OC Advocate Arrested

[Citizen]

SNIP If he did as indicated in the story ie pulling a gun, pointing at someones head and shooting it into the ground, then to bad for him as there is no sympathy here,

If we brought it on ourselves then we should have known better.

(Not to argue or offend. Also, not to say some things did or didn't happen.)

I think this is one of the ways we bring it on ourselves--setting unrealistic standards and then viewing harshly anyone who does not measure up to such standard.

For example, how much reading or training does it take before one learns that warning shots are not a good idea? And, are they never, never, ever a good idea? In what context are they not a good idea? Are there occasions when maybe they are a good idea? You see what I mean.

Do we really expect all people to be born with our level of knowledge about the intricacies of self-defense law? Or to learn it all before they are involved in a high stress situation? And, do we really expect that such people do not deserve the right to defense of self and others, or conversely that they may exercise the right only after they have learned it all?

Lets be realistic. For many, many people, the only training they have is TV, movies, and what Uncle Charlie taught them about dragging the badguy inside or putting a kitchen knife in the dead badguy's hand. Certainly none of that covers things like warning shots. Or, not brandishing.

In the absence of formal training or extensive reading of recognized authorities, how do we expect the average person is going to react?

Lets face it, things have gotten complicated. And, when we judge harshly others who do not have our own level of knowledge, we bring on ourselves the problems of those people. Or, rather we sort of create the problem by setting the standard unreasonably high.

So, the moral of my story is that when reading about self-defense situations, we should remember to look at it from the viewpoint of an untrained person before we judge the individual.

Separately, just to give another alternative to the allegations, and nothing to do with the preceding text, what if Tyler did actually have lawful justification for lethal force? Suddenly his alleged ill-informed actions would actually be merciful and measured, solving the problem without wounding or killing someone even when justified under the law.

 

[1245A Defender]

if if if?

citizen wrote

Separately, just to give another alternative to the allegations, and nothing to do with the preceding text, what if Tyler did actually have lawful justification for lethal force? Suddenly his alleged ill-informed actions would actually be merciful and measured, solving the problem without wounding or killing someone even when justified under the law.




if he was justified in shooting the gun, He should have stayed and called the cops himself!

 

[BigDave]

I think this is one of the ways we bring it on ourselves--setting unrealistic standards and then viewing harshly anyone who does not measure up to such standard.

So, the moral of my story is that when reading about self-defense situations, we should remember to look at it from the viewpoint of an untrained person before we judge the individual.

Unrealistic Standards! Is this saying, there should be an allowance for those not taking care in preparing themselves to exercise this right with a lesser degree of seriousness? Unacceptable

The Moral of the Story is to Prepare Yourself As Soon As Possible and not rely upon being forgiven for doing something that could have been avoided.

 

[Lammo]

Words just can't describe this guy. This will have to do:

If people continue doing things like this they WILL make "Stupid" a felony.

With 23+ years in the prosecutor's chair I can guarantee you that "Stupid" is a felony. We just haven't gotten around to getting the legislature to call it that.

 

[kwikrnu]

ive put some thought into this...

if im put into a situation where i discharge my firearm in self defence and the media spins it to make me look like the villian... will OCDO members insult me and turn there backs on me like some members have done in this thread?

yes

 

[Jeff Hayes]

With 23+ years in the prosecutor's chair I can guarantee you that "Stupid" is a felony. We just haven't gotten around to getting the legislature to call it that.

Once we get the legislature to pass a law on being stupid, can we get them to then pass a law to fix stupid??

 

[BigDave]

ive put some thought into this...

if I'm put into a situation where i discharge my firearm in self defense and the media spins it to make me look like the villain... will OCDO members insult me and turn there backs on me like some members have done in this thread?

I am not convinced that it is not an accurate depiction of what occurred and so there for Yes, if one is stupid enough to act in the manner described then Yes, everyone carrying has to know better.

 

[Lammo]

Once we get the legislature to pass a law on being stupid, can we get them to then pass a law to fix stupid??

Sorry, but I think it's pretty well established that you can't fix stupid (with apologies to Ron White). Besides, then I would be out of a job!

 

[Citizen]

Separately, just to give another alternative to the allegations, and nothing to do with the preceding text, what if Tyler did actually have lawful justification for lethal force? Suddenly his alleged ill-informed actions would actually be merciful and measured, solving the problem without wounding or killing someone even when justified under the law.

if he was justified in shooting the gun, He should have stayed and called the cops himself!

This is a perfect example of what I was just talking about--harsh judgements and unrealistic standards. Perhaps "fixed ideas" might be more accurate, I'm not sure.

A very few courts have already recognized that flight does not equal guilt. They will still let the prosecution introduce flight as evidence of guilt, but they have finally come around to recognizing that a person can just be so stressed and scared that they are not thinking and just run, even though justified. My source on this is Massad Ayoob. Sorry, I cannot recall the magazine title or issue.

My point is that one can still have a justified defensive gun use, and still be just scared and flee. We don't need the courts to tell us this is possible; we don't need Ayoob to tell us.

If we just consult our knowledge of human nature, rather than supplant it with an idea we picked up somewhere about how people "should act", it is not hard to figure out.

I mean really. Come on. Who said the "authority" who made the rule (about an honest man having nothing to fear) knew what the hell he was talking about, or wasn't some judge trying to find a way to convict someone. Or hadn't himself already hardened his heart to the point where he couldn't even imagine something almost obvious. Or, that he even meant for it to apply in all cases, in all contexts, without exception.

 

[BigDave]

A very few courts have already recognized that flight does not equal guilt. They will still let the prosecution introduce flight as evidence of guilt, but they have finally come around to recognizing that a person can just be so stressed and scared that they are not thinking and just run, even though justified. My source on this is Massad Ayoob. Sorry, I cannot recall the magazine title or issue.

Wow the course I attended with Massad Ayoob in LFI-1 recommended to call 911 as soon as it was safe to do so, not that you might get lucky and prove running is not a form of guilt.

Mass teaches avoidance, Use of Deadly Force, Actions after an incident in his course along with interactions with responding officers and dealing with the aftermath, hmm could not do that if you run away and not report the incident.

Running and not reporting the incident nor to summons medical assistance, is seen as a form of guilt with many Officers and Prosecutors and future Jury Members. Do you really want to test your unreferenced comments in court?

Massad Ayoob's class is an excellent class to take as you have the man there to discuss the issues first hand and interaction with this material is unsurpassed.

 

[Citizen]

Unrealistic Standards! Is this saying, there should be an allowance for those not taking care in preparing themselves to exercise this right with a lesser degree of seriousness? Unacceptable

The Moral of the Story is to Prepare Yourself As Soon As Possible and not rely upon being forgiven for doing something that could have been avoided.

Yes, that is exactly what I was saying.

Your own words betray you. A person cannot rely on being forgiven unless he knows he is deliberately avoiding something. I'm not talking about people who know better. I am talking about people who do not know better. Keeping in mind what "better" means, how complex it can be, and how much personal research, study, or class time and cost it can take to achieve the same level of knowledge some of us have here.

If a person does not know he doesn't know, how is he going to prepare himself? Or, rather, if he genuinely thinks he knows "enough", no matter how mistaken, how is he going to prepare himself further?

Also, are you suggesting people who cannot afford training must forego self-defense? Or, that poor people should immediately start setting aside bread money so they can pay for a course to go with the Jennings pistol they could just barely afford? And, that they do not deserve to defend themselves until they know all that we know? Of course, that is not what you are suggesting. You have already changed the parameters mid-post. You went from "must know it all" to "learn it as fast as you can." So, it seems we may reach some agreement, yet.

How much seriousness and devotion to the subject is enough to meet your standard, BigDave? And, at what point does a person meet your standard such that he merits the right to defend themselves with a gun?

Do teenagers who defend themselves or their siblings at home meet this standard?

 

[joeroket]

joeroket posted:

No it won't. Domestic violence is defined as acts of violence between one family member or household member and another. An assault on an ex-girlfriend who does not reside with him does not qualify.

__________________________________________________________________________

This is actually incorrect. The correct definition of a domestic relationship where one can be arrested for domestic violence is....

RCW 26.50.010

Definitions.


</B>As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings given them:

(1) "Domestic violence" means: (a) Physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury or assault, between family or household members; (b) sexual assault of one family or household member by another; or (c) stalking as defined in RCW 9A.46.110 of one family or household member by another family or household member.

(2) "Family or household members" means spouses, domestic partners, former spouses, former domestic partners, persons who have a child in common regardless of whether they have been married or have lived together at any time, adult persons related by blood or marriage, adult persons who are presently residing together or who have resided together in the past, persons sixteen years of age or older who are presently residing together or who have resided together in the past and who have or have had a dating relationship, persons sixteen years of age or older with whom a person sixteen years of age or older has or has had a dating relationship, and persons who have a biological or legal parent-child relationship, including stepparents and stepchildren and grandparents and grandchildren.

(3) "Dating relationship" means a social relationship of a romantic nature. Factors that the court may consider in making this determination include: (a) The length of time the relationship has existed; (b) the nature of the relationship; and (c) the frequency of interaction between the parties.

You are right about the definition but I said an ex-girlfriend who does not reside with him. I guess I just assumed, by the charges that this gal and the perp have never resided together. That is why I said it would not be a domestic charge.

 

[BigDave]

After A Shooting, What To Reveal
Written by Massad Ayoob
http://www.tactical-life.com/online/combat-handguns/after-a-shooting-what-to-reveal/

Here is the article written by Mass, in his own words and as many here know I have discussed this issue several times on this forum just to hear several just listen to the lawyer and ex cop on the internet, and shut and say nothing.

This applies in this discussion as it addressed the issue of leaving the crime and not reporting the incident.

Further down the article you will see what Mass recommends when interacting with police after an incident, some I am sure will be surprised and still resist to think it through but that is fine, you will pay the price for you choices in the end.

 

[BigDave]

Yes, that is exactly what I was saying.
Your own words betray you. A person cannot rely on being forgiven unless he knows he is deliberately avoiding something. I'm not talking about people who know better. I am talking about people who do not know better. Keeping in mind what "better" means, how complex it can be, and how much personal research, study, or class time and cost it can take to achieve the same level of knowledge some of us have here.

Have you heard ignorance of the law is not an excuse, I am really surprised at this issue is even being raised!
If you feel this way I would not include yourself into the idea of "same level of knowledge some of us have" as you missed the boat on this one.

If a person does not know he doesn't know, how is he going to prepare himself? Or, rather, if he genuinely thinks he knows "enough", no matter how mistaken, how is he going to prepare himself further?

This is a responsibility one accepts once they choose to protect themselves with deadly force.
Anything less of this you are not protecting your family from harms way as to a physical threat nor if you are locked up as the bread winner that can no longer provide for their family do to being locked up or loose any financial security for many years to come.

Also, are you suggesting people who cannot afford training must forego self-defense? Or, that poor people should immediately start setting aside bread money so they can pay for a course to go with the Jennings pistol they could just barely afford? And, that they do not deserve to defend themselves until they know all that we know? Of course, that is not what you are suggesting. You have already changed the parameters mid-post. You went from "must know it all" to "learn it as fast as you can." So, it seems we may reach some agreement, yet.

What importance do you place on your life, or the life of any member in your family (child, wife, parents, grandparents, niece nephew)?
What value are they to you $50, $100, $1000 or more or is drinking that 6 pack more important or that extra dinner out a week?
If one takes the responsibility into defending ones self and family they will save the money to do just that.

How much seriousness and devotion to the subject is enough to meet your standard, BigDave? And, at what point does a person meet your standard such that he merits the right to defend themselves with a gun?

My standards have nothing to do with it, what are you willing to loose in your life to avoid spending a little bit of time and money to protect it.

The Firearms Academy of Seattle is an very affordable training facility with excellent training here in Washington State and I am sure there are others in many other States as well.

Do teenagers who defend themselves or their siblings at home meet this standard?

Now you are grasping for straws by comparing siblings fights with use of deadly force.

If you are involved in an incident as such and you acted with in the law then call 911 to report the incident and summons assistance, (sarcasm on) if you did not act with in the law then run boy run the law is coming for you.(sarcasm off)

 

[Citizen]

Now you are grasping for straws by comparing siblings fights with use of deadly force.

Sad, Dave. Too sad. I was not comparing siblings fighting. But its a little sad you were so busy fighting me to miss the point and think that I was talking about kids fighting.

I was asking about a teenager who defended himself and siblings. We have several reports of teens using a gun to defend themselves and siblings. The point being, are such teens off your list? Do they or do they not deserve the right to defend themselves even though they lack more than basic training in firearm safety and use?

 

[Citizen]

SNIP multi-quote

I get it, Dave. Only people who are as serious as you are deserve the chance to defend themselves. Only Dave's rules apply. And don't say they don't. That's where this part of the thread started--me commenting about judging people harshly with unrealistic standards; I said nothing about judging their compliance with the law.

Do what you think is right. If you think an eighty year old lady, or low IQ person deserves harsh criticism because they weren't as "smart" as you or as "serious" as you, do and say what your conscience dictates.

 

[Jim675]

You've made a direct hit. Throw in some "Massad Ayoob Fan Club" and you've sunk his battleship.
Only we are special enough to be armed. No amount of training and/or experience can make up for not being me.

 

[amzbrady]

So much being said without all the facts. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

 

[BigDave]

Citizen answer the questions asked, how valuable is your life or the life of family member?

You can afford insurance on the home and car, how about a life? how about your security and of course how about the security of your family?

I know this does not support your position of feeling there should be different laws for different levels of training or confidence to ignorance, but it just does not work that way.

 

[Ruby]

Have you heard ignorance of the law is not an excuse, I am really surprised at this issue is even being raised!
If you feel this way I would not include yourself into the idea of "same level of knowledge some of us have" as you missed the boat on this one.



This is a responsibility one accepts once they choose to protect themselves with deadly force.
Anything less of this you are not protecting your family from harms way as to a physical threat nor if you are locked up as the bread winner that can no longer provide for their family do to being locked up or loose any financial security for many years to come.



What importance do you place on your life, or the life of any member in your family (child, wife, parents, grandparents, niece nephew)?
What value are they to you $50, $100, $1000 or more or is drinking that 6 pack more important or that extra dinner out a week?
If one takes the responsibility into defending ones self and family they will save the money to do just that.



My standards have nothing to do with it, what are you willing to loose in your life to avoid spending a little bit of time and money to protect it.

The Firearms Academy of Seattle is an very affordable training facility with excellent training here in Washington State and I am sure there are others in many other States as well.



Now you are grasping for straws by comparing siblings fights with use of deadly force.

If you are involved in an incident as such and you acted with in the law then call 911 to report the incident and summons assistance, (sarcasm on) if you did not act with in the law then run boy run the law is coming for you.(sarcasm off)

BigDave, I take exception to you saying that The Firearms Academy of Seattle is very affordable. I have been to their website and have wanted to continue training, but anything beyond the very basics costs hundreds of dollars. This is affordable for who?!? Certainly not me. A basic firearms safety class at Champion Arms in Kent is $80, if it hasn't gone up since last year. That amount of money MIGHT feed a small family for a week, if they are really careful. I agree with you that people need training and need to know the laws, etc. These are things I did on my own, for safety reasons and to stay on the right side of the law. I also took 10 hours of training from a firearms instructor last year at $50 a pop. Glad I could do it then because I certainly couldn't do it now. Any further training I will do is on hold indefinitely. I used to go and shoot almost every week; now I am lucky if I can go twice a month. It is a money thing, BigDave. People are going to pay their bills, rent, and feed their families before they put out money they can't spare for firearms training. It is my hope that if some inexperienced person buys a gun for protection that they know someone who can teach them the basics if they can't afford a class. I agree that it is incumbent upon a person to seek out training when they can afford it and to educate themselves as much as possible in the meantime. But, I would not deny someone the right to defend themselves with a gun because they can't afford training.