First of all if your carrying the last thing you do is pick a fight so the rest of the question seems a bit pointless imo.
First of all if your carrying the last thing you do is pick a fight so the rest of the question seems a bit pointless imo.
<table width="90%" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 align=center><tr><td>Quote, originally posted by TNT »</td></tr><tr><td class="quote">if a woman makes a statement in the forest and nobody is around, is she still wrong ?? </td></tr></table>
Well, first of all, just because somebody picked a fight mouthing, taunting, ect. doesn't mean that the other person is justified to beat that person's a**. But IMO, I would say that person could not shoot the other person. For one to use deadly force, they must fear for their life and truely believe their life is in danger. It would be nearly impossible to prove even with a very good lawyer that a person that started/agged on the fight, was truely in fear of death to be justified in shooting the other person. Most people, and jurors would most likely look at this as the shooter was looking for a halfway justified reason to kill the other and the whole occurance was pre-meditated.
It's all a bad idea.
There's a lot of responsibility that goes along with strapping a pistol on your hip and venturing out in public, not the least of which is avoiding confrontation.
Making good people helpless has never made bad people harmless.
<table width="90%" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 align=center><tr><td>Quote, originally posted by aussiebasser »</td></tr><tr><td class="quote">
Isn't it really the call of the Jury at your court case to decide if you were justified or not? What you think won't really matter when it gets to court. I doubt that the court would accept a decision made by a majority of members on BBC that you were justified in popping a cap into his ass as a reasonable defence. Your laws state that a person is innocent until proven guilty. To prove the guilt, the accused has the right to defend his actions. In this case, and in your case the accused has that right taken from him. While I believe your part of the story, you may have left out a bit about you walking down the same street every night and calling out F@#% you N@##%$ down that alleyway. That is why the police need to investigate and a court needs to make a decision, you can't shortcut it by the police thinking it was justified, that is not their job.</td></tr></table>
Of course the police will investigate. I'm sure that the detectives, lawyers, private investigators hired by the dead guy's family, and whomever else will examine my every action from the time I woke up that morning until the shooting. In Mississippi, we have the "Castle Doctrine," or "Stand your ground clause," or whatever the technical name for it is.
Here's a copy and paste from our state statutes. Bullet points A, B, C, D, G, and H only apply to police officers and other officials, so I edited those out and left the ones that would apply to me:
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or omission of another shall be justifiable in the following cases:
(e) When committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be;
(f) When committed in the lawful defense of one's own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished;
So in my hypothetical situation, if it happens like I described it, I'm pretty well protected by the law. I'm not saying I wouldn't have a tough time through the whole process, though. Killing someone is something I honestly pray to God that I never have to do. Then the investigation, whatever court proceedings I'll have to go to, then the family of the guy sues me....
But, in the end, the law is on my side, and I should (emphasis on SHOULD) come out a free man.
Reply With Quote
