat sparse. As stated in the article:

The altercation on 4 December happened outside a Dollar General store where both Ms Jones and the shooter, Ebony Jemison, worked.

Police ruled that Ms Jones had started the fight and hit Ms Jemison, then pinned her against a car.

They said Ms Jemison had then reached for a gun and fired point-blank into Ms Jones's stomach.

An unnamed police source told the New York Times that the feud had started over a man with whom they both worked.

Jemison said before she was trying to fire a warning shot, now it was point blank in the stomach. Where they in the car or against the car? Was it just a hit and a pin, or was it raining down blows and she was in her car? Was she pinned down to the point that she couldn't escape... but had the ability to reach and rummage through her purse, take off the safety (I hope), cock it and fire?

Hey, I'll say that raining down blows and being trapped in a car is a much more plausible decision for deciding to use lethal force. There is limited ability to escape, and we already know one blow can be deadly, but several in quick succession is a massive call for alarm.

But here's the thing. Read each of these articles. Who has it right? Who is even close to it? The Huff Post stated the warning shot ricocheted into Jones. BBC and NY Times has the shot being fired into Jones point blank. Which contradicts Jemison's own account that she tried to fire a warning shot and didn't mean to shot Jones.

And also the fact that Jemison herself said that Jones grabbed her hair. Not pinned her against the car. I've looked for her testimony, but the only version of it I've seen was the Buzzfeed article where she never mentioned being pinned.

I don't think Jones is some hapless innocent victim. If those texts are true, she sought this encounter. I wish didn't it come to any kind of violence, but People are going to People. My issue is that the entire incident is muddied. We don't have one clear account of how anything went down. The Defense said he has a cell phone video of Jones backing away from the situation before the shot. If so, I hope he still releases it so we can have some real knowledge of what happened.

But from various accounts, including seemingly conflicting accounts from Jemison herself, the only facts we know for a fact is that Jemison and Jones had an altercation and Jones was shot. And we're here grasping at second-hand accounts and the "I was afraid for my life" defense tactic that they basically burn onto your soul if you take the CCW course in one of these Stand Your Ground states makes me uneasy with everything.

We used one article sans any evidence or video proof other than a police account that contradicts other articles and accounts (and even Jemison's own testimony) to say "Oh, ok. Justified Shooting". That worries me.

Shadowstar38:

Baffle2:
I think it's ludicrous that people are suggesting that being pinned to a car justifies shooting someone in the guts. You guys need your guns taken away or your manners improving or something.

I don't like having my safety violated. I'm sorry if my reaction sounds extreme to other people, but that's just how I feel about the matter. If you bring harm to people without justification, I can't bring myself to get upset if said people defend themselves.

CaitSeith:

Using lethal force for that goal is going too far (as the consequences here show why).

I feel like that statement is fairly subjective. It might be a proper legal statement, but at least in this case the consequences showed law enforcement siding with the victim(this is not to say cops are always trustworthy. But until we get more information, that's all we have to go on. All else is speculation). Sure, take it easy on your assailant if you can manage it. But I'm not going to fault anyone for not putting up with that nonsense.

Silvanus:

Even mid-fight, any rational person has some gauge of whether it's a threat to their life or not.

To take any physical altercation involving punches or "pinning" as grounds for lethal force is impossibly ridiculous. It would turn every single day into a global bloodbath.

Don't cause harm to your fellow human beings. You don't know how far they're willing to go to defend themselves and how much the fight will escalate. You state that mid-fight, someone is rational enough to know how much force they need to retaliate with. Well, the initiator by extension should have enough awareness to calculate the risks of the altercation and know that they may be forfeiting their lives by going through with it. They should look to incidents like these and ask themselves if it's really worth it in the long run.

Why does this reminds me of Silent Hill: Shattered Memories?

https://youtu.be/atCXULYZZHs?t=469

Lil devils x:
At this point due to the condition my lungs have been left in after surviving a superbug that nearly killed me, even pinning me down would be a threat to my life.

If I ate nuts near someone with a nut allergy I'd be putting their life at risk, but I'd be bloody annoyed if they shot me in the belly.

But whatever, these are the same arguments used to excuse police shooting people (would we be justifying this if it was a police officer holding the gun?). I undoubtedly will never understand the US mindset on guns because it's just so utterly crackers to me.

Shadowstar38:

Don't cause harm to your fellow human beings. You don't know how far they're willing to go to defend themselves and how much the fight will escalate.

That line of thinking heads towards justifying anything you please (see US foreign policy; immigration; climate change).

Baffle2:

Lil devils x:
At this point due to the condition my lungs have been left in after surviving a superbug that nearly killed me, even pinning me down would be a threat to my life.

If I ate nuts near someone with a nut allergy I'd be putting their life at risk, but I'd be bloody annoyed if they shot me in the belly.

But whatever, these are the same arguments used to excuse police shooting people (would we be justifying this if it was a police officer holding the gun?). I undoubtedly will never understand the US mindset on guns because it's just so utterly crackers to me.

Of course we would not justify if it were a police officer holding the gun for numerous reasons, including, but not limited to:

1)In order for a police officer to be a police officer on the street and not behind a desk they have to be able to pass the physical fitness requirements. They are athletic and strong, and should be strong enough to restrain people without needing to use excessive force. This cannot be said of everyone in the general public.

2)Police officers should be trained in the proper methods to be able to restrain someone without the need for excessive force. This too cannot be said for the general public.

3)Police officers should be trained in deescalation training so they would need to use force less. The general public is not trained in deescalation training.

You eating nuts =\= you attacking someone holding them down and trying to force nuts down their throat. HUGE difference. This person did not just fall on top of this woman, she was actively assaulting her inflicting bodily harm. I certainly hope someone would not shoot you for eating nuts, but I also would think that if they told you they have an allergy severe enough that the dust could harm them, you would also be polite enough to move away from them or wait until you could, not try to violently force them into their face.

It isn't like this woman was minding her own business, she was actively violently attacking the other woman here.

Trying to force someone with a nut allergy to consume nuts is no different than using any other lethal weapon on them as hundreds of people do actually die from this so it is no different than trying to poison them or stab them or shoot them if you are trying to force them to consume something that will kill them.

Estimates say that in the United States, thousands of people visit the emergency room annually because of allergic reactions to food. Somewhere around 150 to 200 people die in the U.S. each year because of food allergies. It's estimated that around 50 percent to 62 percent of those fatal cases of anaphylaxis were caused by peanut allergies

https://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/allergies/food-allergy/peanut/how-many-people-die-each-year-from-peanut-allergies.htm

But if you are not violently attacking them and forcing them to consume them, it isn't really the same thing as this woman violently physically attacking another woman.

Lil devils x:

I certainly hope someone would not shoot you for eating nuts, but I also would think that if they told you they have an allergy severe enough that the dust could harm them, you would also be polite enough to move away from them or wait until you could not try to violently force them into their face.

I disagree, I want to eat those nuts right now, right next to them. And I'm walking the same way they are (though I'm not staggering and clutching my throat, because I have dignity).

I meant to mention that in this scenario the police officer is a 5'2 woman with a limp and a nut allergy. Surely she's allowed to shoot someone now?!

Baffle2:

Lil devils x:

I certainly hope someone would not shoot you for eating nuts, but I also would think that if they told you they have an allergy severe enough that the dust could harm them, you would also be polite enough to move away from them or wait until you could not try to violently force them into their face.

I disagree, I want to eat those nuts right now, right next to them. And I'm walking the same way they are (though I'm not staggering and clutching my throat, because I have dignity).

I meant to mention that in this scenario the police officer is a 5'2 woman with a limp and a nut allergy. Surely she's allowed to shoot someone now?!

She wouldn't be able to be a beat cop unless she can meet the physical requirements for the same reason I was not able to be a firefighter because I was not able to meet the physical requirements so she shouldn't be issued a police firearm anyhow to be able to shoot you with in the first place. I couldn't even meet the weight requirements for being too small let alone get to the part where you have to be able to carry other fully grown adults on your own.

And if you want to eat the nuts next to someone you know ha a severe nut allergy, you are knowingly putting them in danger and could possibly be arrested and charged. Depending on the laws of where this happens, you could possibly even be arrested and charged for knowingly endangering a persons life. Just like the law does not always specify every single action that can inflict harm upon others, it may be covered under another law. If they tried to remove themselves from the situation and you pursued them, you would likely be arrested, or at least detained by police. Since you are not physically restraining them and forcing them to stay there, you could follow them to the police station yourself to get arrested.

EDIT: In addition, if they started to have a reaction due to your actions and you failed to assist them you could also be arrested depending on jurisdiction for failing to stop and render aid.

For some reason your story reminded me of this:
https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/03/boys-knew-pupil-allergic-dairy-flicked-cheese-onto-neck-9410730/
If this were adults, it is likely the cheese flicker could be charged with manslaughter.

Baffle2:

Shadowstar38:

Don't cause harm to your fellow human beings. You don't know how far they're willing to go to defend themselves and how much the fight will escalate.

That line of thinking heads towards justifying anything you please (see US foreign policy; immigration; climate change).

I don't see the connection but okay.

Shadowstar38:

Baffle2:

Shadowstar38:

Don't cause harm to your fellow human beings. You don't know how far they're willing to go to defend themselves and how much the fight will escalate.

That line of thinking heads towards justifying anything you please (see US foreign policy; immigration; climate change).

I don't see the connection but okay.

"Harm" is a very broad term. The US considers a company to have the same rights as a human being.

I hope I don't need to spell out the implications there.

Abomination:

Shadowstar38:

Baffle2:

That line of thinking heads towards justifying anything you please (see US foreign policy; immigration; climate change).

I don't see the connection but okay.

"Harm" is a very broad term. The US considers a company to have the same rights as a human being.

I hope I don't need to spell out the implications there.

Can we not narrow that down to 2 actual human beings? Why are we bringing governments and Corporate entities into this scenario? There's no feasible analogous situation you can make there.

Shadowstar38:

Can we not narrow that down to 2 actual human beings? Why are we bringing governments and Corporate entities into this scenario? There's no feasible analogous situation you can make there.

Of course there is - if you live a life that contributes disproportionately to climate change (drive a big truck, take lots of international flights, have outside street heaters(!!!), heavily consume fossil fuels), you're willfully engaging in a behaviour you know is harming someone else. It will, ultimately, lead to deaths. Seems a bit much to shoot you for it?

Many Americans see immigration as directly harmful in terms of the economy and their livelihoods (I've spent too much time on Twitter lately, there's some terrible people out there). Again, it seems we shouldn't let them just shoot immigrants despite the harm they are doing?

You need to be very careful about concepts like 'do no harm' if you're letting people be the arbiter of what harm to themselves is.

Edit: I want to add anti-vaxxers to my list, but I'm actually okay with you shooting those.

Lil devils x:

And if you want to eat the nuts next to someone you know ha a severe nut allergy, you are knowingly putting them in danger and could possibly be arrested and charged. Depending on the laws of where this happens, you could possibly even be arrested and charged for knowingly endangering a persons life. Just like the law does not always specify every single action that can inflict harm upon others, it may be covered under another law. If they tried to remove themselves from the situation and you pursued them, you would likely be arrested, or at least detained by police. Since you are not physically restraining them and forcing them to stay there, you could follow them to the police station yourself to get arrested.

EDIT: In addition, if they started to have a reaction due to your actions and you failed to assist them you could also be arrested depending on jurisdiction for failing to stop and render aid.

So... are they allowed to shoot me or not? I want to be very clear about whether it's safe to eat these nuts.

Baffle2:

Lil devils x:

And if you want to eat the nuts next to someone you know ha a severe nut allergy, you are knowingly putting them in danger and could possibly be arrested and charged. Depending on the laws of where this happens, you could possibly even be arrested and charged for knowingly endangering a persons life. Just like the law does not always specify every single action that can inflict harm upon others, it may be covered under another law. If they tried to remove themselves from the situation and you pursued them, you would likely be arrested, or at least detained by police. Since you are not physically restraining them and forcing them to stay there, you could follow them to the police station yourself to get arrested.

EDIT: In addition, if they started to have a reaction due to your actions and you failed to assist them you could also be arrested depending on jurisdiction for failing to stop and render aid.

So... are they allowed to shoot me or not? I want to be very clear about whether it's safe to eat these nuts.

NO NUT FOR YOU!

Baffle2:

Shadowstar38:

Can we not narrow that down to 2 actual human beings? Why are we bringing governments and Corporate entities into this scenario? There's no feasible analogous situation you can make there.

Of course there is - if you live a life that contributes disproportionately to climate change (drive a big truck, take lots of international flights, have outside street heaters(!!!), heavily consume fossil fuels), you're willfully engaging in a behaviour you know is harming someone else. It will, ultimately, lead to deaths. Seems a bit much to shoot you for it?

Many Americans see immigration as directly harmful in terms of the economy and their livelihoods (I've spent too much time on Twitter lately, there's some terrible people out there). Again, it seems we shouldn't let them just shoot immigrants despite the harm they are doing?

You need to be very careful about concepts like 'do no harm' if you're letting people be the arbiter of what harm to themselves is.

Edit: I want to add anti-vaxxers to my list, but I'm actually okay with you shooting those.

"Clear, direct, immediate harm" then.

Baffle2:

Lil devils x:

And if you want to eat the nuts next to someone you know ha a severe nut allergy, you are knowingly putting them in danger and could possibly be arrested and charged. Depending on the laws of where this happens, you could possibly even be arrested and charged for knowingly endangering a persons life. Just like the law does not always specify every single action that can inflict harm upon others, it may be covered under another law. If they tried to remove themselves from the situation and you pursued them, you would likely be arrested, or at least detained by police. Since you are not physically restraining them and forcing them to stay there, you could follow them to the police station yourself to get arrested.

EDIT: In addition, if they started to have a reaction due to your actions and you failed to assist them you could also be arrested depending on jurisdiction for failing to stop and render aid.

So... are they allowed to shoot me or not? I want to be very clear about whether it's safe to eat these nuts.

Yes, they should mace you, beat you and shoot you with poison frog darts for forcing your nuts onto those around you.

I am not seeing how shooting you would actually help the person since they already could escape since you were not holding them down in the first place or preventing them from leaving. They very well could sue you for any damages you inflicted and have the police detain you for harassing them with your nuts but as long as you are not using force to prevent them from escaping, there is no reason to shoot you. Shooting someone is not the " go to option" to handle a situation, it may be however, ones only available option to escape harm when someone is forcefully physically violently trying to harm and/or kill you. Physically trapping someone, pinning someone down or threatening them or their loved ones lives is forcing them to defend themselves, which is a different situation.

Silvanus:

the December King:

This would be entirely on context, of course, but as a blanket statement, I have to disagree.

Rationality has no part in a physical assault, nor should the victim be forced to decide whether their life is in jeopardy when the attacker waives such considerations by launching the assault with intent to harm in the first place. People can be disabled or killed by a punch. By the time the victim can gauge that degree of violence, it might be too late. Not everyone attacking someone is going to be a martial artist capable of fully controlling the situation and minimizing long-lasting harm- if they choose- and even then, there are no guarantees.

Yeah, not all fights. But again, I don't want to find out if the violent attacker who jumped me and broke my nose and ribs was 'content' to leave it at that, when I could stop it before it gets any farther.

Right, but your illustrative example there is not what we're discussing. Of course you wouldn't know how far someone will go if they "jump" you and break your bones; they've already gone extremely far, and the phrase "jump" suggests a goddamn ambush.

Compare that with, say, someone shoving someone else in a corner shop because they thought they looked at them funny. That's far more common. Yes, rationality plays a big part in whether or not you think to yourself, "I'm going to fucking die today", and pull your gun.

I was just referring to the notion that we can gauge all assaults immediately as they happen, and be sure exactly how to respond, but I think I might have missed more of the case in point (I will admit I haven't had the time to read up on the current facts of the case). A shove is likely not a display of immediate lethal force that needs to be countered immediately with a firearm, but again, I was just saying it can get hairy in any altercation.

Silvanus:

the December King:
In the context of this incident? Uh... I think we need to know more. the definition of pinned and hit in this case would be appreciable (as in, was she being crushed/choked in the pin, and how hard was she struck). And as to how strong/dangerous a pregnant woman can be, well again, it would come down to this person in particular.

That we need to know more to make these judgements was precisely my point-- you'll notice the post I was responding to was claiming that the fact a "punch" and a "pin" took place was "more than enough" for lethal force.

I see, I guess I missed this. My bad for jumping in the middle of a discussion. And yeah, given what little we know at this stage, I am not convinced of anything.

Sorry to bump an old thread, but this is the problem I have with the "My life was threatened" excuse.

I'm not saying it's used well in this incident. I know they say he was "mentally ill", but not severely. But it's the point I was trying to make in this thread.

People are going to harm others and use the "I felt like My Life was Threatened" defense more and more. Will it work? Enough to be disturbed over, but not enough that it will become an instant 'get out of jail free' card all over the nation.

But a lot of innocent people will lose their lives while sick people start to get the memo that they will be punished for their crimes no matter what they say.

Police say a man accused of fatally stabbing a 17-year-old in the throat at an Arizona convenience store told them he felt threatened because the teen had been listening to rap music.

The incident occurred in Peoria, Arizona, near Phoenix, early Thursday.

Witnesses told police that the man, who's been identified as Michael Paul Adams, 27, walked up behind the teen, grabbed him and stabbed him in the neck, according to a probable cause statement obtained by CNN affiliate KPHO/KTVK.

Family members said the teen, Elijah Al-Amin, had gotten off of work about 11:30 p.m. on Wednesday and had spent some time with his girlfriend before stopping at the store.

Police said a witness was trying to help Al-Amin by applying pressure to his neck when they arrived at 1:42 a.m. Police and fire personnel provided medical care and he was taken to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 2:05 a.m.

The witnesses told police that Al-Amin hadn't done or said anything to provoke the attack. One said Adams didn't say anything to the teen before stabbing him.

Police stopped Adams as he walked away from the store. He had blood on his left forearm, hand and foot, and officers found a pocket knife on him. He was taken into custody without incident.

Adams had been released from prison July 2, according to the Arizona Department of Corrections.

Adams told a detective that he stabbed Al-Amin in the back and cut his throat, according to the statement.

He said Al-Amin didn't do anything threatening but that the youth had been listening to rap music in his car in the parking lot, according to the statement.

"Adams stated rap music makes him feel unsafe, because in the past he has been attacked by people (Blacks, Hispanics, and Native American) who listen to rap music. Adams further stated, people who listen to rap music are a threat to him and the community," the report said.

He told police that he felt threatened by the music, not by Al-Amin. Adams is white, and Al-Amin was black, white and Latino.

"Adams felt he needed to be 'Proactive rather than reactive' and protect himself and the community from the victim," the documents said.

Adams has been charged with first-degree premeditated murder and is being held at the Maricopa County Jail in lieu of $1 million bail.

(Source)

ObsidianJones:
Sorry to bump an old thread, but this is the problem I have with the "My life was threatened" excuse.

I'm not saying it's used well in this incident. I know they say he was "mentally ill", but not severely. But it's the point I was trying to make in this thread.

People are going to harm others and use the "I felt like My Life was Threatened" defense more and more. Will it work? Enough to be disturbed over, but not enough that it will become an instant 'get out of jail free' card all over the nation.

But a lot of innocent people will lose their lives while sick people start to get the memo that they will be punished for their crimes no matter what they say.

Police say a man accused of fatally stabbing a 17-year-old in the throat at an Arizona convenience store told them he felt threatened because the teen had been listening to rap music.

The incident occurred in Peoria, Arizona, near Phoenix, early Thursday.

Witnesses told police that the man, who's been identified as Michael Paul Adams, 27, walked up behind the teen, grabbed him and stabbed him in the neck, according to a probable cause statement obtained by CNN affiliate KPHO/KTVK.

Family members said the teen, Elijah Al-Amin, had gotten off of work about 11:30 p.m. on Wednesday and had spent some time with his girlfriend before stopping at the store.

Police said a witness was trying to help Al-Amin by applying pressure to his neck when they arrived at 1:42 a.m. Police and fire personnel provided medical care and he was taken to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 2:05 a.m.

The witnesses told police that Al-Amin hadn't done or said anything to provoke the attack. One said Adams didn't say anything to the teen before stabbing him.

Police stopped Adams as he walked away from the store. He had blood on his left forearm, hand and foot, and officers found a pocket knife on him. He was taken into custody without incident.

Adams had been released from prison July 2, according to the Arizona Department of Corrections.

Adams told a detective that he stabbed Al-Amin in the back and cut his throat, according to the statement.

He said Al-Amin didn't do anything threatening but that the youth had been listening to rap music in his car in the parking lot, according to the statement.

"Adams stated rap music makes him feel unsafe, because in the past he has been attacked by people (Blacks, Hispanics, and Native American) who listen to rap music. Adams further stated, people who listen to rap music are a threat to him and the community," the report said.

He told police that he felt threatened by the music, not by Al-Amin. Adams is white, and Al-Amin was black, white and Latino.

"Adams felt he needed to be 'Proactive rather than reactive' and protect himself and the community from the victim," the documents said.

Adams has been charged with first-degree premeditated murder and is being held at the Maricopa County Jail in lieu of $1 million bail.

(Source)

Nazis threaten my life, but I am not allowed to retaliate.

Saelune:
Nazis threaten my life, but I am not allowed to retaliate.

Without sarcasm, I honestly wonder what would happen to you or any LGBTQ member if they shot a Nazi in one of these stand your ground states.

I want to see if these people enforce their laws when it's unpopular. How cops treat open carry black men, I don't think it would bode well for you.

ObsidianJones:

Saelune:
Nazis threaten my life, but I am not allowed to retaliate.

Without sarcasm, I honestly wonder what would happen to you or any LGBTQ member if they shot a Nazi in one of these stand your ground states.

I want to see if these people enforce their laws when it's unpopular. How cops treat open carry black men, I don't think it would bode well for you.

Right-wingers are consistently hypocritical.

Saelune:
Nazis threaten my life, but I am not allowed to retaliate.

If a Nazi has you pinned against a car, you should definitely shoot them.

The primary issue with self defense is that it is preventive in nature ie it is meant to stop a bad thing from occurring.
As such without a time machine, it might be hard to show that the threat was real. Therefore we instead consider if there was a reasonable threat to our live and/or well being. That is a subjective standard and what is reasonable for some is not reasonable for others. In fact what some people consider reasonable might be considered insane to others.

Nielas:
The primary issue with self defense is that it is preventive in nature ie it is meant to stop a bad thing from occurring.
As such without a time machine, it might be hard to show that the threat was real. Therefore we instead consider if there was a reasonable threat to our live and/or well being. That is a subjective standard and what is reasonable for some is not reasonable for others. In fact what some people consider reasonable might be considered insane to others.

An nebulous altercation, reasonable self defense is warranted.

Rap music makes me scared, no reasonable self defense could ever be warranted.

Time machines are not always needed. Or even practical.

Use my example. If the boy Al-Amin saw Adams walking up, not looking at him, not speaking to him, or not even completely acknowledging his presence, do you think he'd find it reasonable to jump into the Time Machine and see if this guy who's shown no outward interest in him could be a threat so pre-emptive self defense would be warranted?

The problem with "consider if there was a reasonable threat to our live and/or well being" is that we now have people cropping up doing this mess that Adam does. That "Someone didn't look at me or pay attention to me... he could be plotting to kill me like Al-Amin" is now something that we have to consider.

How do we prevent that?

ObsidianJones:

Nielas:
The primary issue with self defense is that it is preventive in nature ie it is meant to stop a bad thing from occurring.
As such without a time machine, it might be hard to show that the threat was real. Therefore we instead consider if there was a reasonable threat to our live and/or well being. That is a subjective standard and what is reasonable for some is not reasonable for others. In fact what some people consider reasonable might be considered insane to others.

An nebulous altercation, reasonable self defense is warranted.

Rap music makes me scared, no reasonable self defense could ever be warranted.

Time machines are not always needed. Or even practical.

Use my example. If the boy Al-Amin saw Adams walking up, not looking at him, not speaking to him, or not even completely acknowledging his presence, do you think he'd find it reasonable to jump into the Time Machine and see if this guy who's shown no outward interest in him could be a threat so pre-emptive self defense would be warranted?

The problem with "consider if there was a reasonable threat to our live and/or well being" is that we now have people cropping up doing this mess that Adam does. That "Someone didn't look at me or pay attention to me... he could be plotting to kill me like Al-Amin" is now something that we have to consider.

How do we prevent that?

How do you prevent what? How do you prevent random violence? You can't.

Living around people means that you are always in danger. ALWAYS. No matter who the people are.

Actually, you're significantly more likely to be killed by a friend or a family member than you are by some random stranger.

The fact of the matter is, it's impossible to prevent all violence, and if someone decides they want to kill you they can probably do it because it's impossible to be on guard all the time.

How do you prevent people from using the "I felt threatened defense?" Well you can't really do that either, but just because someone wants to use that defense doesn't mean that it'll succeed.

Lawyers use bullshit excuses to try and get their clients off all the time, this isn't anything new. Remember, OJ was "framed" by the racist LAPD and he totally didn't kill Nicole.

Saelune:
Nazis threaten my life, but I am not allowed to retaliate.

If you are being assaulted by a Nazi, and you shoot them or stab them you can claim self defense as well as anyone else. By threatening your life, you *do* mean actually assaulting you or attempting to do so, not publicly assembling and speaking, right?

Schadrach:

Saelune:
Nazis threaten my life, but I am not allowed to retaliate.

If you are being assaulted by a Nazi, and you shoot them or stab them you can claim self defense as well as anyone else. By threatening your life, you *do* mean actually assaulting you or attempting to do so, not publicly assembling and speaking, right?

Even in a sarcastic joke you have to defend the Nazis, don't you?

CaitSeith:

Schadrach:

Saelune:
Nazis threaten my life, but I am not allowed to retaliate.

If you are being assaulted by a Nazi, and you shoot them or stab them you can claim self defense as well as anyone else. By threatening your life, you *do* mean actually assaulting you or attempting to do so, not publicly assembling and speaking, right?

Even in a sarcastic joke you have to defend the Nazis, don't you?

Why on earth do people keep using the phrase "defend Nazis". Defending a position and dismantling a bad idea are two separate things.

If someone were to suggest we suspend due process for suspected pedophiles and castrate them publicly, that would surely be cathartic and all but one may object that such things aren't conducive to a civilized and functional society. Is that assertion a "defense" of the issue you're trying to solve or is it just a debate of methodology?

Shadowstar38:

CaitSeith:

Schadrach:

If you are being assaulted by a Nazi, and you shoot them or stab them you can claim self defense as well as anyone else. By threatening your life, you *do* mean actually assaulting you or attempting to do so, not publicly assembling and speaking, right?

Even in a sarcastic joke you have to defend the Nazis, don't you?

Why on earth do people keep using the phrase "defend Nazis".

Because Saelune is referring to literal self-proclaimed swastika-wielding Nazis. There! Clear as day!

CaitSeith:

Shadowstar38:

CaitSeith:

Even in a sarcastic joke you have to defend the Nazis, don't you?

Why on earth do people keep using the phrase "defend Nazis".

Because Saelune is referring to literal self-proclaimed swastika-wielding Nazis. There! Clear as day!

Calm down dude.

Are you saying that by virtue of someone being a Nazi, that's justification enough to assault/shoot them? That's the thing I'm getting at here. Because earlier in this thread everyone was trying to debate me about "proportional use of force"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here