Stand Your Ground Law

Off Topic
41

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
From a strictly legal POV, I still find calling stabbing someone 12 times self-defense/standing your ground to be a rather odd notion. I’m not generally a fan of slippery slope type arguments, but, by the logic of this case MANY, MANY people could quite easily be killed in a similar fashion & no charges would be brought. [/quote]

You have clearly never been in a situation where someone is shot or stabbed.

I have shot people before, with an M4, legally. Several, in fact.

Unless you get a head shot, you can put 6 or 7 through someone (and this is a rifle, mind you, not much weaken pistol or even weaker knife) and they keep going for a minute or so. They are probably dead on their feet, but they keep punching or (in the case I am personally thinking about) shooting an AK47 at your buddies, even though you’ve nailed them center of mass 10 times.

It’s not Hollywood. One shot (or stab) may eventually kill someone, but it takes time.

In the mean time, you have to keep going at it (or run like hell) until they bleed out.[/quote]

I think you also have to have a knowledge of anatomy to make the sort of “kill shot/stab” you are talking of. You have to know HOW to kill someone like that, it’s not something you pick up in normal civilian life.

42

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
From a strictly legal POV, I still find calling stabbing someone 12 times self-defense/standing your ground to be a rather odd notion. I’m not generally a fan of slippery slope type arguments, but, by the logic of this case MANY, MANY people could quite easily be killed in a similar fashion & no charges would be brought. [/quote]

You’re engaging this with faulty reasoning.

You say “by this logic” and then reach your conclusion.

There is no “logic” to apply here - only the “law” and the law is fact specific. Under the FACTS of this case, it is a crystal clear case of self-defense which RULES OUT “many many people getting killed” unless they happen to be attacking someone that has GONE OUT OF THEIR WAY to avoid that attack.

The law here does not require you to take a beating. It all starts with that premise. I think it’s a damn good premise. I think it’s a basic human right.

If that’s not a basic human right, what is?

As Gregron already illustrated, and as I have said in countless related threads - one punch can cause serious injury or death.

As for the number of times he stabbed him, it’s VERY easy to stab someone that many times. The kid getting stabbed might not have even been aware he was cut at first and could have continued his attack. If his attack is continuing, it’s reasonable to continue stabbing. If the kid was prone and the attacked ceased and then he comes in for a few jabs - we’re talking the difference between self-defense and manslaughter or murder. [/quote]

My reasoning is not faulty, the way in which the law is interpreted changes.

Honestly, imagine you are 14/15 again witnessing the events of this case unfold. For most people, just having a knife pulled on them is deterrent enough to stop atacking/not attack in the first place.

Also, nowhere in the article did it say anything about the bully CONTINUING to attack after the first few stabs were delivered[/quote]

Your reasoning is wrong. And you just confirmed EXACTLY what I wrote when you said (incorrectly) “the way in which the law is interpreted changes”. It’s how the law is APPLIED in relation to the underlying facts. No two factual scenarios are the same. Different facts, different applications and interpretation of the law and outcome.

I did not state that the article stated he continued to attack. I gave you an example of what could have happened to allow for that many stab wounds.

43

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
shooting an AK47 at your buddies, even though you’ve nailed them center of mass 10 times.
[/quote]

huh?

care to clarify?[/quote]

Afganistan.[/quote]

So you were “shooting an AK47 at your buddies” in Afghanistan?

Huh?

44

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
shooting an AK47 at your buddies, even though you’ve nailed them center of mass 10 times.
[/quote]

huh?

care to clarify?[/quote]

Afganistan.[/quote]

So you were “shooting an AK47 at your buddies” in Afghanistan?

Huh?[/quote]

Go back to the original post, he is talking about shouting a guy in center mass enough to be killed but the guy is still shooting an AK47 at his buddies. Bascially, people do not always die quickly.

45

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
shooting an AK47 at your buddies, even though you’ve nailed them center of mass 10 times.
[/quote]

huh?

care to clarify?[/quote]

Afganistan.[/quote]

So you were “shooting an AK47 at your buddies” in Afghanistan?

Huh?[/quote]

Go back to the original post, he is talking about shouting a guy in center mass enough to be killed but the guy is still shooting an AK47 at his buddies. Bascially, people do not always die quickly.[/quote]

lol thank you.

well that was awkward

48

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
From a strictly legal POV, I still find calling stabbing someone 12 times self-defense/standing your ground to be a rather odd notion. I’m not generally a fan of slippery slope type arguments, but, by the logic of this case MANY, MANY people could quite easily be killed in a similar fashion & no charges would be brought. [/quote]

You have clearly never been in a situation where someone is shot or stabbed.

I have shot people before, with an M4, legally. Several, in fact.

Unless you get a head shot, you can put 6 or 7 through someone (and this is a rifle, mind you, not much weaken pistol or even weaker knife) and they keep going for a minute or so. They are probably dead on their feet, but they keep punching or (in the case I am personally thinking about) shooting an AK47 at your buddies, even though you’ve nailed them center of mass 10 times.

It’s not Hollywood. One shot (or stab) may eventually kill someone, but it takes time.

In the mean time, you have to keep going at it (or run like hell) until they bleed out.[/quote]

And THAT is a major problem with the .223 round.[/quote]

Same thing happened with bigger rounds in the world wars etc (as well as today)…
Pistols and rifles are not death rays, even when using .45 in your pistol or 7.62 or 6.8 in your rifle or other rounds commonly believed to be oh-so superior to everything else.
Unless you hit exactly the right spot(s, and there are precious few of them), there’s a nice chance the other guy will not conveniently drop dead on the spot…

And hitting those areas is an awful lot easier when shooting at the range or at something that doesn’t shoot back or doesn’t expect it. So few “instant” kills anyway…

49

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
From a strictly legal POV, I still find calling stabbing someone 12 times self-defense/standing your ground to be a rather odd notion. I’m not generally a fan of slippery slope type arguments, but, by the logic of this case MANY, MANY people could quite easily be killed in a similar fashion & no charges would be brought. [/quote]

You’re engaging this with faulty reasoning.

You say “by this logic” and then reach your conclusion.

There is no “logic” to apply here - only the “law” and the law is fact specific. Under the FACTS of this case, it is a crystal clear case of self-defense which RULES OUT “many many people getting killed” unless they happen to be attacking someone that has GONE OUT OF THEIR WAY to avoid that attack.

The law here does not require you to take a beating. It all starts with that premise. I think it’s a damn good premise. I think it’s a basic human right.

If that’s not a basic human right, what is?

As Gregron already illustrated, and as I have said in countless related threads - one punch can cause serious injury or death.

As for the number of times he stabbed him, it’s VERY easy to stab someone that many times. The kid getting stabbed might not have even been aware he was cut at first and could have continued his attack. If his attack is continuing, it’s reasonable to continue stabbing. If the kid was prone and the attacked ceased and then he comes in for a few jabs - we’re talking the difference between self-defense and manslaughter or murder. [/quote]

My reasoning is not faulty, the way in which the law is interpreted changes.

Honestly, imagine you are 14/15 again witnessing the events of this case unfold. For most people, just having a knife pulled on them is deterrent enough to stop atacking/not attack in the first place.

Also, nowhere in the article did it say anything about the bully CONTINUING to attack after the first few stabs were delivered[/quote]

Your reasoning is wrong. And you just confirmed EXACTLY what I wrote when you said (incorrectly) “the way in which the law is interpreted changes”. It’s how the law is APPLIED in relation to the underlying facts. No two factual scenarios are the same. Different facts, different applications and interpretation of the law and outcome.

I did not state that the article stated he continued to attack. I gave you an example of what could have happened to allow for that many stab wounds. [/quote]

All semantic quibbling aside here, what do you think the odds are of NEEDING to stab someone 12 times JUST in self-defence? Of course, it’s possible, kid A stabbed kid B once, twice, even, three or four times & kid B kept coming…though, I highly doubt that’s what happened.

Also, I as I said previously the mere act of pulling a big ass knife on someone is likely to be a very powerful deterrent. I’m pretty sure most 14-15 year old bullies are not going to risk getting carved just so they can beat-up some scrawny little kid.

51

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
From a strictly legal POV, I still find calling stabbing someone 12 times self-defense/standing your ground to be a rather odd notion. I’m not generally a fan of slippery slope type arguments, but, by the logic of this case MANY, MANY people could quite easily be killed in a similar fashion & no charges would be brought. [/quote]

You’re engaging this with faulty reasoning.

You say “by this logic” and then reach your conclusion.

There is no “logic” to apply here - only the “law” and the law is fact specific. Under the FACTS of this case, it is a crystal clear case of self-defense which RULES OUT “many many people getting killed” unless they happen to be attacking someone that has GONE OUT OF THEIR WAY to avoid that attack.

The law here does not require you to take a beating. It all starts with that premise. I think it’s a damn good premise. I think it’s a basic human right.

If that’s not a basic human right, what is?

As Gregron already illustrated, and as I have said in countless related threads - one punch can cause serious injury or death.

As for the number of times he stabbed him, it’s VERY easy to stab someone that many times. The kid getting stabbed might not have even been aware he was cut at first and could have continued his attack. If his attack is continuing, it’s reasonable to continue stabbing. If the kid was prone and the attacked ceased and then he comes in for a few jabs - we’re talking the difference between self-defense and manslaughter or murder. [/quote]

My reasoning is not faulty, the way in which the law is interpreted changes.

Honestly, imagine you are 14/15 again witnessing the events of this case unfold. For most people, just having a knife pulled on them is deterrent enough to stop atacking/not attack in the first place.

Also, nowhere in the article did it say anything about the bully CONTINUING to attack after the first few stabs were delivered[/quote]

Your reasoning is wrong. And you just confirmed EXACTLY what I wrote when you said (incorrectly) “the way in which the law is interpreted changes”. It’s how the law is APPLIED in relation to the underlying facts. No two factual scenarios are the same. Different facts, different applications and interpretation of the law and outcome.

I did not state that the article stated he continued to attack. I gave you an example of what could have happened to allow for that many stab wounds. [/quote]

All semantic quibbling aside here, what do you think the odds are of NEEDING to stab someone 12 times JUST in self-defence? Of course, it’s possible, kid A stabbed kid B once, twice, even, three or four times & kid B kept coming…though, I highly doubt that’s what happened.

Also, I as I said previously the mere act of pulling a big ass knife on someone is likely to be a very powerful deterrent. I’m pretty sure most 14-15 year old bullies are not going to risk getting carved just so they can beat-up some scrawny little kid. [/quote]

Listen, with all due respect, you are the one quibbling. This case is an EXTRAORDINARY case of clear self-defense. Crystal clear. That the other child died sucks, but fighting is serious business with sometimes deadly outcomes.

I’ve been stabbed before. 3x. You don’t always know it when it happens. It doesn’t even hurt until later. In fact, getting stitched up hurts more. Much more.

The number of times is irrelevant. He can keep stabbing that kid until the kid stops. Since there is no allegation that he stabbed the other kid when he was down, or prone, or running away, there really is nothing to discuss here.

And you can get jabbed with a knife 15x in an extremely short amount of time.

52

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
From a strictly legal POV, I still find calling stabbing someone 12 times self-defense/standing your ground to be a rather odd notion. I’m not generally a fan of slippery slope type arguments, but, by the logic of this case MANY, MANY people could quite easily be killed in a similar fashion & no charges would be brought. [/quote]

You’re engaging this with faulty reasoning.

You say “by this logic” and then reach your conclusion.

There is no “logic” to apply here - only the “law” and the law is fact specific. Under the FACTS of this case, it is a crystal clear case of self-defense which RULES OUT “many many people getting killed” unless they happen to be attacking someone that has GONE OUT OF THEIR WAY to avoid that attack.

The law here does not require you to take a beating. It all starts with that premise. I think it’s a damn good premise. I think it’s a basic human right.

If that’s not a basic human right, what is?

As Gregron already illustrated, and as I have said in countless related threads - one punch can cause serious injury or death.

As for the number of times he stabbed him, it’s VERY easy to stab someone that many times. The kid getting stabbed might not have even been aware he was cut at first and could have continued his attack. If his attack is continuing, it’s reasonable to continue stabbing. If the kid was prone and the attacked ceased and then he comes in for a few jabs - we’re talking the difference between self-defense and manslaughter or murder. [/quote]

My reasoning is not faulty, the way in which the law is interpreted changes.

Honestly, imagine you are 14/15 again witnessing the events of this case unfold. For most people, just having a knife pulled on them is deterrent enough to stop atacking/not attack in the first place.

Also, nowhere in the article did it say anything about the bully CONTINUING to attack after the first few stabs were delivered[/quote]

Your reasoning is wrong. And you just confirmed EXACTLY what I wrote when you said (incorrectly) “the way in which the law is interpreted changes”. It’s how the law is APPLIED in relation to the underlying facts. No two factual scenarios are the same. Different facts, different applications and interpretation of the law and outcome.

I did not state that the article stated he continued to attack. I gave you an example of what could have happened to allow for that many stab wounds. [/quote]

All semantic quibbling aside here, what do you think the odds are of NEEDING to stab someone 12 times JUST in self-defence? Of course, it’s possible, kid A stabbed kid B once, twice, even, three or four times & kid B kept coming…though, I highly doubt that’s what happened.

Also, I as I said previously the mere act of pulling a big ass knife on someone is likely to be a very powerful deterrent. I’m pretty sure most 14-15 year old bullies are not going to risk getting carved just so they can beat-up some scrawny little kid. [/quote]

This is about the 4th time I’ve posted this, but…

Read Grossman’s seminal text “On Combat.” He explains how repetitive striking / stabbing / trigger pulling is a hard-wired response in mortal combat.[/quote]

Yes.

I mean if I’m really in fear for my life (which this kid was), I’m not thinking of merely brandishing the weapon or stabbing you once.

Think about it. “Fear of your life”.

That’s a switch you likely never pulled. Ever. And hopefully never will.

53

Cops know this, defense lawyers know this and people that have been forced to either pull a trigger or swing a weapon in defense know this.

In a high stress sitituation the number of shots fired or blows being swung can and does get lost. It’s not like you are working with a clear mind. To say as a 3rd party in the comfort of a home or office that “x” number of blows should have been enough is bad logic.

Go thru a Judgemental course the same one cops or boarding officers have to go thru and you will be shocked at what happens when you are just surprised by an attack much less in REAL fear for your life.

54

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
From a strictly legal POV, I still find calling stabbing someone 12 times self-defense/standing your ground to be a rather odd notion. I’m not generally a fan of slippery slope type arguments, but, by the logic of this case MANY, MANY people could quite easily be killed in a similar fashion & no charges would be brought. [/quote]

You’re engaging this with faulty reasoning.

You say “by this logic” and then reach your conclusion.

There is no “logic” to apply here - only the “law” and the law is fact specific. Under the FACTS of this case, it is a crystal clear case of self-defense which RULES OUT “many many people getting killed” unless they happen to be attacking someone that has GONE OUT OF THEIR WAY to avoid that attack.

The law here does not require you to take a beating. It all starts with that premise. I think it’s a damn good premise. I think it’s a basic human right.

If that’s not a basic human right, what is?

As Gregron already illustrated, and as I have said in countless related threads - one punch can cause serious injury or death.

As for the number of times he stabbed him, it’s VERY easy to stab someone that many times. The kid getting stabbed might not have even been aware he was cut at first and could have continued his attack. If his attack is continuing, it’s reasonable to continue stabbing. If the kid was prone and the attacked ceased and then he comes in for a few jabs - we’re talking the difference between self-defense and manslaughter or murder. [/quote]

My reasoning is not faulty, the way in which the law is interpreted changes.

Honestly, imagine you are 14/15 again witnessing the events of this case unfold. For most people, just having a knife pulled on them is deterrent enough to stop atacking/not attack in the first place.

Also, nowhere in the article did it say anything about the bully CONTINUING to attack after the first few stabs were delivered[/quote]

Your reasoning is wrong. And you just confirmed EXACTLY what I wrote when you said (incorrectly) “the way in which the law is interpreted changes”. It’s how the law is APPLIED in relation to the underlying facts. No two factual scenarios are the same. Different facts, different applications and interpretation of the law and outcome.

I did not state that the article stated he continued to attack. I gave you an example of what could have happened to allow for that many stab wounds. [/quote]

All semantic quibbling aside here, what do you think the odds are of NEEDING to stab someone 12 times JUST in self-defence? Of course, it’s possible, kid A stabbed kid B once, twice, even, three or four times & kid B kept coming…though, I highly doubt that’s what happened.

Also, I as I said previously the mere act of pulling a big ass knife on someone is likely to be a very powerful deterrent. I’m pretty sure most 14-15 year old bullies are not going to risk getting carved just so they can beat-up some scrawny little kid. [/quote]

Listen, with all due respect, you are the one quibbling. This case is an EXTRAORDINARY case of clear self-defense. Crystal clear. That the other child died sucks, but fighting is serious business with sometimes deadly outcomes.

I’ve been stabbed before. 3x. You don’t always know it when it happens. It doesn’t even hurt until later. In fact, getting stitched up hurts more. Much more.

The number of times is irrelevant. He can keep stabbing that kid until the kid stops. Since there is no allegation that he stabbed the other kid when he was down, or prone, or running away, there really is nothing to discuss here.

And you can get jabbed with a knife 15x in an extremely short amount of time. [/quote]

Nope, still not buying it.

-Kids bully & assault each other all the time & 99%+ of the time they don’t either seriously injure one another OR kill each other.
-Thinking back to when I defended myself/fought etc bullies at school, most of what motivated me was PURE, DISTILLED RAGE, as opposed to just ‘self-defense’.
-The details of this case are nothing out of the orinary (it would be nice to say different…though, kids can be evil little fuckers).

I’d also gladly conjecture, when the bully hit the kid in the back of the head, this probably wasn’t even an especially forceful punch…It was probably more of a: Come on punk, fight me back!!

55

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
From a strictly legal POV, I still find calling stabbing someone 12 times self-defense/standing your ground to be a rather odd notion. I’m not generally a fan of slippery slope type arguments, but, by the logic of this case MANY, MANY people could quite easily be killed in a similar fashion & no charges would be brought. [/quote]

You’re engaging this with faulty reasoning.

You say “by this logic” and then reach your conclusion.

There is no “logic” to apply here - only the “law” and the law is fact specific. Under the FACTS of this case, it is a crystal clear case of self-defense which RULES OUT “many many people getting killed” unless they happen to be attacking someone that has GONE OUT OF THEIR WAY to avoid that attack.

The law here does not require you to take a beating. It all starts with that premise. I think it’s a damn good premise. I think it’s a basic human right.

If that’s not a basic human right, what is?

As Gregron already illustrated, and as I have said in countless related threads - one punch can cause serious injury or death.

As for the number of times he stabbed him, it’s VERY easy to stab someone that many times. The kid getting stabbed might not have even been aware he was cut at first and could have continued his attack. If his attack is continuing, it’s reasonable to continue stabbing. If the kid was prone and the attacked ceased and then he comes in for a few jabs - we’re talking the difference between self-defense and manslaughter or murder. [/quote]

My reasoning is not faulty, the way in which the law is interpreted changes.

Honestly, imagine you are 14/15 again witnessing the events of this case unfold. For most people, just having a knife pulled on them is deterrent enough to stop atacking/not attack in the first place.

Also, nowhere in the article did it say anything about the bully CONTINUING to attack after the first few stabs were delivered[/quote]

Your reasoning is wrong. And you just confirmed EXACTLY what I wrote when you said (incorrectly) “the way in which the law is interpreted changes”. It’s how the law is APPLIED in relation to the underlying facts. No two factual scenarios are the same. Different facts, different applications and interpretation of the law and outcome.

I did not state that the article stated he continued to attack. I gave you an example of what could have happened to allow for that many stab wounds. [/quote]

All semantic quibbling aside here, what do you think the odds are of NEEDING to stab someone 12 times JUST in self-defence? Of course, it’s possible, kid A stabbed kid B once, twice, even, three or four times & kid B kept coming…though, I highly doubt that’s what happened.

Also, I as I said previously the mere act of pulling a big ass knife on someone is likely to be a very powerful deterrent. I’m pretty sure most 14-15 year old bullies are not going to risk getting carved just so they can beat-up some scrawny little kid. [/quote]

Listen, with all due respect, you are the one quibbling. This case is an EXTRAORDINARY case of clear self-defense. Crystal clear. That the other child died sucks, but fighting is serious business with sometimes deadly outcomes.

I’ve been stabbed before. 3x. You don’t always know it when it happens. It doesn’t even hurt until later. In fact, getting stitched up hurts more. Much more.

The number of times is irrelevant. He can keep stabbing that kid until the kid stops. Since there is no allegation that he stabbed the other kid when he was down, or prone, or running away, there really is nothing to discuss here.

And you can get jabbed with a knife 15x in an extremely short amount of time. [/quote]

Nope, still not buying it.

-Kids bully & assault each other all the time & 99%+ of the time they don’t either seriously injure one another OR kill each other.
-Thinking back to when I defended myself/fought etc bullies at school, most of what motivated me was PURE, DISTILLED RAGE, as opposed to just ‘self-defense’.
-The details of this case are nothing out of the orinary (it would be nice to say different…though, kids can be evil little fuckers).

I’d also gladly conjecture, when the bully hit the kid in the back of the head, this probably wasn’t even an especially forceful punch…It was probably more of a: Come on punk, fight me back!!
[/quote]

It matters not that you don’t “but it”.

You’re just illustrating (repetitively) your misunderstanding of the law.

Yes, kids bully and assault each other all the time. This is true, but a fallacious response to the topic. The law states very clearly that you do NOT have to be subject to a physical attack. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO TAKE A BEATING.

Kids get in fights, and they are often “mutual fights”. A kid that clearly fears for his safety or life does not have to take a beating.

Your remark about “pure distilled rage” is tripe. Call it what you want, you were “defending” yourself.

The details of the case are extraordinary as it concerns the legal defense. The kid did everything reasonable to avoid the fight. And when he couldn’t, he defended himself.

Am I alarmed that a child lose their life over what is customarily a right of male passage? Yes. We all are.

What would you do? Require him to take a beating? Possibly lose his life? Possibly suffer brain damage?

I know you think he “brought a knife to a fistfight”, but since he didn’t want to engage in the fistfight, and serious injury or death is a reasonable consequence of a fistfight with an older (and likely larger) boy, he was entitled by law to not only bring the knife, but use it.

Unless you have something enlightening to say, that will be my final reply to you.

56

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
From a strictly legal POV, I still find calling stabbing someone 12 times self-defense/standing your ground to be a rather odd notion. I’m not generally a fan of slippery slope type arguments, but, by the logic of this case MANY, MANY people could quite easily be killed in a similar fashion & no charges would be brought. [/quote]

You’re engaging this with faulty reasoning.

You say “by this logic” and then reach your conclusion.

There is no “logic” to apply here - only the “law” and the law is fact specific. Under the FACTS of this case, it is a crystal clear case of self-defense which RULES OUT “many many people getting killed” unless they happen to be attacking someone that has GONE OUT OF THEIR WAY to avoid that attack.

The law here does not require you to take a beating. It all starts with that premise. I think it’s a damn good premise. I think it’s a basic human right.

If that’s not a basic human right, what is?

As Gregron already illustrated, and as I have said in countless related threads - one punch can cause serious injury or death.

As for the number of times he stabbed him, it’s VERY easy to stab someone that many times. The kid getting stabbed might not have even been aware he was cut at first and could have continued his attack. If his attack is continuing, it’s reasonable to continue stabbing. If the kid was prone and the attacked ceased and then he comes in for a few jabs - we’re talking the difference between self-defense and manslaughter or murder. [/quote]

My reasoning is not faulty, the way in which the law is interpreted changes.

Honestly, imagine you are 14/15 again witnessing the events of this case unfold. For most people, just having a knife pulled on them is deterrent enough to stop atacking/not attack in the first place.

Also, nowhere in the article did it say anything about the bully CONTINUING to attack after the first few stabs were delivered[/quote]

Your reasoning is wrong. And you just confirmed EXACTLY what I wrote when you said (incorrectly) “the way in which the law is interpreted changes”. It’s how the law is APPLIED in relation to the underlying facts. No two factual scenarios are the same. Different facts, different applications and interpretation of the law and outcome.

I did not state that the article stated he continued to attack. I gave you an example of what could have happened to allow for that many stab wounds. [/quote]

All semantic quibbling aside here, what do you think the odds are of NEEDING to stab someone 12 times JUST in self-defence? Of course, it’s possible, kid A stabbed kid B once, twice, even, three or four times & kid B kept coming…though, I highly doubt that’s what happened.

Also, I as I said previously the mere act of pulling a big ass knife on someone is likely to be a very powerful deterrent. I’m pretty sure most 14-15 year old bullies are not going to risk getting carved just so they can beat-up some scrawny little kid. [/quote]

Listen, with all due respect, you are the one quibbling. This case is an EXTRAORDINARY case of clear self-defense. Crystal clear. That the other child died sucks, but fighting is serious business with sometimes deadly outcomes.

I’ve been stabbed before. 3x. You don’t always know it when it happens. It doesn’t even hurt until later. In fact, getting stitched up hurts more. Much more.

The number of times is irrelevant. He can keep stabbing that kid until the kid stops. Since there is no allegation that he stabbed the other kid when he was down, or prone, or running away, there really is nothing to discuss here.

And you can get jabbed with a knife 15x in an extremely short amount of time. [/quote]

Nope, still not buying it.

-Kids bully & assault each other all the time & 99%+ of the time they don’t either seriously injure one another OR kill each other.
-Thinking back to when I defended myself/fought etc bullies at school, most of what motivated me was PURE, DISTILLED RAGE, as opposed to just ‘self-defense’.
-The details of this case are nothing out of the orinary (it would be nice to say different…though, kids can be evil little fuckers).

I’d also gladly conjecture, when the bully hit the kid in the back of the head, this probably wasn’t even an especially forceful punch…It was probably more of a: Come on punk, fight me back!!
[/quote]

It matters not that you don’t “but it”.

You’re just illustrating (repetitively) your misunderstanding of the law.

Yes, kids bully and assault each other all the time. This is true, but a fallacious response to the topic. The law states very clearly that you do NOT have to be subject to a physical attack. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO TAKE A BEATING.

Kids get in fights, and they are often “mutual fights”. A kid that clearly fears for his safety or life does not have to take a beating.

Your remark about “pure distilled rage” is tripe. Call it what you want, you were “defending” yourself.

The details of the case are extraordinary as it concerns the legal defense. The kid did everything reasonable to avoid the fight. And when he couldn’t, he defended himself.

Am I alarmed that a child lose their life over what is customarily a right of male passage? Yes. We all are.

What would you do? Require him to take a beating? Possibly lose his life? Possibly suffer brain damage?

I know you think he “brought a knife to a fistfight”, but since he didn’t want to engage in the fistfight, and serious injury or death is a reasonable consequence of a fistfight with an older (and likely larger) boy, he was entitled by law to not only bring the knife, but use it.

Unless you have something enlightening to say, that will be my final reply to you. [/quote]

From a strictly US, legal POV, you are correct.

However, my own life-experience/common-sense tells me something rather different.

The kid, could have fought back (with just his fists/feet etc) The age difference between the bully & the bullied was only 1 year OR he could have armed himself with something less deadly than a knife etc (mace spray for example).

My problem with these kind of cases/verdicts, is not that I believe a miscarriage of justice has occurred. It’s more that the legal terminology used seems, euphemistic to say the least.

^Until the UK & or US has ‘Crimes of Passion’ you are going to have a hard time convincing me otherwise^

Of course, if someone can show me evidence that the kid was hit more just once, the bully kept coming at the kid even after he’d been stabbed several times etc OR the bully had a weapon himself etc, I’ll gladly agree with you, wholeheartedly, that this kid’s action were ‘just’ self-defence. Until then, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

57

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
From a strictly legal POV, I still find calling stabbing someone 12 times self-defense/standing your ground to be a rather odd notion. I’m not generally a fan of slippery slope type arguments, but, by the logic of this case MANY, MANY people could quite easily be killed in a similar fashion & no charges would be brought. [/quote]

You’re engaging this with faulty reasoning.

You say “by this logic” and then reach your conclusion.

There is no “logic” to apply here - only the “law” and the law is fact specific. Under the FACTS of this case, it is a crystal clear case of self-defense which RULES OUT “many many people getting killed” unless they happen to be attacking someone that has GONE OUT OF THEIR WAY to avoid that attack.

The law here does not require you to take a beating. It all starts with that premise. I think it’s a damn good premise. I think it’s a basic human right.

If that’s not a basic human right, what is?

As Gregron already illustrated, and as I have said in countless related threads - one punch can cause serious injury or death.

As for the number of times he stabbed him, it’s VERY easy to stab someone that many times. The kid getting stabbed might not have even been aware he was cut at first and could have continued his attack. If his attack is continuing, it’s reasonable to continue stabbing. If the kid was prone and the attacked ceased and then he comes in for a few jabs - we’re talking the difference between self-defense and manslaughter or murder. [/quote]

My reasoning is not faulty, the way in which the law is interpreted changes.

Honestly, imagine you are 14/15 again witnessing the events of this case unfold. For most people, just having a knife pulled on them is deterrent enough to stop atacking/not attack in the first place.

Also, nowhere in the article did it say anything about the bully CONTINUING to attack after the first few stabs were delivered[/quote]

Your reasoning is wrong. And you just confirmed EXACTLY what I wrote when you said (incorrectly) “the way in which the law is interpreted changes”. It’s how the law is APPLIED in relation to the underlying facts. No two factual scenarios are the same. Different facts, different applications and interpretation of the law and outcome.

I did not state that the article stated he continued to attack. I gave you an example of what could have happened to allow for that many stab wounds. [/quote]

All semantic quibbling aside here, what do you think the odds are of NEEDING to stab someone 12 times JUST in self-defence? Of course, it’s possible, kid A stabbed kid B once, twice, even, three or four times & kid B kept coming…though, I highly doubt that’s what happened.

Also, I as I said previously the mere act of pulling a big ass knife on someone is likely to be a very powerful deterrent. I’m pretty sure most 14-15 year old bullies are not going to risk getting carved just so they can beat-up some scrawny little kid. [/quote]

Listen, with all due respect, you are the one quibbling. This case is an EXTRAORDINARY case of clear self-defense. Crystal clear. That the other child died sucks, but fighting is serious business with sometimes deadly outcomes.

I’ve been stabbed before. 3x. You don’t always know it when it happens. It doesn’t even hurt until later. In fact, getting stitched up hurts more. Much more.

The number of times is irrelevant. He can keep stabbing that kid until the kid stops. Since there is no allegation that he stabbed the other kid when he was down, or prone, or running away, there really is nothing to discuss here.

And you can get jabbed with a knife 15x in an extremely short amount of time. [/quote]

Nope, still not buying it.

-Kids bully & assault each other all the time & 99%+ of the time they don’t either seriously injure one another OR kill each other.
-Thinking back to when I defended myself/fought etc bullies at school, most of what motivated me was PURE, DISTILLED RAGE, as opposed to just ‘self-defense’.
-The details of this case are nothing out of the orinary (it would be nice to say different…though, kids can be evil little fuckers).

I’d also gladly conjecture, when the bully hit the kid in the back of the head, this probably wasn’t even an especially forceful punch…It was probably more of a: Come on punk, fight me back!!
[/quote]

It matters not that you don’t “but it”.

You’re just illustrating (repetitively) your misunderstanding of the law.

Yes, kids bully and assault each other all the time. This is true, but a fallacious response to the topic. The law states very clearly that you do NOT have to be subject to a physical attack. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO TAKE A BEATING.

Kids get in fights, and they are often “mutual fights”. A kid that clearly fears for his safety or life does not have to take a beating.

Your remark about “pure distilled rage” is tripe. Call it what you want, you were “defending” yourself.

The details of the case are extraordinary as it concerns the legal defense. The kid did everything reasonable to avoid the fight. And when he couldn’t, he defended himself.

Am I alarmed that a child lose their life over what is customarily a right of male passage? Yes. We all are.

What would you do? Require him to take a beating? Possibly lose his life? Possibly suffer brain damage?

I know you think he “brought a knife to a fistfight”, but since he didn’t want to engage in the fistfight, and serious injury or death is a reasonable consequence of a fistfight with an older (and likely larger) boy, he was entitled by law to not only bring the knife, but use it.

Unless you have something enlightening to say, that will be my final reply to you. [/quote]

From a strictly US, legal POV, you are correct.

However, my own life-experience/common-sense tells me something rather different.

The kid, could have fought back (with just his fists/feet etc) The age difference between the bully & the bullied was only 1 year OR he could have armed himself with something less deadly than a knife etc (mace spray for example).

My problem with these kind of cases/verdicts, is not that I believe a miscarriage of justice has occurred. It’s more that the legal terminology used seems, euphemistic to say the least.

^Until the UK & or US has ‘Crimes of Passion’ you are going to have a hard time convincing me otherwise^

Of course, if someone can show me evidence that the kid was hit more just once, the bully kept coming at the kid even after he’d been stabbed several times etc OR the bully had a weapon himself etc, I’ll gladly agree with you, wholeheartedly, that this kid’s action were ‘just’ self-defence. Until then, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

[/quote]

We agree to disagree then.

And by the way, the law does not require you to “get hit more than once” or even ONCE. One hit can result in serious injury or death. And that sir, is a fact. One blow, whether delivered by a man, or a teenager.

And by the way, the assailant was a junior and the other boy a freshman if I recall correctly. That’s not a “one year difference”. One kid is on his way to his senior year, the other just got out of middle school. HUGE DIFFERENCE.