More articulate than you deserve.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is defending yourself really that bad?
- Thread starter MartyF
- Start date
- Status
Its not another angle.
All military, LE, etc etc are trained to shoot until the threat is neutralized.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
You are ignorant of the law. All Law Enforcement Agencies are taught you can only use the amount of force necessary to stop the threat.. not “neutralize” someone.
Suppose two men fight for control of a shotgun. The gun goes off and one man is shot, falling to the ground. The other pumps two more rounds into him while he’s on the ground. The threat stopped when the first man fell to the ground. The final two shots equal murder.
Doesn’t matter if it took two shots before the fall to the ground. The extra shot is murder. Doesn’t matter if it comes from the son or daddy from the back of the truck.
This same rule applies to all citizens, you can only use the amount of force necessary to stop the threat.
This is true even if you have a legitimate argument for self-defense, which these men do not have.
I haven’t seen the full video that has been released, have you? It seems to stop before the three shots are fired. I wonder why?
Let me make a prediction. If this video or the next show shots being fired after someone falls to the ground, a guilty verdict is assured.
peace to you
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
You are ignorant of the use of force aspect of the law. I am retired SWAT. Your ignorance oozes from this post. Did you make that trash up, or you read it somewhere?
The two shots garbage is most laughable.
Last edited:
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
If you are retired SWAT then you should know use of force requires only the amount of force necessary to stop the threat. That is a legal standard, or definition, in all 50 states.
If you are unfamiliar with that specific terminology then I cannot believe you are retired from any Law Enforcement Agency.
peace to you
...funny, it's deja vu to me...
Neutralize the threat is the proper terminology.
Use of force is fluid and dynamic. You are not required to use the "least amount of force". You are allowed to use no more than the reasonably appropriate amount of force.
A quick example is when I was arresting a drug dealer who ran from me. We were wrestling and he pulled a knife. I disarmed him with "hard hand" force. Deadly force was justified.
It turns out that hard hand force was the least amount of force necessary, but it was not the maximum amount or even appropriate amount of force to use. The reason I did not use deadly force is because I would have had to turn him loose to draw my weapon and that would have allowed him to stab me. According to Internal Affairs, I erred by not shooting him and I put myself in undue jeopardy.
Last edited:
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
I did not say the standard was “least amount of force”. I said the standard is you can use the amount of force necessary to stop the threat.
Now you have changed your definition from “shoot until the threat is neutralized” to “use no more than the reasonably appropriate amount of force”
Your revised definition is consistent with what I stated.
Glad you didn’t get stabbed and didn’t have to kill the drug dealer.
peace to you
Maybe you should read the definition of neutralize. I have not changed my definition at all.
If you are going to say "amount of force necessary" that is legally interpreted to mean least amount of force necessary. Necessary is a subjective idea. How much weight is necessary to counter a 100 lb weight on a balance? 100lb plus an ounce or two. If you threw 102 lbs on the other side of the balance, you used more force than necessary. Throwing 110 lbs on the balance is reasonable but definitely more than necessary. The problem is, you dont know how much weight you are countering until after the fact.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
The cases are very different. Mr. Zimmerman didn’t chase the man down, brandishing his weapon. He didn’t attempt to make a citizens arrest. He notified police and followed their instructions to stop following. He didn’t shoot three times.
The jury found his argument for self defense compelling. I do not believe that will happen in this case for all the reasons I have stated.
peace to you
Canadyjd - Reynolds has ID himself as a LEO- specifically a member of a SWAT team.
So would you please inform us of your LEO and or Legal/lawyer background?
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
The word “neutralize” should not be used. Any good defense attorney reading that in a training manual for law enforcement officers would destroy LE on the witness stand. It denotes military style termination, not reasonable force.
Your original definition did not say “neutralize the threat with an appropriate amount of force”
You said, “shoot until the threat is neutralized”.
Those are very different definitions. Only one is acceptable for LE.
peace to you
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
When you use deadly force, you use it until the threat is neutralized.
Attorneys can not change Webster.
Last edited:
Not at all different when you're aware of the race card that's being played by our commie corrupt media. They'd love nothing better, yay, it's their aim to incite/inject racial hatred into the current political atmosphere. They've played this 'hate card' over and over and over again over the decades in many different countries with great success for the Marxist cause.
Last edited:
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
No, this is totally different. They may have trouble producing lying ear-witnesses. And he was only trespassing in the empty building under construction for a few minutes.
I see that as one of two reasons
1) you are an undercover LEO
2) You are neither which.....
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't bet on that.
- Status