DeRoche-case-tossed-out-of-court

[Bikenut]

my .02

-snip-

And if we don't reverse our present course we will eventually, over time, turn all of our rights into privileges. Mob Rule.

+1000

Although it wouldn't be mob rule but it certainly would be being ruled by those who control the privileges. Hmmm.... sorta like what we have now?

 

[Venator]

Fear can be harm as in scared to death. But it's variable and subjective, similar to physical harm. If I strike a boxer in the arm his harm would be less or none, as opposed to striking a 90 year old woman, which may cause great harm. Yet both strikes are assualt/battery as defined by law. Both would be punished as prosribed by law.

Fear is much more subjective. Some people would be fearful of a spider on the wall while most people wouldn't be bothered at all. Some fear is rational (heights) and some fear isn't (Paper clips). While all people fear some things the level of fear (Harm) is variable. How do you qualify/quantify it and therefore legislate it?

Property damage seems more concrete and less subjective. You broke my mailbox, etc. You can see the damage done to property.

Interesting subject, worthy of further debate.

 

[Bikenut]

Fear can be harm as in scared to death. But it's variable and subjective, similar to physical harm. If I strike a boxer in the arm his harm would be less or none, as opposed to striking a 90 year old woman, which may cause great harm. Yet both strikes are assualt/battery as defined by law. Both would be punished as prosribed by law.

Fear is much more subjective. Some people would be fearful of a spider on the wall while most people wouldn't be bothered at all. Some fear is rational (heights) and some fear isn't (Paper clips). While all people fear some things the level of fear (Harm) is variable. How do you qualify/quantify it and therefore legislate it?

Property damage seems more concrete and less subjective. You broke my mailbox, etc. You can see the damage done to property.

Interesting subject, worthy of further debate.

I would suggest that the "fear"... as in "scared to death" was the instrument that caused the "harm" of death.

Now if an individual intentionally used "fear" as a weapon to cause harm, including death... then the individual who wielded the weapon of "fear" is responsible for the "harm" caused by that weapon.

And if the "fear" had no basis in an actual threat and was irrational, like the fear of spiders , or the fear of an inanimate object like a gun, and that fear alone caused some kind of harm.. including the harm of death... then, since it was the person's own irrational fear that caused the harm of death... they killed themselves. Not intentionally... but there is no one other than themselves responsible for their harm of death resulting from their own fear... certainly not just the presence of the spider or the gun.

But then... it would be impossible to legislate any control over an emotion so the next best thing is to legislate control over the things that cause the emotion............... and sell that control with the promise, actual or implied, (a false promise impossible to deliver on) that folks will be "safe" and don't have to "feel fearful" anymore.

As an aside.... this thread seems to bring out the "rant" in me quite often.

 

[Venator]

I would suggest that the "fear"... as in "scared to death" was the instrument that caused the "harm" of death.

Now if an individual intentionally used "fear" as a weapon to cause harm, including death... then the individual who wielded the weapon of "fear" is responsible for the "harm" caused by that weapon.

And if the "fear" had no basis in an actual threat and was irrational, like the fear of spiders , or the fear of an inanimate object like a gun, and that fear alone caused some kind of harm.. including the harm of death... then, since it was the person's own irrational fear that caused the harm of death... they killed themselves. Not intentionally... but there is no one other than themselves responsible for their harm of death resulting from their own fear... certainly not just the presence of the spider or the gun.

But then... it would be impossible to legislate any control over an emotion so the next best thing is to legislate control over the things that cause the emotion............... and sell that control with the promise, actual or implied, (a false promise impossible to deliver on) that folks will be "safe" and don't have to "feel fearful" anymore.

As an aside.... this thread seems to bring out the "rant" in me quite often.

I like that analysis, the fear killed them the thing they feared did not. Good point. And as you say if I somehow used the thing they feared to cause the death then and only then might harm have been caused me and therefore some punishment imposed against me for that action..

In regards to a lawfully carried gun, the fearful person has options to remove themselves from the object of fear to reduce their fear. The fear is their responsibility to control and the onus would not fall on the person with the lawful gun.

I like this and will use it example when asked about peoples right to "Feel safe" or be without fear.

 

[DrTodd]

And attempting to put conditions (restrictions) on my participating in this conversation is also an attempt to control. I didn't say that was an intentional thing... or even a bad thing... I'm just recognizing it for what it is.

I had no other choice... I attempted to leave it open ended, and I get criticized. So, to me at least, you wanted to know where I was going with the conversation. So I attempted to play out where it could go, even asking you along the way in the process if you agree... and then you claim control. Damned if I do and damned if I don't, I guess. But since you have continued to respond, I guess I can move on...

 

[Bikenut]

I like that analysis, the fear killed them the thing they feared did not. Good point. And as you say if I somehow used the thing they feared to cause the death then and only then might harm have been caused me and therefore some punishment imposed against me for that action..

In regards to a lawfully carried gun, the fearful person has options to remove themselves from the object of fear to reduce their fear. The fear is their responsibility to control and the onus would not fall on the person with the lawful gun.

I like this and will use it example when asked about peoples right to "Feel safe" or be without fear.

Some people believe they have a "right" to... feel safe? Or to be without fear? Ahhh... the interesting twists the mind of a leftist control freak elitist can take to justify imposing control onto others.

Hey.... if you are going to use the fruits of my contemplations of rights and the meaning of life then I should be compensated in some manner. How about you don't screw up my copy of your book with your signature? I'll settle for a pristine copy.


















I'm kiddin' ya.... I'd much rather have a video of you attempting to leap over a crack in the sidewalk.

 

[Venator]

Some people believe they have a "right" to... feel safe? Or to be without fear? Ahhh... the interesting twists the mind of a leftist control freak elitist can take to justify imposing control onto others.

Hey.... if you are going to use the fruits of my contemplations of rights and the meaning of life then I should be compensated in some manner. How about you don't screw up my copy of your book with your signature? I'll settle for a pristine copy.


Absolutely, but those cost a little more!I'm kiddin' ya.... I'd much rather have a video of you attempting to leap over a crack in the sidewalk.

Absolutely, but those cost a little more!:dude: I'll see what I can do about the video.

 

[DrTodd]

my .02

IMO fear can be harm in some instances ie;

I agree, and I actually think others here do too. In fact the Michigan Self Defense Laws specifiically states, and I quote:

Quote:
Sec. 2. (1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

My point is this: some here think that the issue is a sense of being afraid to death, so to speak. For some that may be true. But laws tend to deal with probabilities, not only punishing when the acts of "harm" happens, but also if a person could reasonable BELIEVE that it is about to happen. Also, looking at the Self-defense Legislation that Michigan passed, we may even support this notion ourselves at times.

But that is the crux of the issue. Going back to the case in the original post, I believe that the judge decided correctly. Why do I think he did so? Perhaps it was that the potential for the accused to have been hurting anyone but his family is very low. He was drunk, in his house, and possessed a firearm. I think the case would have been slightly different had he been outside of his house and am very certain had he been at an event where there were many other people, the case would have been decided very differently.
This notion is also directed at those who believe that by stating this I feel it is ok to drink and carry. Well, like almost all law, it depends. I think the important thing is to always look at the potential of harm to others. If someone is taking potshots over peoples heads, even though there is no actual physical harm, I think it is ridiculous that we wait until and actual physical harm occurs. By the same token, merely carrying a firearm with any amount of alcohol in one's system is probably not as dangerous as the example I listed first.

My point, and what I was attempting to get to until this thread was derailed, is that we do deal with restrictions on behavior (rights or not). Most of the time, these restrictions are based upon a potential for harm. We are not going to show people that carrying a firearm openly is a safe and reasonable exercise of the right to bear arms if every time we enter a discussion with those who believe differently we start calling them names. In fact, I would argue it does more harm than good. But from what I have seen here, the response is generally "you are a liberal", "I have my rights", "you are trying to... blah blah blah."
Perhaps it would serve the cause much better if we actually consider what the Antis are saying instead of jumping to some foregone conclusion. What concerns me is that the continued bashing of those whose opinion is different than the one we hold, although sometimes well deserved, does nothing but turn what could have been a thought-provoking process into an argument where the sides just dig in their heels. But, perhaps it is too much to ask from people here and, if so, perhaps we will be no further ahead twenty years from now than we are now.
I'm going to drop my participation in this thread now... the potential to be anything other than a bitch session about "damn liberals" is pretty small. But in leaving the discussion, I only ask that you at least consider the option of being a reasonable representative of the 2nd Amendment and try to persuade others by logic instead of shouting people down. At the very least, you may win some converts who are on the fence.

 

[TheQ]

Whenever you see "reasonably" I'm the law, you have to consider the legal fictitious "reasonable person" -- go wiki it.

 

[Bikenut]

my .02

IMO fear can be harm in some instances ie;

I agree, and I actually think others here do too. In fact the Michigan Self Defense Laws specifiically states, and I quote:

Quote:
Sec. 2. (1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

My point is this: some here think that the issue is a sense of being afraid to death, so to speak. For some that may be true. But laws tend to deal with probabilities, not only punishing when the acts of "harm" happens, but also if a person could reasonable BELIEVE that it is about to happen.

The law says... "reasonably believe"... not "is in fear of". An important distinction because perhaps harm could be reasonably believed is about to happen... but fearing it might happen is not a legal defense.

Fearing the harm is not addressed in the law... only the honest and reasonable belief. So how does that validate "fear" as a "harm"? In other words the law doesn't care if I feel so scared I crapped my pants... all the law cares about is whether or not there is a reasonable belief... you know... enough facts present to warrant making the reasonable decision... that there is imminent danger of the specific harm of great bodily harm and/or death and/or sexual penetration that requires a response with deadly force.

Also, looking at the Self-defense Legislation that Michigan passed, we may even support this notion ourselves at times.

But that is the crux of the issue. Going back to the case in the original post, I believe that the judge decided correctly. Why do I think he did so? Perhaps it was that the potential for the accused to have been hurting anyone but his family is very low. He was drunk, in his house, and possessed a firearm. I think the case would have been slightly different had he been outside of his house and am very certain had he been at an event where there were many other people, the case would have been decided very differently.
This notion is also directed at those who believe that by stating this I feel it is ok to drink and carry. Well, like almost all law, it depends. I think the important thing is to always look at the potential of harm to others.

And what is a "potential of harm" other than someone's notion of what scares them? Or what is a behavior they don't think is "safe"? Or is a behavior that they just don't like? Who gets to decide those things? If we take this "potential of harm" to it's logical conclusion then no person would be able to move... or even fart... because there is always some potential of harm inherent in every human behavior. So who gets to decide (control) what is an acceptable level of the potential of harm?

If someone is taking potshots over peoples heads, even though there is no actual physical harm, I think it is ridiculous that we wait until and actual physical harm occurs.

Let me see... could it be possible that the harm isn't the firing over the crowd but is actually the behavior of endangering folks with firing over the crowd? Could endangering be a harm.. the endangering itself... not the "fear" induced by the endangering?

By the same token, merely carrying a firearm with any amount of alcohol in one's system is probably not as dangerous as the example I listed first.

Again, who gets to decide how dangerous a thing is? And who gets to decide if a drunk with a holstered gun that was never used is going to suddenly use that gun recklessly.... well... probably someone who was in "fear" that "might" happen... so in order to prevent it even though it didn't happen but someone is afraid it just might... no person should be allowed to have a gun in a holster while drunk. Goody... now I "feel" safe even though any drunk who wants to carry a gun still will carry a gun.

My point, and what I was attempting to get to until this thread was derailed, is that we do deal with restrictions on behavior (rights or not).

Yes, we do. We certainly agree on that! I just do not agree that there should be restrictions on the right being exercised because of a behavior.

Most of the time, these restrictions are based upon a potential for harm.

I disagree... most restrictions on rights are based on the desire to control packaged in a nice box with the ribbon of "You will be safer from harm... believe us" tied around it. None of the restrictive gun laws have made anyone safer and even the statistics available show that in the States with the most lax gun laws crime is much lower than in the States with the most restrictive gun laws. So where is the protection from the potential for harm there?

We are not going to show people that carrying a firearm openly is a safe and reasonable exercise of the right to bear arms if every time we enter a discussion with those who believe differently we start calling them names. In fact, I would argue it does more harm than good. But from what I have seen here, the response is generally "you are a liberal", "I have my rights", "you are trying to... blah blah blah."

Hmmm... who did the name calling during this discussion are you referring to? I readily admit that I changed the direction of the discussion from where you intended it to go but I was even polite as I did it.

Perhaps it would serve the cause much better if we actually consider what the Antis are saying instead of jumping to some foregone conclusion.

Yes... let us listen to, and give credence to, the arguments offered by those who want to get rid of our rights. That is exactly how we got to the point where the right to keep and bear became as restricted as it is now. So exactly how will returning to the old and flawed arguments of the antis help anyone other than the antis?

What concerns me is that the continued bashing of those whose opinion is different than the one we hold, although sometimes well deserved, does nothing but turn what could have been a thought-provoking process into an argument where the sides just dig in their heels. But, perhaps it is too much to ask from people here and, if so, perhaps we will be no further ahead twenty years from now than we are now.

I am confused.... has not my participation in this conversation been thought provoking? Have I not been polite? Just because I offer a view you may not agree with doesn't mean the discourse has been anything other than polite.

I'm going to drop my participation in this thread now... the potential to be anything other than a bitch session about "damn liberals" is pretty small.

Now who is bringing name calling into the discussion?

But in leaving the discussion, I only ask that you at least consider the option of being a reasonable representative of the 2nd Amendment and try to persuade others by logic instead of shouting people down. At the very least, you may win some converts who are on the fence.

I believe I have been offering logic... and I don't recall shouting anyone down. I do understand there are some who don't like the logic I presented because it is contrary to their own beliefs...

But I do have the opinion that the vast majority of those who frequent this forum have been, are now, and will be in the future, extremely reasonable representatives of the right to keep and bear arms.

I "feel" sad that this interesting discussion apparently will lose your input.

 

[springerdave]

I reason that this reasonable discussion should continue reasonably. Two great thinkers edifying many. I am picking up good arguments from this discussion. Thank you both.springerdave.

 

[CoonDog]

I absolutely cannot believe that there are people ON THIS FORUM (who I thought were smart and well educated about firearms and freedoms and such) who think it is OK to carry a gun outside the home while drunk or on drugs!

Yes, there are limits; but that does not mean they should be criminalized.