Condolences to Beantown ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

ofc you if you find yourself in a situation where you need to use lethal force to save your our others life its not optimal but necessary.

---

This is what I've been saying the entire time, lmao. You just want to pretend that I said "if I found an unarmed 19 year old kid hiding in my backyard, I'd love to shoot him in the face", which isn't remotely close to the context of what I said. If I found a terrorist in my backyard with the capability of murdering 100s of people, I would shoot him if I thought he was still a threat to other innocents. My assumption this whole time is that the guy at least had a gun on him (I think I saw a video that had gunshots, but maybe they were just hitting him with rubber rounds or something, who knows), if he didn't have a weapon and was just an unarmed dying kid, it's a different situation because he's no longer a threat to me.

Th? difference is that I dont se someone hiding in your backyard as a direct threat. The person would need to a active hostile action and then it would be ok. So what I said is still different from what you think.

I said a half dozen times my assumption is he had a weapon considering he was in a shootout with police less than 24 hours before, are you blind or can you just not understand English? Going on a murderous crime spree and running from the police is not a continuing hostile action? lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHaran

I said a half dozen times my assumption is he had a weapon considering he was in a shootout with police less than 24 hours before, are you blind or can you just not understand English? Going on a murderous crime spree and running from the police is not a continuing hostile action? lol

---

Thats something you added later on the discussion, post 26th on page 2 to be more exactk your initial posts didnt mention anything about him being armed you just concluded that you would put bullets in him. I dont know about you, but I am pretty sure there is something similiar in US as well that dont allow a civilian to walk up to a person and shoot him just cause hes a wanted fugitive. If there isnt thats pretty damn crazy. There is actually, but not viable in this case I guess from what I can read. But no I dont believe that he in the current condition would be posed a immediate threat to anyone, consider how he was wounded. The person that found him acted as a sane person would.

My initial post didn't say anything about him being unarmed either, but you just want to make **** up as usual. Why would I not assume he's armed if he was in a violent shootout the night before? Why would I shoot someone without just cause and get myself thrown in jail? Try using your head once in a while, common sense goes a long way.

lol, talking about common sense while proclaiming that he would go and put bullets in a wanted dangerous fugitive :) Doesnt quite connect.

I'd prefer that to the police having another 50 person shootout in my neighborhood with bullets flying through innocent houses, which is what happened the night before when they "handled" it.

I have returned!

You feel it is ok to kill someone that is accused of a crime despite you having no legal authority to do so and contrary to the wishes of law enforcement agencies. That is vigilantism.

The general citizen is not capable of making the decision you are confident you can make. Legalising such action would result in chaos. In essence you are advocating the killing of a person by another because you believe they are responsible for a serious crime.

That is not how society works, nor it it how it should ever work.

Quote:

---

The Use of Deadly Force in Self-Defense

Maryland also continues to follow common law principles on the issue of when one may use deadly force in self-defense. In the case of State v. Faulkner, 301 Md. 482, 485, 483 A.2d 759, 761 (1984), the Court of Appeals of Maryland summarized those principles, and stated that a homicide, other than felony murder, is justified on the ground of self-defense if the following criteria are satisfied:

---

Quote:

---

(1) The accused must have had reasonable grounds to believe himself in apparent imminent or immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from his assailant or potential assailant;

---

Reasonable grounds; such as an armed fugitive found on my property hiding from police, wanted for the armed robbery of a convenience store, carjacking, murder of a police office, and bombing of 200 innocent civilians. This person shows no regard for human life and has assaulted anyone who got in his way of escape, even his own brother. My imminent danger upon discovering this fugitive is unquestionable.

Quote:

---

(2) The accused must have in fact believed himself in this danger;

---

See above.

Quote:

---

(3) The accused claiming the right of self defense must not have been the aggressor or provoked the conflict;

---

Investigating suspicious activity on my property is not aggression or provocation. The fugitive has been in an aggressor in every encounter, with civilians or law enforcement, since being publicly identified by authorities.

Quote:

---

(4) The force used must have not been unreasonable and excessive, that is, the force must not have been more force than the exigency demanded.

---

Shooting a man wanted for multiple murders and mass injuries would not be called unreasonable or excessive by any court in America, my life would be clearly at immediate risk having unknowingly approached such a person and nobody could/would argue otherwise.

And then there's the fact that I would be legally able to kill this person in the defense of the innocents he has already proven willing to kill:

Quote:

---

Defense of Others (MPJI-Cr 5:01)

Defense of others is a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following four factors are present:

1) The defendant actually believed that the person defended was in immediate and imminent danger of bodily harm.
2) The defendant's belief was reasonable.
3) The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend the person defended in light of the threatened or actual force.
4) The defendant's purpose in using force was to aid the person defended.

---

No, you deliberately put yourself in danger by approaching him.

again - In essence you are advocating the killing of a person by another because you believe they are responsible for a serious crime.

You are also engaging in vigilantism - you deny this?

False, the danger wasn't known until I identify the person in my yard as an armed fugitive. When I approach I'm just thinking 'who the hell is in my boat?'.

Note the laws above are based on my belief that I'm in danger, or my belief that I'm defending others. I'm advocating responsible civilians taking action to protect themselves and each other. Otherwise we will always only act after an atrocity has already been committed.

If a civilian with a concealed carry permit happened to see Adam Lanza approaching an elementary school armed with a rifle and 2 pistols, are you telling me that person should not intervene?

I also did a ninja edit!

I did a ninja edit aove btw that i think you missed.

In your example it appears that it is acceptable for citizens to approach, apprehend and kill individuals suspected of crimes. This is not the case, your example falls down.

another edit ftw:

(3) The accused claiming the right of self defense must not have been the aggressor or provoked the conflict;

^^ you are totally the aggressor in that situation. You are fully aware of the potential situation and are acting aggressively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHaran

I'm advocating responsible civilians taking action to protect themselves. Otherwise we will always only act after an atrocity has already been committed.

---

Yes, i totally understand that. Your fatal error is assuming that the general public are responsible individuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop

Yes, i totally understand that. Your fatal error is assuming that the general public are responsible individuals.

---

I have no such misconception, the average person is a moron. I am an advocate of the 2nd amendment, yet I also understand something has to be done to prevent idiots and lunatics from owning guns. They give the rest of us a bad reputation. My original post had a tone of bravado, I can admit that. That doesn't mean I don't understand the limitations of what I can and can't do, both legally and morally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHaran

I'd prefer that to the police having another 50 person shootout in my neighborhood with bullets flying through innocent houses, which is what happened the night before when they "handled" it.

---

Oh, yea, cause you would just totally execute the operation perfectly nobody would come to harm cause you have done these kind of things all the time right? Wake up and smell the coffee, you are no Rambo. Besides, even after you knew the outcome you come with such absurd claims? Not a single shot was fired when they arrested him that night right?

Meh, I dont remember what i googled last night but there is a law that gives a person the right to murder someone but I think if not mistaken that you would need the person you shoot to be assaulting you so you have no other way of fending of the person than shooting him. That wouldnt be viable in this cause since it would be "Look whos in my boat see that its the guy from tv (wounded)