GI Victimized, called Vigilante for Self Defense

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

The fact the he is on anti depressant medication precludes him from legally owning a firearm.

If that is true, that puts the whole case to bed. The rest of the arguments really don't matter anymore.

Kennedy, you mentioned that if he had a resonable fear for GBH which would make the draw legal (assuming he had a legal right to have the gun in the first place), that assault could be argued. Isn't intent necessary in the US to get an assault conviction?

This guy may have reasonably felt he was being swarmed and drew his weapon. However, this group may have just passed really close by him on their way to their car. If their was never an intent to do harm, the reasonable fear still could have been there, but an assault could then never be convicted for.

Lastly, their is at least one police agency that teaches "wounding shots".

[rhino 0]

Quote

Now this is a load of BS if I ever saw one. Pointing a gun at somebody cannot be considered a threat because the hammer is not cocked??
So what if somebody points a gun at me and I pull my gun and shoot him claiming self defense, but then it turns out HIS gun was not cocked? Does that make my claim at self defense baseless?
What if the gun is a signle action? Am I supposed to ask the guy to stand still while I check his gun's make and model and then ask an expert if I am not sure whether that gun is single or double action (or both)?
If this is the best line of defense he can come up with (besides claiming he is being targeted as a scapegoat) I'm sure he'll have a pretty hard time in court.

My sniper platoon just had a class last weekend. We were told "because things are so up in the air law wise" that the only thing that matters is what the 12 jurors think at our court martial. That should always be at the forefront of what we do. Laws of engagement are by no means set in stone. That goes for Arizona and Iraq. If you put yourself in a situation where you might use deadly force, or project the intent of deadly force you damned well better be prepared to face those 12 people and plead your case.

I do thing they will make an example out of this guy.. No fucking respect for a man that fought for our freedom..

Rhino

[chuckbrown 0]

Assault isn't a specific intent crime; you don't have to intend to commit the assault. You do have to intend to do the act which would reasonably put another in fear for their life. Running up behind someone in a dark alley in NYC and yelling BOO would probably constitute an assault even if you had the best intentions. You intentionally did an act which reasonably put someone in fear for their life. Kinda like yelling fire in a crowded theater.

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

No fucking respect for a man that fought for our freedom..

Lee Harvey Oswald was a marine. The guy in the University of Texas tower was a combat marine. Just because you went into combat doesn't give you free reign to do whatever you want. He's still gotta play by the rules that apply to the rest of us.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Assault isn't a specific intent crime; you don't have to intend to commit the assault. You do have to intend to do the act which would reasonably put another in fear for their life. Running up behind someone in a dark alley in NYC and yelling BOO would probably constitute an assault even if you had the best intentions. You intentionally did an act which reasonably put someone in fear for their life. Kinda like yelling fire in a crowded theater.

I understand that, though there was a specific act towards that person. If a group passes to close to you, making you fearful, yet no member of the group ever intended to make you feel fearful, never gave any thought to you, just absentmindedly passes close to you, maybe even surrounding you for a second, yet never touching you....could that ever result in an assault conviction.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

[rely]The fact the he is on anti depressant medication precludes him from legally owning a firearm.

If that is true, that puts the whole case to bed. The rest of the arguments really don't matter anymore.

[Botellines 0]

Quote

The legal snafu is that if his fear of GBH was reasonable, then the illegals did something to make him have that reasonable fear, That is simple assault.

So so called atackers will be judge based on the level of paranoia of the so called victim.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

The legal snafu is that if his fear of GBH was reasonable, then the illegals did something to make him have that reasonable fear, That is simple assault.

So so called atackers will be judge based on the level of paranoia of the so called victim.

Quote

paranoia -
1. A psychotic disorder characterized by systematized delusions, especially of persecution or grandeur, in the absence of other personality disorders.
2. Extreme, irrational distrust of others.

Does that constitute a reasonable fear to you?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Lastly, their is at least one police agency that teaches "wounding shots".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Where? What agency?

Dutch Police

[Kennedy 0]

If I remember correctly, the Netherlands has around 50,000 officers split between a national branch and regional branches.

It would surprise me a great deal if you could confirm that they teach that many officers to use "wounding shots" rather than "shooting to stop."
(obviously no one teaches street officers to "shoot to kill")

Where'd you hear about the dutch policy? Do you know an officer from the Netherlands, or have some other direct source? I don't mean to doubt you, but it just really surprises me that any agency would do that.

(the general consensus being that if you are calm enough and have enough time for a wounding shot, then you really don't need to shoot)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Casurf1978 0]

I agree with you Ron. What I dont understand is the following:

Quote

Explaining that he was still concerned for his safety, Patrick followed the men to the vehicle and, with the gun aimed at them, took the car keys away from them. He said he then called 911 and asked the dispatcher whether he should order the men out of the vehicle.

So this guy who said he felt threatened enough to draw his gun decides to approach a vehicle with six men in it. Not knowing whether they might be armed. Hell ask a cop what he does when there are people in a vehicle and has his gun already drawn. He doesnt approach the car. Sounds like this guys trying to play hero here.

[Kennedy 0]

(A) I see nothing wrong with citizens detaining criminals for police. It happens all the time with break-ins and other contact crime.

http://www.fox11az.com/news/state/stories/041605ccjrktvkhaab.1e5e11f93.html

Quote

During a recent interview, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said Haab's story is filled with contradictions.

"When you fear for your life, you should get back in the car -- not approach the car with a gun, drag them out and put them in fear for their lives just because they look like they're from Mexico," he said.

As much sa I repect Arpaio's tough stances on criminals, he's showing that disturbings "I'm a cop so I know everything" trait.

He didn't point out any contradictions; instead all he did was lay down some bullshit "always use me" rule (a sure sign it shouldnt be followed), and called the man a liar.

He never dragged anyone out - he ordered them out.
distinction: he never used violence or force, only threatened it.

He didn't detain them because they looked Mexican, he detained them because he believes they assaulted him.
distinction: one is vigilantism and racist, the other is continuing self defense and a bit of doing the cops' job for them.

Good cops appreciate it when a criminal is handed to them on a silver platter with no harm done. Bad cops (the ones with serious no-one-is-as-good-as-me syndrome) only see it as a threat and denounce it without looking at the facts.

Arpaio is placing himself squarely in the "I'm the only one that can handle this, sit back you mere civilians," and "I'm from the government, I'm here to help" category.

Quote

Hell ask a cop what he does when there are people in a vehicle and has his gun already drawn. He doesnt approach the car. Sounds like this guys trying to play hero here.

See my comment on "always do this" rules. There are only four things that should always be done in an armed self defense scenario. Everything else is a maybe.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

I see nothing wrong with citizens detaining criminals for police. It happens all the time with break-ins and other contact crime.

There is a huge difference between me detaining someone who has actually committed a crime against me or my property than thinking this person has "attacked" me and then detaining them. How did these six men assault this person? Did they rush him? Did they touch him or brandish any thing that might be a weapon. What made him think he was in grave danger.

[bch7773 0]

Quote

Patrick said the 911 dispatcher told him to use his best judgment. He said he gave a second gun, a Derringer that he kept in his car, to another motorist who was also stopped at the rest stop. Patrick said the other motorist knew Spanish and confirmed that the men had crossed the border illegally.

He said he then ordered the men out of the Suburban and told them to lie on the ground, where he kept them covered with his weapon for 30 minutes while waiting for authorities. He said the other driver returned his weapon and left before authorities arrived.

anyone notice the weirdness of the second motorist? Apparently this Patrick Haab guy hands a gun to somebody he doesn't know, this "motorist" happens to speak spanish and is asking the mexicans whether they crossed illegally, then the motorist leaves before the cops show up (and hes a witness?).

This sound like Patrick had another guy from his border militia group thing around, who interrigated the mexicans, then left before the cops show up because it would look bad.
This Patrick guy was playing mr. policeman.

MB 3528, RB 1182

[Botellines 0]

Quote

This Patrick guy was playing mr. policeman.

That is what i thought too. If you are afraid enough to pull a gun, you don´t get close to your assaultants, you just take the license plate number and tell the police.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

This sound like Patrick had another guy from his border militia group thing around, who interrigated the mexicans, then left before the cops show up because it would look bad.

Mr. Haab was never a volunteer for the MinuteMen. He was a guy on a roadtrip who stopped to let his dog piss.

Quote

This Patrick guy was playing mr. policeman.

Do you happen to have any proof of that, or have we given up completely on the idea of "innocent until proven guilty."

(save the smart-assed Patriot Act comments, bill)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

you just take the license plate number and tell the police.

Ahh, yes! That's the "somebody else will take care of it" attitude. Wonderful!

I'm curious, what would you say if he had taken you suggestion and they drove down the road and killed someone?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

Ahh, yes! That's the "somebody else will take care of it" attitude. Wonderful!

It's not his job to be a cop. If you see something suspicious are you going to go in like some hero ready to save the day. Only to find out a) it's not what you think it is or b) get in over your head and possibly endanger your life or someone elses. Call the cops, let them do their job. Ask any cop and I'll bet you 9.9 out of 10 if you see something supicious going on they would rather have a civilian call it in than go rushing in and take the law into your own hands.

[flyclearjohn 0]

Quote

Quote

Ahh, yes! That's the "somebody else will take care of it" attitude. Wonderful!

It's not his job to be a cop. If you see something suspicious are you going to go in like some hero ready to save the day. Only to find out a) it's not what you think it is or b) get in over your head and possibly endanger your life or someone elses. Call the cops, let them do their job. Ask any cop and I'll bet you 9.9 out of 10 if you see something supicious going on they would rather have a civilian call it in than go rushing in and take the law into your own hands.

Agreed. Despite the attempts to spin it into something admirable, by those who apparently feel a certain kinship, this was a case of an out of control cop wannabe with a gun.

John

[Ron 10]

Quote

(A) I see nothing wrong with citizens detaining criminals for police. It happens all the time with break-ins and other contact crime.

This was a poor excuse for a guy to detain people.

This guy played hero. If you were really afraid for your life you would draw, but not try to detain them.

Me, I'd draw, keep it out and let them get the hell away from me.

Anything else is playing hero.

It was not his job to detain them. Not his responsibility, not his duty. His right to draw ended when they were no longer a threat.

People like this give people who carry a bad name.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[SkyDekker 1,465]

I had the same questions, but my aunt, who happens to be an active dutch police officers maintains that they are trained to shoot to injure.

btw, you keep talking about detaining in this scenario. In Canada it is illegal for a citizen to detain without arrest, is that not the same in the US?

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I had the same questions, but my aunt, who happens to be an active dutch police officers maintains that they are trained to shoot to injure.

(A) Thank her for me.
(B) If she has a solid grasp of departmental policies (and I have no reason to believe otherwise), then I really am surprised and need to dive into this one.

Quote

btw, you keep talking about detaining in this scenario. In Canada it is illegal for a citizen to detain without arrest, is that not the same in the US?

I'm not sure I see the distinction in this case. For cops there is a difference between detaining a persona ndn arresting them, though it can abe a fuzzy, winding line. For citizens though, the only detention powers are basiclly a citizne's arrest. Anything that falls outside the scope of a legal citizen's arrest would not justify detention.

For a US citizen, if it doesn't justify a citizen's arrest, you can't detain them for any other reason. (hope that came across more clearly)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Remember people, he's not on trial for getaining the illegals. He is on trial for threatening them. There aren't any kidnapping charges. He's facing seven aggragavted assault charges, nothing else at the moment.

That said, Ron, you know as well as I do that he only has to justify the draw when he did it,not before or after. Personally, if I were at a rest stop letting my dog(s) piss, and seven figures came rushing out of the bushes at me (in a concealed cary state), I might draw as well.

That said, once you have drawn, you do not immediately have to put it away just because the felon has started to obey or retreat. Let's keep in mnind that he used no force and never harmed them.

Yes, detaining them is quesitonable, but not illegal. As much as some want to slander his name, and as much as they oviously want to string him up to get at a group he's not even a menber of, he's not even charged with holding them illegally.

Final note - it surprises me to see so many people who dont like, or even hate cops suddenly want them to handle everything and want everyone else to sit there like a bump on a log. Everyone who complains about cops on power trips, about LEO abuses of power, suddently thinks LEOs are the only answer to a problem.
(obviously Ron is very pro law enforcement and not included in my "final note")

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Ron 10]

Quote

That said, Ron, you know as well as I do that he only has to justify the draw when he did it,not before or after. Personally, if I were at a rest stop letting my dog(s) piss, and seven figures came rushing out of the bushes at me (in a concealed cary state), I might draw as well.

And that I agree with 100%. If you feel threatend you have the right to draw to defend....

Defend being the key word. Once the threat has ended I don't see a civilian having the right to continue the "contact". After they passed him HE became the agressor. Hence the aggravated assult charges.

If he had let them go, he would have faced no charges. It was his "Johnny Hero" part where he tried to detain them that bit him in the ass.

What would have been the harm to let them go and write the license number down?

I want an armed citizen to act like he is not armed until there is a point where he MUST defend. Then after the situation is over I want them to revert back.

By confronting these men he took a situation that was OVER and continued it.

Quote

That said, once you have drawn, you do not immediately have to put it away just because the felon has started to obey or retreat. Let's keep in mnind that he used no force and never harmed them.

Ture but by detaining them he continued the situation much longer than needed. The SAME result could have been accomplished by calling the cops...Either way once he was no longer threatend, he had no business staying in the situation. It is not his job to perform law enforcement duties...If he does perform LEO duties he becomes a vigilante.

Quote

Yes, detaining them is quesitonable, but not illegal. As much as some want to slander his name, and as much as they oviously want to string him up to get at a group he's not even a menber of, he's not even charged with holding them illegally.

I don't think he was a member of any group...I think he is a wanabe cop with a gun and saw a chance to play one in real life and become a hero. I have seen these type before.

I think an armed Citizenry is a RIGHT. But that does not mean that we all should act like cops.

Quote

Final note - it surprises me to see so many people who dont like, or even hate cops suddenly want them to handle everything and want everyone else to sit there like a bump on a log. Everyone who complains about cops on power trips, about LEO abuses of power, suddently thinks LEOs are the only answer to a problem.
(obviously Ron is very pro law enforcement and not included in my "final note")

I find that REALLY funny as well.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Remember people, he's not on trial for getaining the illegals. He is on trial for threatening them. There aren't any kidnapping charges. He's facing seven aggragavted assault charges, nothing else at the moment.

That said, Ron, you know as well as I do that he only has to justify the draw when he did it,not before or after. Personally, if I were at a rest stop letting my dog(s) piss, and seven figures came rushing out of the bushes at me (in a concealed cary state), I might draw as well.

That said, once you have drawn, you do not immediately have to put it away just because the felon has started to obey or retreat. Let's keep in mnind that he used no force and never harmed them.

Yes, detaining them is quesitonable, but not illegal. As much as some want to slander his name, and as much as they oviously want to string him up to get at a group he's not even a menber of, he's not even charged with holding them illegally.

Final note - it surprises me to see so many people who dont like, or even hate cops suddenly want them to handle everything and want everyone else to sit there like a bump on a log. Everyone who complains about cops on power trips, about LEO abuses of power, suddently thinks LEOs are the only answer to a problem.
(obviously Ron is very pro law enforcement and not included in my "final note")

This guy was wrong. I know it and I think you know it. I have no problem with people owning guns. I do have a problem with them being irresponsible in using them. This guy either emotionally lost it, was overcome by the rush of exerting his will on others, or simply made a serious error in judgment. He went too far. Not just a little bit, but way too far.

So perhaps he's a good guy and just got all emotionally wound up and couldn't see when he should have stood down. A most valuable lesson to be learned, don't you think.

Jen

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".