What if?

Steinhauer said:
You are correct ..... Its not.

I would not want someone with a history of felony convictions to be allowed anywhere near a firearm.

I also would not want someone who believed they were a re-incarnated Napoleon whom also carried on conversations with themselves to be anywhere near a firearm either.
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
Steinhauer said:
Ah! Then I agree with Tousi, if an innocent bystander was shot due to someone acting in self defense from a violent perpetrator, then the perpetrator should be charged with either a) murder or b) negligent homicide.

The charges should stem from what the perpetrators intentions were (i.e. robbery = negligent homicide, robbery with deadly weapon = murder).

If someone shot randomly for no reason, they should be charged to the fullest extent of the law.

Now the other issue brought up is self defense "accidents". Shooting someone because you thought they were breaking into your home, but turns out to be unannounced relative showing up - those are absolutely horrible accidents. People die in car accidents much more frequently. Those are equally tragic.

Game wardens are shot frequently when a hunter thinks they are a game animal ... I do not know how this happens ... but it does.
Click to expand...

So for an example...

You come to me and attempt to rob me. I grab a gun, and just start shooting from kingdom come with my eyes closed! I hit tousi (not your toostie) :P and hit Jillio. Harming the or possibly killing them. I will be free of all charges?? And you would be charged of this??
 
Babyblue said:
So for an example...

You come to me and attempt to rob me. I grab a gun, and just start shooting from kingdom come with my eyes closed! I hit tousi (not your toostie) :P and hit Jillio. Harming the or possibly killing them. I will be free of all charges?? And you would be charged of this??
Click to expand...

Yes. Because I would have been the one who committed the crime. If I had not committed the crime, you would have no need to act in self defense.
 
Babyblue said:
So for an example...

You come to me and attempt to rob me. I grab a gun, and just start shooting from kingdom come with my eyes closed! I hit tousi (not your toostie) :P and hit Jillio. Harming the or possibly killing them. I will be free of all charges?? And you would be charged of this??
Click to expand...

I'm reincarnating myself long enough to tell you, yes, he would, lol. Another story I know but not sure if it is strictly related is two guys are sitting in jail awaiting trial for murder. The guy who was the actual murderer hung himself in his cell before trial. The other guy was charged with that murder although he didn't do the actual killing; he actually didn't even know the murder was going to take place. He got life without the possibility......

Rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. :D
 
Steinhauer said:
Yes. Because I would have been the one who committed the crime. If I had not committed the crime, you would have no need to act in self defense.
Click to expand...

Sounds good! Which the perpetrator should be charged for it. But not always the case.

Florida have the stand your ground law.

Which supposedly protect us from situations like this.

Some been proven to doso. Some have been charged with reckless homicide.

Guess it depends. Case by case. Will look more into it.


Will be back tomorrow to discuss more.

Got my sons ball game to attend to in the AM. Bid you all good night.
 
Babyblue said:
Sounds good! Which the perpetrator should be charged for it. But not always the case.

Florida have the stand your ground law.

Which supposedly protect us from situations like this.

Some been proven to doso. Some have been charged with reckless homicide.

Guess it depends. Case by case. Will look more into it.


Will be back tomorrow to discuss more.

Got my sons ball game to attend to in the AM. Bid you all good night.
Click to expand...
Have a good night :) Hope your son's team wins.
 
Babyblue said:
So for an example...

You come to me and attempt to rob me. I grab a gun, and just start shooting from kingdom come with my eyes closed! I hit tousi (not your toostie) :P and hit Jillio. Harming the or possibly killing them. I will be free of all charges?? And you would be charged of this??
Click to expand...

You would not be innocent under our justice system. You are responsible for your actions, even if the intent of those action was different.
 
jillio said:
You would not be innocent under our justice system. You are responsible for your actions, even if the intent of those action was different.
Click to expand...
Under American law, people are judged to be either guilty or not guilty. They aren't judged to be "innocent." Innocence is a moral concept, not a legal one.

Unless the shooter was unlawfully in possession of that firearm (such as a minor, or a convicted felon), then the shooter, in most states, won't even be criminally charged, much less convicted. The shooting was self defense.

That doesn't prohibit the victims from filing civil suits against the shooter.
 
Reckless manslaughter/homicide.

Possibly would be the charge, if an innocent bystander gets injured or killed.
 
Babyblue said:
Reckless manslaughter/homicide.

Possibly would be the charge, if an innocent bystander gets injured or killed.
Click to expand...
For the attacker yes, not the person being attacked.
 
Reba said:
For the attacker yes, not the person being attacked.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If the actions taken by a shooter are certifiably "self defense" then the aggressor is charged.

Here is a different situation.

There was a home invasion here in Georgia where two men broke into someone's home at 3 a.m. The homeowner shot and killed one of the men.

The other man escaped without injury and was later arrested. The man who was arrested was charged with murder even though he was not the one who pulled the trigger.

His actions (B&E) led to the homeowner's actions of self defense which resulted in the killing of his friend.

So yes, the burglar was held accountable for his actions, which resulted in the death of his friend.

The logic here is, if a criminal breaks the law, and is threatening personal bodily harm, a law abiding citizen has every right to defend themself. Anyone else whom gets hurt/killed is a direct result of the criminal's actions.
 
I think in Australia it is different.

In Australia, the damage due to self defense has to be proportional to the damage you were at risk of in attack.

In other words, if you hit someone with a baseball bat while they're breaking and entering, then they can sue you. If, however, they're breaking in carrying a baseball bat, then the self defense with a baseball bat is probably fine.

Not sure exactly how it works, but that's what I heard in highschool, many years ago.
 
Reba said:
Under American law, people are judged to be either guilty or not guilty. They aren't judged to be "innocent." Innocence is a moral concept, not a legal one.

Unless the shooter was unlawfully in possession of that firearm (such as a minor, or a convicted felon), then the shooter, in most states, won't even be criminally charged, much less convicted. The shooting was self defense.

That doesn't prohibit the victims from filing civil suits against the shooter.
Click to expand...

Okay, since we are going to play the semantics game, "You would be judged not quilty." In fact, charges most likely would not even be filed unless it was under the concept of complicity.
 
jillio said:
Okay, since we are going to play the semantics game, "You would be judged not quilty." In fact, charges most likely would not even be filed unless it was under the concept of complicity.
Click to expand...
The law is not a game. It's not a matter of semantics; it's a matter of the law.

How would the victim of the beating be complicit to a crime?
 
Reba said:
The law is not a game. It's not a matter of semantics; it's a matter of the law.

How would the victim of the beating be complicit to a crime?
Click to expand...

And we are not enforcing law on this forum. That is why this discuss has become a game of semantics.:roll:
 
jillio said:
And we are not enforcing law on this forum. That is why this discuss has become a game of semantics.:roll:
Click to expand...
Even games have rules. You can't change the rules just to make points for yourself.
 
Reba said:
Even games have rules. You can't change the rules just to make points for yourself.
Click to expand...

Please point out exactly where that was done? If you are referring to correction of a concept being termed something quite the opposite, and a concept many most likely will encounter in the educational process, then it is a different thing entirely. Innocence and not guilty are basically the same concept. Just different terminology for the concept depending upon the perspective.
 
Back
Top