The Law demands you be a Gentleman. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : The Law demands you be a Gentleman.


MeanAction
03-21-2012, 05:34
You can't prevoke someone into attempting to cause you bodily harm then shoot them dead. That's murder. Bottom Line: Be a Gentleman.

Misty02
03-21-2012, 05:51
It is society that demands men be gentlemen and women be ladies. We can’t coexist peacefully otherwise.

.

Jim S.
03-21-2012, 07:37
Unfortunately in our society the people who are going to act decent and be gentlemen and ladies do not really need to be told and have laws that dictate this behavior.
And equally unfortunate is that the people who do need to be told this do not listen and act as they see fit.

mj9mm
03-21-2012, 07:47
Hmm, I seem to remember our founding fathers saying exactly that in their support of the 2nd amendment:cool:

Sam Spade
03-21-2012, 09:19
You can't prevoke someone into attempting to cause you bodily harm then shoot them dead. That's murder. Bottom Line: Be a Gentleman.

No provocation gives you the right to attempt great bodily harm against another; if you do and get shot dead, you had it coming.


AKA: "It takes two to tango."

Patchman
03-21-2012, 11:36
It's entirely likely that the definition of "lady" and "gentleman" from my grandparents' generation is different from my parents' generation is different from my generation is different from my children's generation, etc...

So a person leading a life today using the "gentleman" standard of his grandfather's or father's era may lead a chivalrious life, but is otherwise totally outplayed by today's rules.

LApm9
03-21-2012, 16:58
I find being a cheerful gentleman smooths out a lot of potential rough spots in life.

Not that should be helpless however!

cowboywannabe
03-21-2012, 17:32
bull own knee.

i can call your mother anything i want to. and if you try to physically attack me i can shoot you legally in the free parts of this once great country.

words are just words, they only hurt those with weak egos. dont let your ego get you shot. the shooting being ruled as "provoking you" wont mean squat to your widow whos spending the life insurance now with the milkman anyway.

Bruce M
03-21-2012, 18:08
I am reminded of the saying "speak softly and carry a big stick."

quichedem
03-21-2012, 18:18
Last time I checked, no jury ever heard a dead person...

Deaf Smith
03-21-2012, 21:59
You can't prevoke someone into attempting to cause you bodily harm then shoot them dead. That's murder. Bottom Line: Be a Gentleman.

Go read Texas law. You cannot use force or deadly force in the face of verbal assault. They can tell you your mother wears combat boots but that don't give you the right to slug them.

That being said, you can still be sued (on the street of Texas) for wrongful death and if it's proved you provoked the fight then that will play well to the jury.

Be a gentleman? Most men are, but tell that to the rapist OWS crowd.

Deaf

samurairabbi
03-21-2012, 22:10
"Gentlemanly" lacks precision as a standard of behavior. Here in Indiana, as in many states, you are disallowed using deadly force in a situation in which you "precipitated" the confrontation. Still a tough call, but it guides you away from jumping out of your car if you are angry at being cut off, yelling profanity in public at someone because he angers you, using gestures generally acknowledged as profane ... you get my drift. In public, ALWAYS act as if EVERY word and action you use is being recorded by a method that will be available to those who must decide whether or not to prosecute. The decision on whether to prosecute is a big a turning point in your fate as the actual trial.

WinterWizard
03-21-2012, 22:33
You can't prevoke someone into attempting to cause you bodily harm then shoot them dead. That's murder. Bottom Line: Be a Gentleman.

No offense .... but duh!

You cannot instigate a confrontation and claim self defense when that person attacks you. You have to be an "unwilling participant."

teleblaster
03-22-2012, 11:48
Go read Texas law. You cannot use force or deadly force in the face of verbal assault. They can tell you your mother wears combat boots but that don't give you the right to slug them.


Deaf

That is right. Under section 9.31 of the Texas Penal Code:
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

But your words may tend to prove that you consented to a fight.

§22.06. Consent as Defense to Assaultive Conduct
The victim’s effective consent or the actor’s reasonable belief that the victim consented to the actor’s conduct is a defense to prosecution, under (Assault, Agg. Asslt., Deadly Conduct) if:
(1) the conduct did not threaten or inflict serious bodily injury; or
(2) .........

Additionally, Texas has a doctrine called “provoking the difficulty” where if you goad someone into attacking you so you can harm him, you cannot claim self defense:

“(1)....defendant did some act or used some words which provoked the attack on him, (2) that such act or words were reasonably calculated to provoke the attack, and (3) that the act was done or the words were used for the purpose and with the intent that the defendant would have a pretext for inflicting harm upon the other .” Smith v State, 965 S.W.2d 509, 513 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998)

cowboywannabe
03-22-2012, 14:37
[QUOTE=teleblaster;18743740]That is right. Under section 9.31 of the Texas Penal Code:
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

But your words may tend to prove that you consented to a fight.

§22.06. Consent as Defense to Assaultive Conduct
The victim’s effective consent or the actor’s reasonable belief that the victim consented to the actor’s conduct is a defense to prosecution, under (Assault, Agg. Asslt., Deadly Conduct) if:
(1) the conduct did not threaten or inflict serious bodily injury; or
(2) .........

Additionally, Texas has a doctrine called “provoking the difficulty” where if you goad someone into attacking you so you can harm him, you cannot claim self defense:

“(1)....defendant did some act or used some words which provoked the attack on him, (2) that such act or words were reasonably calculated to provoke the attack, and (3) that the act was done or the words were used for the purpose and with the intent that the defendant would have a pretext for inflicting harm upon the other .” Smith v State, 965 S.W.2d 509, 513 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998) [/QUOT

thats for when somebody "says" they are going to kick your ass, not when somebody "says" your mother is a crack whore.

if i say im going to harm you and you take a pre-emptive strike i can not claim self defense.

if i say something about your mom and you strike me i can claim self defense.

OctoberRust
03-22-2012, 14:54
No provocation gives you the right to attempt great bodily harm against another; if you do and get shot dead, you had it coming.


AKA: "It takes two to tango."


Very good post Sam.

teleblaster
03-22-2012, 15:07
[QUOTE=teleblaster;18743740]That is right. Under section 9.31 of the Texas Penal Code:
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

But your words may tend to prove that you consented to a fight.

§22.06. Consent as Defense to Assaultive Conduct
The victim’s effective consent or the actor’s reasonable belief that the victim consented to the actor’s conduct is a defense to prosecution, under (Assault, Agg. Asslt., Deadly Conduct) if:
(1) the conduct did not threaten or inflict serious bodily injury; or
(2) .........

Additionally, Texas has a doctrine called “provoking the difficulty” where if you goad someone into attacking you so you can harm him, you cannot claim self defense:

“(1)....defendant did some act or used some words which provoked the attack on him, (2) that such act or words were reasonably calculated to provoke the attack, and (3) that the act was done or the words were used for the purpose and with the intent that the defendant would have a pretext for inflicting harm upon the other .” Smith v State, 965 S.W.2d 509, 513 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998) [/QUOT

thats for when somebody "says" they are going to kick your ass, not when somebody "says" your mother is a crack whore.

if i say im going to harm you and you take a pre-emptive strike i can not claim self defense.

if i say something about your mom and you strike me i can claim self defense.

If you goad somebody into a fight by words, a jury may find you did it in order to provoke a fight, and therefor consented to be in that fight. The consent can be expressed in many ways.

cowboywannabe
03-22-2012, 16:10
[quote=cowboywannabe;18744384]

If you goad somebody into a fight by words, a jury may find you did it in order to provoke a fight, and therefor consented to be in that fight. The consent can be expressed in many ways.

so if you say you dont like democrats and their liberal muslim friends, and then a liberal muslim democrat shoots you, they can say you goaded them.

thats not how it works even in texas.

Tiro Fijo
03-22-2012, 17:38
[quote=teleblaster;18744510]

so if you say you dont like democrats and their liberal muslim friends, and then a liberal muslim democrat shoots you, they can say you goaded them.

thats not how it works even in texas.


:rofl:

teleblaster
03-24-2012, 08:55
[quote=teleblaster;18744510]

so if you say you dont like democrats and their liberal muslim friends, and then a liberal muslim democrat shoots you, they can say you goaded them.

thats not how it works even in texas.


I’m semi-jacking with you on this, but the statutes say what they say. I didn't make them up. You are absolutely correct that words alone do not give someone a right to assault you physically. However, I am absolutely correct that under Texas law, if the assaulter reasonably believes you were actually inviting a fight by your words, it is a defense to assault, as long as SBI is not threatened or inflicted by the fight.That is what Penal Code Sec. 22.06 says, and it means it. It used to go by the term mutual combat. And going further, if you provoke someone to assault you, even with mere words, so you can harm him, you lose the right of self-defense.



“It is a defense to the offense of simple assault that the victim effectively consented to the offender's assaultive conduct or that the offender reasonably believed that the victim consented, at least so long as the conduct did not threaten or inflict serious bodily injury.1 When evidence at trial raises the defense of consent, “the court shall charge [the jury] that a reasonable doubt on the issue requires that the defendant be acquitted.” Allen v. State, 253 S.W.3d 260, 261 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)

As a practical matter there is usually some body language that goes along with the words that makes the invitation clearer than words alone normally would.

Consent does not have to be express. Although dealing with actions rather than words, I like the explanation: “If you knock some guy’s cowboy hat off in the parking lot of South Forty Saloon, you have consented to have a fight.”

Sam Spade
03-24-2012, 09:08
To cowboy and teleblaster:

Could you guys fix the quotes in your posts? Someone left a "[" off, the error cascaded, and now everything's jumbled. Thanks.

teleblaster
03-24-2012, 09:55
To cowboy and teleblaster:

Could you guys fix the quotes in your posts? Someone left a "[" off, the error cascaded, and now everything's jumbled. Thanks.

Maybe I got them all this time. Interesting. I wrote the reply in Word, and then pasted it in. I noticed the run together stuff, and thought I had fixed them all.

series1811
03-24-2012, 10:00
Hmm, I seem to remember our founding fathers saying exactly that in their support of the 2nd amendment:cool:

I think that is the problem. It didn't have to be said back then, that was the way everyone was raised. The founding fathers just didn't didn't see into our future far enough to realize it needed to be written down for future generations.

And, it was written down, just not in the Constitution. Google "Code Duelo".

cowboywannabe
03-24-2012, 11:45
i dont know what happened with the quotes either....seems i was quoting myself instead of the reply.....

but i do agree, words alone (insults) dont justify a pre-emptive strike, but "fighting words" can, particularly if theyre coupled with body language which displays reasonably perceived intent.

teleblaster
03-24-2012, 11:56
i dont know what happened with the quotes either....seems i was quoting myself instead of the reply.....

but i do agree, words alone (insults) dont justify a pre-emptive strike, but "fighting words" can, particularly if theyre coupled with body language which displays reasonably perceived intent.

I'm with ya'.

SCmasterblaster
03-24-2012, 12:13
I am a gentleman here in Eastern Vermont. But I am also a realist, and I carry a G17 with 9mm +p+ 115gr JHP cartridges. I treat ladies like ladies.