View Single Post
Old 08-27-2011, 01:00   #127
TDC20
Senior Member
 
TDC20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 610
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong View Post
No bigger than any of the assumptions others are making here.

We don't know much of anything iexcept he has dropped his weapon and is n ow slowly moving toward you while talking.

Not only are those not the only logical conclusions I can come to, I think they are some of those BIG assumptions you mentioned earlier.
Well David, we both agree that our judgement of the situation is on opposite ends of the spectrum. There could be a lot of different subtleties to a real situation that might change my assessment to not shoot, such as if there were indications that the guy was on drugs or insane, but that doesn't make it less dangerous necessarily. I don't leave home with my gun hoping I get to shoot someone. I said if I had the opportunity to retreat safely I would.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong View Post
So your advice is to plan on lying about the event to the court. Sorry, that doesn't strike me as a particualrly good plan.
I never said to lie about the event in court. What I meant to say is that my lawyer could present the evidence in a way that places reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. Remember, it's all about who paints the best picture, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong View Post
No, everyone doesn't know the guy's intent. That is the point.
See, we just disagree on our assessments. I have been robbed before, I think I can figure out what the intent here is. You think the guy wants to give you a hug, I think he wants to kill me. I think your advice will get people killed unnecessarily. I think my advice might land them in court, but at least they're still alive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong View Post
If it is such a clear case of self defense, why is your legal plan as presented above based on trying to decieve the court about what actually happended?
My plan is to protect my life by shooting someone who is trying to take my weapon from me to kill me. The court case is a result of a disagreement with my judgement by the State's attorney. They are claiming that I committed a crime. I contend that I did not. I never said to lie to the police, or tamper with evidence at the scene. A trial is about proving me guilty of a crime, but how the evidence is presented to the jury will decide whether you are found innocent or guilty. I don't have to lie at all. I never have to take the stand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong View Post
Can we survive without doing things to make us go to court?
My contention here is that you are advising people to overthink the situation, which leads to hesitation, which leads to being killed. If the assailant had not brandished a deadly weapon with intent to begin the confrontation, then my gun would remain concealed and wouldn't be an issue. That changes the entire scenario, because now the assailant doesn't know I have a weapon, so I can assume his approaching me does not have a deadly intent. But once he knows I have a gun, approaching me and ignoring commands to stop...doesn't that make you think his intentions are malevolent? I think that's where we disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong View Post
Again, I'm not saying this may not be a good shoot situation. But a lot of the justifications being tossed out basically boil down to "I was scared that something bad might happen" and that is not ordinarily grounds for using lethal force.
I'm pretty sure that brandishing a deadly weapon with intent to do bodily harm is classified as assault with a deadly weapon. He didn't have to follow through to commit a felony here. I have every right to be "scared that something bad might happen" to me. Then he follows that up by disarming at the sight of my gun (gun trumps knife), so he drops knife and proceeds to approach me despite commands not to do so. Assuming that I walk away and he doesn't continue to pursue me, then the confrontation ends right there. The fact that he continues to pursue me despite warnings again indicates further intent to do harm. All I'm saying is, shoot if you have to, don't say anything to the police about it that can be used against you, and give your lawyer something to work with. In the end, your freedom and your livelihood depends on who can use the physical evidence to paint the prettiest picture to the jury. You contend that the State's attorney will charge me with shooting an unarmed man. I contend that my life was clearly in danger and that the shooting was justified. You claim that I am trying to deceive the court, but I claim the State's attorney is deceiving the court by falsely charging me of a crime that I didn't commit. I hire a lawyer to present the physical evidence to a jury in a way that benefits me. I really don't care how "creative" the lawyer is, as long as he is successful. Why? Because I committed no crime.
__________________
A handgun is only good for fighting your way to a rifle.
TDC20 is offline   Reply With Quote