The conditions under which lethal force is justified in defense of self and those under the mantle of your protection has been very consistent for a very long time. Stand Your Ground changed very little, in substance.
Ability, opportunity and intent must all be present. Your conduct must remain reasonable.
This is a thread about the Jordan Neely incident and ongoing trial of Daniel Penny.
Prosecutors are already shamefully bringing race into their argument against Penny. That, to me, is an indication of the weakness of their arguments against him.
Was Penny’s conduct reasonable? That’s what the jury is going to determine. Not whether it was racist. He is not being charged with a hate crime. Yet the prosecutor is leaning into the vocabulary of woke oppression politics.
They teach applicable law as it relates to the comment.
I’m game for the other stuff though. Pistol courses, 3 gun, long range, quick draw, shotgun games…you pick. I’ve been shooting guns since I was 5. Long before you caught a whiff of the military qualifying range.
I think you previously proposed another hypothetical competition at one point too but can’t remember what it was.
@Njord is absolutely correct and I suggest @zecarlo start with an easy read of Massad Ayoob’s Deadly Force: Understanding Your Right To Self-Defense to brush up on the basic concepts.
I also started a lethal force thread years ago that this discussion would be at-home in.
This is the crux of the issue. Everything is politicized now.
Black man dies, it’s murder. He was a king, after all. Nevermind he was threatening to kill people, or alluding to it.
The problem Neely will face is a politicized jury who buys the line. It won’t matter what the law says if too many green haired women with hairy armpits are on the jury.
Even in Texas, a bastion of gun rights, politicized scenarios alter outcomes.
During an ANTIFA rally in Austin an Uber driver was inadvertently routed through, and had an AK-47 aimed at him. He shot the guy and was not only charged with murder but found guilty.
Absolutely unbelievable. But, it was Austin and narrative mattered more than law or the logic behind it.
The dangerous game of identity politics has to go. I would not be optimistic for my chances at freedom if I ever had to lawfully defend myself against a black person or especially a migrant or Somalian-American in Lewiston, ME.
Especially considering I’ve become quite well-known by every politician in Lewiston at this point, and only a handful of current ones like me. I’m actually proud to say that it is a matter of public record that the SC Chairwoman considers me “vile”.
Local Lewiston dysfunction aside, even the man who helped Penny restrain Neely, Mr. Gonzales, was rightly afraid of what his local government might do because of his actions. He took the stand today.
“There’s all these protests going on. I’m scared for myself, scared for my family,” Gonzalez said.
I’m curious to see if there is a double down during Trump’s second presidency or if the institutional dissolution of DEI objectives in general will begin to trickle out to society at large in the near future.
I’m calling them out locally. If these people seriously believe that there are neo-Nazis or anything like them in Maine, start naming names and explaining why you believe that.
I wrote my most recent letter to a Lewiston representative in Augusta who, in the predictable string of victory platitudes, issued an invitation for people who disagree with her to reach out.
I did, and somewhere on the order of several hundred to a few thousand local eyes will get to see her response, or lack thereof.
I asked her to explain how her constituents who disagree with her policies should interpret the quote she displays on her page.
“We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.”
-James Baldwin
And wouldn’t you know, just right now as I googled the quote I came across a “fact check” that seems to suggest it isn’t a James Baldwin quote at all, but more made-up leftwing bullshit that someone attributed to James Baldwin.
Just for fun as it technically relates to deadly force in defense of another, a startup ride share program in Texas will be offering armed drivers: https://blackwolfapp.com/
And in another comparison of geographical differences, recall that when drawing pictures of Mohammed was kicking off terrorist attacks a newspaper who published a comic in France saw its staff massacred, including beheadings.
In Texas, a “draw Mohammad” event was staged for a fun evening out, and when the terrorist showed up he was shot and killed within seconds.
You have to defend yourself before you’re dead. There’s an order of operations that gets lost in hindsight sentiment.
They advised you incorrectly or you must not be recalling it well. What you wrote is simply not true.
Whether or not someone is armed (or possibly armed) is not even a stand-alone test of whether or not lethal force is justified in defense of self.
Ability. Opportunity. Intent. Those are the elements that must be present. Weaponry is simply a possible aspect of both ability and opportunity.
You are not a particularly good bullshitter. It is often quite obvious when you are talking out of your ass. Being confidently wrong is the typical giveaway.
No, they’re all an element of self-defense. Especially in the context of deadly force. Feel free to mouse trap a self-defense line of conversation to your liking.
I haven’t read the book, but it appears to back the general self-defense commentary above, which is often taught by police and written by or at least approved by lawyers.