EDC for three years now
- Thread starter budslave
- Start date
HayesGreener
Ronin
People have different views depending on where they are and their experiences. OP shared a personal experience in Florida which resulted in some opposing viewpoints. Collegial debate is a good thing in such matters. When debate crosses the line into personal attacks it is discomfitting for all of us. The convivial nature of this forum is what drew me to it. I tried to change the subject with humor but was apparently unsuccessful. Maybe it is time for moderators to lock the thread.
Bassbob
Emissary
Well, for my part I will apologize to CQ-1. I could have been less of an A-hole. Been a rough week. And I'm supposedly on vacation. I might give the rest of my vacation back to the company. I'm not sure my back can take another "Vacation"
HayesGreener
Ronin
S
Well, tell us about your preferred Martini! And you are a fine fellow just the same!
Appreciate that ... and likewise for the salty reaction. Those kinda weeks happen to everybody ... ask me how I know
HayesGreener
Ronin
Hail fellows well met! Let's get back to our 2A work
Bassbob
Emissary
Thank you sir.
I prefer Bombay Sapphire 5-1 with Dolin or Noily Prat, stirred about 60 trips around the shaker with a blue cheese stuffed olive or Filthy Pickle makes one stuffed with a tiny gerkin that's good. I will however drink them Winston Churchill style. Considering that the vast majority of bartenders don't know what they're doing when I go out to eat and order one I order Beefeater doubles. Oh, I make all mine doubles by the way.
Annihilator
Emissary
I just like chocolate milk…….
Last edited:
Bassbob
Emissary
I like chocolate milk too Anni.
HayesGreener
Ronin
Without the buxom starlet!
bc22wm
Custom
Having spent about half of my life working in corrections, has left me vary untrusting and suspicious of my fellow man. SO,
I think that a good many of these "educators" are mainly interested in showing how knowledgeable, smart, sophisticated they are (compared to the rest of us rubes) so to build up their own ego. Plus, it's fun to jump on the band wagon, be part of the "in" crowd, and kick someone while they are down.
Annihilator
Emissary
HayesGreener
Ronin
That made me snort-twice!
I know I'm late to this party, but after reading the whole thread, I feel like there are 2 important points that were not really discussed.
1) The cops can always charge you with something if they feel like it. It's up to the DA or State Attorney to decide whether to prosecute, and then up to a judge and/of jury, if they do. So, whether he was ultimately acquitted, budslave absolutely COULD have been charged and prosecuted for a variety of crimes. In Florida. Had that happened, whether he ultimately was convicted would really come down to how good of an attorney he had working for him.
The link posted in about the 3rd post, to an article about firing "warning shots" is a very good read.
You guys are talking about "the law" like it's very black and white. And like there is no "personal cost" to getting charged with a crime if you are ultimately acquitted. I think some of you have posted some very naïve statements, in that regard.
2) If he felt he had time to shoot and intentionally miss (i.e. fire warning shots), then a prosecuting attorney would very likely have made a solid argument that he did not feel in danger of imminent bodily harm. If the guy approaching with a crowbar was 50 yards away, do you think he would be found justified in using deadly force? Obviously not. And there is no specific distance codified in the law that says "if your attacker is closer than X feet, then you can use deadly force."
So, from a legal perspective, I believe (I am NOT an attorney) what it comes down to is what the shooter reasonably believed. The distance is only tangentially relevant, as the distance just contributes (or not) to what one would reasonably believe. If the attacker had a crowbar 50 yards away, no jury will think you reasonably believed you were in imminent fear for your life. If the attacker is arms length away, then convincing a jury you reasonably believed you were in imminent danger is a no-brainer.
At 10 feet away, using deadly force is going to be deemed justified if you can convince the jury you were reasonable in a belief that you were in imminent danger. And that is where a prosecutor would say "by his own admission, he used deadly force. By his own admission, he missed on purposed. Therefore, he did NOT believe he was in imminent danger. If he believed he were in imminent danger, he would have tried to shoot the attacker - not miss on purpose. He reasonably believed that he could soon be in imminent danger. But, "could soon be in imminent danger" is not the legal standard. "IN imminent danger" is the legal standard - which the defendant did not meet, by his own testimony."
I think budslave is very lucky he was not in a locale in FL that was more gun-averse. If he had been charged and prosecuted by a prosecutor who really wanted a conviction (and was competent), budslave most likely would have been convicted of some level of felony (or accepted a plea bargain for something lesser, to avoid the risk of a felony conviction).
1) The cops can always charge you with something if they feel like it. It's up to the DA or State Attorney to decide whether to prosecute, and then up to a judge and/of jury, if they do. So, whether he was ultimately acquitted, budslave absolutely COULD have been charged and prosecuted for a variety of crimes. In Florida. Had that happened, whether he ultimately was convicted would really come down to how good of an attorney he had working for him.
The link posted in about the 3rd post, to an article about firing "warning shots" is a very good read.
You guys are talking about "the law" like it's very black and white. And like there is no "personal cost" to getting charged with a crime if you are ultimately acquitted. I think some of you have posted some very naïve statements, in that regard.
2) If he felt he had time to shoot and intentionally miss (i.e. fire warning shots), then a prosecuting attorney would very likely have made a solid argument that he did not feel in danger of imminent bodily harm. If the guy approaching with a crowbar was 50 yards away, do you think he would be found justified in using deadly force? Obviously not. And there is no specific distance codified in the law that says "if your attacker is closer than X feet, then you can use deadly force."
So, from a legal perspective, I believe (I am NOT an attorney) what it comes down to is what the shooter reasonably believed. The distance is only tangentially relevant, as the distance just contributes (or not) to what one would reasonably believe. If the attacker had a crowbar 50 yards away, no jury will think you reasonably believed you were in imminent fear for your life. If the attacker is arms length away, then convincing a jury you reasonably believed you were in imminent danger is a no-brainer.
At 10 feet away, using deadly force is going to be deemed justified if you can convince the jury you were reasonable in a belief that you were in imminent danger. And that is where a prosecutor would say "by his own admission, he used deadly force. By his own admission, he missed on purposed. Therefore, he did NOT believe he was in imminent danger. If he believed he were in imminent danger, he would have tried to shoot the attacker - not miss on purpose. He reasonably believed that he could soon be in imminent danger. But, "could soon be in imminent danger" is not the legal standard. "IN imminent danger" is the legal standard - which the defendant did not meet, by his own testimony."
I think budslave is very lucky he was not in a locale in FL that was more gun-averse. If he had been charged and prosecuted by a prosecutor who really wanted a conviction (and was competent), budslave most likely would have been convicted of some level of felony (or accepted a plea bargain for something lesser, to avoid the risk of a felony conviction).
A fist of Tito's/Deep Eddy with spicy olive juice shaken with ice then poured into glass over an Iceberg. If the Vodka isn't available I will substitute Hendricks/Beefeater.
Bassbob
Emissary
There is no vodka in a martini. What you are describing is called a Dirty Kangaroo.
OK and thanks. I will start ordering Dirty Kangaroo's when I'm out and about.
HayesGreener
Ronin
Kareful those dirty kangaroos will sneak up on you.....