[kenberg]

 blackshoe, on 2013-February-15, 19:39, said:

Maybe we should just change the subject. Is there a right to arm bears?

I'll go with this, but can you keep an armed bear?

[Trinidad]

 kenberg, on 2013-February-16, 07:32, said:

I'll go with this, but can you keep an armed bear?

Yes, but the bear will cost you an arm and a leg.

Simple arithmetic leads to the conclusion that an armed bear will cost you then at least an arm and an arm and a leg = 2 arms and a leg. Is that really worth it?

Rik

[cherdano]

 Winstonm, on 2013-February-15, 15:31, said:

In my view the wrong tact is being used to address gun control. The SC has decided that the 2nd Amendment applies to individual ownership rights. At the same time, the right to regulate commerce is a power granted to Congress. It seems to me the clear answer is to regulate the sales and manufacturing processes, conceding the right to own arms but not any right to purchase arms. In other words, one must manufacture his own gun in order to own a gun. If one wishes to own a weapon that is not self-made, then considerable regulations apply.

Who can argue with that?

9 Americans.

[Winstonm]

 onoway, on 2013-February-15, 23:59, said:

Why does this remind me of The Merchant Of Venice?

Because one has the right to own arms but no right to buy arms - or perhaps because you named your rifle Shylock?

[blackshoe]

 Winstonm, on 2013-February-17, 09:05, said:

Because one has the right to own arms but no right to buy arms

This logic is flawed, of course.

[Fluffy]

Today on local news, a Jewel-shop owner shot 2 guys assualting him, both assaulters are on the hospital one of them on critical condition.

Since they were armed only with knives his response is disproportionated by spannish law, owner will face homicide charges.

[mike777]

 Fluffy, on 2013-February-17, 14:40, said:

Today on local news, a Jewel-shop owner shot 2 guys assualting him, both assaulters are on the hospital one of them on critical condition.

Since they were armed only with knives his response is disproportionated by spannish law, owner will face homicide charges.

Now that is a tough law, no one died but still he will face homicide charges.

What charges do the other guys face?

[ArtK78]

 mike777, on 2013-February-17, 18:03, said:

Now that is a tough law, no one died but still he will face homicide charges.

What charges do the other guys face?

I am going to take a wild shot (no pun intended) but if no one dies I don't think the shopkeeper is going to face a homicide charge.

Attempted homicide perhaps.

Still, the law seems harsh. He did not initiate the confrontation.

[kenberg]

If I have learned anything it is to not be too sure of something I haven't looked at closely, but if two guys come at me with knives I think logic would dictate I get to defend myself as best I can in a manner of my choosing.

Some years ag o the daughter of a friend was working in a jewelry store when a guy came in with a gun. She kicked him where it hurts and took the gun away from him. It was pretty clear that my friend had conflicting feelings that his daughter was nuts and that he was really proud of her.

Most of us who are in favor of bringing guns under stricter control are not opposed to self-defense. For me at least that includes a right to use deadly force if someone brandishes a lethal weapon in a manner that can reasonably be interpreted as threatening. The bad guy does not have to be given one free shot, or one free lunge with a knife, before you take action. But we, or at least I, think that we can do a lot better in sharply reducing the occurrence of such situations. And that does not mean that we arm everyone to the teeth.

As I think more about this, I realize that my own life has been pretty far removed from violence. It can give me an unrealistic view and I should be cautions. Nonetheless, we cannot be paralyzed and leave the resolution to the gangbangers, or to the gun manufacturers and second amendment fundamentalists. We have to work this through as best we can. I hope that we do.

[Trinidad]

 ArtK78, on 2013-February-17, 19:12, said:

Still, the law seems harsh. He did not initiate the confrontation.

This demonstrates a big difference in American and European thinking.

In the USA, you are supposed to defend yourself. You are the only one responsible for your life. No one else is. So, you pull the gun and shoot.

In Europe, the police has a monopoly on violence. That means that the store owner was not allowed to pull the trigger. He was supposed to run, leave his store behind, and call the police.

The European way of thinking is: Why would it be harsh? He may not have initiated the confrontation (which -to European standards- is still uncertain), but he did pull the trigger, didn't he? Sure, there are mitigating circumstances (which certainly will reduce the sentence), but in the end, he chose to take a life where he could have run away (and give up the jewelry in the store). There are insurances to share the material loss. We all agreed to let the police handle these things but the jeweler decided that he was above that.

I am merely describing the difference in thinking between Europe and the USA, maybe exagerating a little bit to make the point. I am not putting a value ("US or Europe is better") on it.

Rik

[mike777]

Very interesting post, thanks for taking the time to give us a different point of view.

[onoway]

There was a similar case in Alberta, Canada, a few years ago. The shop owner had been robbed several times within a couple of years and each time the bigger and better steel door and other precautions were breached and the owner threatened. Each time he gave in in fear for his life. He was having problems getting insurance in spite of following all the insurance company's demands and said felt he was being abandoned by both the police, who never recovered anything much less found the guys responsible, and the insurance company who are of course not required to provide insurance to anyone if they choose not to.

Finally he had had enough and got a gun, and sure enough the thieves showed up again and at least one of them got shot. The police pressed charges against the shop owner but there was such public outrage that they dropped the charges.

I believe those thieves had guns, however, so that is a slightly different story, although being potentially attacked by a couple of hefty guys with knives doesn't seem to be much less terrifying and potentially fatal in that situation.

[kenberg]

 Trinidad, on 2013-February-18, 02:44, said:

In the USA, you are supposed to defend yourself. You are the only one responsible for your life. No one else is. So, you pull the gun and shoot.

Rik

This is not my view at all. I very much favor letting the police handle it. The most obvious reason is that I would like to go on living, and letting the police handle it seems like a good way to do that. Well, most of the time. As I mentioned, I don't want to sound too certain about an event when I don't know the details. The original description used the word assaulted. This may be a language problem but assaulted implies physical contact, or attempted contact, or threatened contact.

I would say that if it is a reasonably likely that your life, or your physical well-being, is in danger from some thugs that are attempting to intimidate and rob you, you should have the legal right to do pretty much what you think is necessary. In most cases, I would say that the best thing to do is to scram and call the cops. But that will not always be a viable solution.

It is true that I think that once a person points a gun at me, or flashes a substantial knife and indicates a willingness to use it, I think that his right to life gets low priority. Practicality takes precedence over his right to life. This seems so obvious to me that I expect most people, American, or British, or French, or Spanish, would agree. I have known quite a few Europeans and I am not at all sure that, by and large, they have any more regard for the right to life of an armed thug than I do. Maybe I have been reading too many Scandinavian detective stories.

But I do not at all advocate the cowboy approach. I doubt that most cowboys advocated the cowboy approach.

[blackshoe]

IANAL, but I don't think the legal definition of assault, in most of the United States, includes as a prerequisite physical contact. If there is physical contact, the charge would be battery. Case in point: once upon a time, a man got out of his truck and confronted me, with a baseball bat in his hand. His intent was clearly to physically attack me — he said so. I believe the charge in that case would have been "assault with a deadly weapon", even though he never touched me (I talked him out of it).

[mike777]

Assault is defined by state law so there are 50 slightly different definitions. There are also degree's of assault:
first degree, second degree, simple assault.
----------------

1.In criminal and tort law, an act, usually consisting of a threat or attempt to inflict bodily injury upon another person, coupled with the apparent present ability to succeed in carrying out the threat or the attempt if not prevented, that causes the person to have a reasonable fear or apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause battery or the fear or apprehension is required so long as the victim is placed in reasonable apprehension or fear. No actual physical injury is needed to establish an assault, but if there is any physical contact, the act constitutes both an assault and a battery.
2.In criminal law, in some states, the term includes battery and attempted battery.
3.Any attack .
4.The act of inflicting bodily injury upon another. See also mayhem.
aggravated assault
A criminal assault accompanied by circumstances that make it more severe, such as the victimÂ’s suffering serious bodily injury or an assault committed with a dangerous and deadly weapon. The additional circumstances that make the act an aggravated assault are set by statute.
sexual assault
1.Rape.
2.Any sexual contact with another person without the otherÂ’s consent or when the other lacks the capacity to give legally effective consent.

http://law.yourdictionary.com/assault

------------


In any event Trin has a presented an unique point of view that is uncommon here in the states.

My old home town of Chicago had a few more kids killed this weekend, not sure if they were in my old stomping ground.

Showing 115 homicides in Roseland since Jan. 1, 2007. 9 more in Pullman, basically the same area. I grew up in both places. It feels wierd to see killings on the block I lived on and basically all of these are in easy walking distance for any kid.

http://homicides.red...rhood/roseland/

[ArtK78]

 blackshoe, on 2013-February-18, 22:56, said:

IANAL, but I don't think the legal definition of assault, in most of the United States, includes as a prerequisite physical contact. If there is physical contact, the charge would be battery. Case in point: once upon a time, a man got out of his truck and confronted me, with a baseball bat in his hand. His intent was clearly to physically attack me — he said so. I believe the charge in that case would have been "assault with a deadly weapon", even though he never touched me (I talked him out of it).

In tort law (which is civil law for addressing wrongs inflicted by one person or entity upon another), assuming that there is the requisite threat of bodily injury, the classic distinction between an assault and a battery is whether there was any physical contact. If there was physical contact, it was a battery. If there was no physical contact, it was an assault.

In criminal law, it is a matter of state law. The definitions of assault and battery (or even assault and battery) under state criminal laws vary widely and often have nothing to do with the classic definitions in tort law.

[ArtK78]

 Trinidad, on 2013-February-18, 02:44, said:

In the USA, you are supposed to defend yourself. You are the only one responsible for your life. No one else is. So, you pull the gun and shoot.

That is not true at all.

Under the common law, which applies in virtually all jurisdictions, one has an obligation to retreat when confronted by a threat of physical violence except in one's own home. The common law rule is sometimes extended to one's vehicle.

In Florida and any other jurisdictions that have adopted the "stand your ground" law, the common law obligation to retreat has been replaced with a right to fight back in most cases even when retreat is an option.

[mike777]

I wonder what common law says when the threat includes a loved one or a student?

In other words if the exceptions include more than a person's own home or car?


If someone attacks you, are you required to retreat before you use deadly force in self-defense? Oddly enough, the answer is more complex than you might assume. A recent decision from the New York courts brought to my attention something that I did not know--in New York State, you have a duty to retreat rather than use deadly force--even if you are standing in the doorway of your home



http://www.claytoncr...yToRetreat.html

---------------

http://en.wikipedia....Duty_to_retreat

[ArtK78]

 mike777, on 2013-February-19, 00:34, said:

I wonder what common law says when the threat includes a loved one or a student?

In other words if the exceptions include more than a person's own home or car?


If someone attacks you, are you required to retreat before you use deadly force in self-defense? Oddly enough, the answer is more complex than you might assume. A recent decision from the New York courts brought to my attention something that I did not know--in New York State, you have a duty to retreat rather than use deadly force--even if you are standing in the doorway of your home



http://www.claytoncr...yToRetreat.html

---------------

http://en.wikipedia....Duty_to_retreat

I thought that I was quite clear. The common law states that you have a duty to retreat except when one is IN your own home. The doorway of one's home is not IN your home.

The duty to retreat applies to a threat to oneself - by analogy, it applies more forcefully to a threat to others.

[Fluffy]

 kenberg, on 2013-February-18, 19:06, said:

It is true that I think that once a person points a gun at me, or flashes a substantial knife and indicates a willingness to use it, I think that his right to life gets low priority. Practicality takes precedence over his right to life. This seems so obvious to me that I expect most people, American, or British, or French, or Spanish, would agree. I have known quite a few Europeans and I am not at all sure that, by and large, they have any more regard for the right to life of an armed thug than I do. Maybe I have been reading too many Scandinavian detective stories.

The word assault was used carelessly, I don't really know what happened there except that they had knives and wanted to rob.

The point for the spannish law is that you should not shot at someone who gets in rage at you and wants to puch your face.

From what I understand they make distinctions for body/sharp/powder levels and you are allowed only to defend yourself on the same level. Wich is odd since I bet you are not suposed to have/carry an arsenal so you can pick the correct matching weapon each time.