GI Victimized, called Vigilante for Self Defense

[justinb138 0]

Quote

If anything I’d have had him charged with unlawful imprisonment for detaining them illegally rather than for drawing on them.

Quote

I was thinking the same thing earlier. It seems the only difference between the two would be his intent (to detain, or to cause bodily harm w/a deadly weapon).

Personally, I think they would have a hard time convicting him of aggravated assault. I'm wondering if there were any other witnesses. If not, it's his word against the 7 guys.

Who would an Arizona jury trust more, 7 illegal immigrants, or an ex-military guy who stopped at a gas station to let his dog take a piss?

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

The legal right pertaining to detaining felons would apply here if he had just been assaulted.

Sure, if he can show he was assulted then he ought not have a problem with the detention... so long as he says it's detention and not still self defence.

I'm not going to comment further on self defence in the states as its outa my detailed knowledge. I'll just say that I'm surprised by all the people who end up convicted of shooting someone after they've retreated if self defense only requires a threat immediately before the act as opposed to during the act.

[chuckbrown 0]

1. If you don't realize that you need not have a physical injury to have a charge of aggravated assault, don't go into law enforcement.

2. He absolutely needs to show that pulling a gun was a reasonable response to the threat he was presented with. You are only privileged to use the minimum force necessary to counter the threat. AZ may even have a duty to retreat in the face of a threat, but being the wild west I doubt it.

3. GBH justifying the use of force is a separate issue from making an arrest where no crime has been committed. You can have GBH without the commission of a crime. You're not justified in using force after the threat is gone.

4. Let's let the evidence come out to see whether he was playing cop or just letting his dog piss.

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

Does he really need to justify deadly force? Here simply pulling a gun does not require the same degree of threat as killing. Eg I can threaten with a gun to defend property but there are no circumstances that I can kill to defend property alone.

you can use deadly force to protect your home, you can't use force to kick somebody off your farm.

The reason why he was at the truck stop only counts as to the credability of what he says. It does not make what he did either legal or illegal - just changes whether or not the jury believe that he was genuinly acting out of self defense or simply out there acting as a vigilante.

Exactly.

Even vigilante's are allowed to act in self defense... but one who lied about why he's there might not be belived about how scared he was. Not if they initiated the confrontation, which may have been a factor.

[Ron 10]

My take?

He had the right to draw to protect himself, but not the right to detain them.

He could have let them leave.

I think he played cop. He just came back from a place where guns are a needed part of your daily life. His job is to capture bad guys...He did the same thing here.

He should have not stopped them.

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

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

No, the dividing line is whether he was privleged to use deadly force after they retreated.

When did he use deadly force?

When he pulled the gun. The force doesn't have to result in death. It only needs to be of a sort which could reasonably lead to death.

You are factually wrong. Drawing a deadly weapon is not the same thing as using deadly force. What he did is threaten deadly force, not use deadly force. There is a very large legal distinction.

I'll agree there is a distinction, and that he only threatened deadly force. In any event, he can only threaten deadly force to counter a reasonable fear for his safety. He can't threaten deadly force after they retreated and the threat ended, absent the commission of a crime which we have no evidence of at this point.

Edited to correct a run on sentence.

[billvon 2,989]

>I'd say he detained men who had threatened him enough to make him
>draw a weapon to ensure his own safety. I'd say he took the prudent
> course of action, and that he should be admired for his restraint.

Take the opposite angle.

A Mexican man comes out of a shopping mall. Several people who look like off duty border patrol agents appear seemingly out of nowhere and approach him. He draws his (legal) gun because he fears for his safety, believing the agents to be unfriendly towards Mexicans. They pass him and get in an SUV. He takes the keys, orders them out of the SUV, and has them lie on the parking lot until the police arrive.

Commendable?

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

Does he really need to justify deadly force? Here simply pulling a gun does not require the same degree of threat as killing. Eg I can threaten with a gun to defend property but there are no circumstances that I can kill to defend property alone.

This makes no sense to me. It is illegal to use deadly force just to defend some property yet it is perfectly legal to threaten to do so in the same circumstances?
Even if we set the legal issue aside, what would your threat sound like: I know I cannot shoot you for stealing my wallet and if I do I am certainly going to jail, but if you do not give it back I am going to kill you with this gun I am waving in your face right now?
Can anybody NOT see the contradiction in this statement?

Vale

[mr2mk1g 10]

Shooting someone doesn't necessarily equate to lethal force – eg most GSW victims survive.

Thus it is quite possible for me to be quite within my rights to shoot someone in the leg to prevent them stealing my stuff (under the right circumstances), but may never kill someone simply because they want to walk off with my TV.

This all falls under our self defence legislation - ie I have a right to use reasonable force to defend my property. I also have the right to kill in defence of my life (or simply serious assault) or indeed the life of another, (even a stranger).

There is however a statutory bar on anyone using deadly force to defend property alone. This country has simply decided that while killing in defence of life or limb may be perfectly justified in certain circumstances, it is never justified simply to save material things. I was under the impression at least some states had similar provisions over there?

Thus a non lethal shooting or mere threatening with a firearm may be legal, while in the exact same situation a killing might not.

I perhaps used a poor example as it introduced this baring element to confuse matters.

As for threats, how about "get outa the car or I'll shoot you in the leg". Of course if he bleeds out I'll be in trouble... unless I felt threatened by him.

There's even been a test case where a shop owner was found to have been perfectly justified in chucking fire bombs at rioters who were trying to ransack his shop... sure that could have killed and if it had he'd have been in jail... but as it only horibly burnt some of them he was ok to do it.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

1. If you don't realize that you need not have a physical injury to have a charge of aggravated assault, don't go into law enforcement.

When did I say that assault requires physical injury? I never discounted that. Unlike others, I even bothered to look up the applicable state law, though assault statutes tend to say the same thing everywhere more or less.
http://www.esia.net/arizona_statutes.htm

I never argued he didn't take actions that can be construed as aggravated assault.

He "intentionally placed another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury," and "used a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument."

However, simply doing those two things does not necessarily mean committing agravated assault. When a police officer draws his firearm in self defense, he is not committing aggravated assault. When a home owner draws on a burglar he is not committing aggravated assault. And the circumstances here show that this man drew in self defense, and so he did not commit aggravated assault.

For the fifteenth time, everything hinges on whether a jury decides his fear of GBH was reasonable. If it was, then the illegals committed assault, and he took justifiable measures.

Quote

2. He absolutely needs to show that pulling a gun was a reasonable response to the threat he was presented with. You are only privileged to use the minimum force necessary to counter the threat. AZ may even have a duty to retreat in the face of a threat, but being the wild west I doubt it.

That's simply not true. If you have a reasonable fear of GBH, you may defend yourself however you choose. GBH is a deadly threat. If an unarmed burglar shows up in your bedroom, you are not required to duke itout hand to hand. You may draw a gun and prevent any violence from taking place.

Quote

3. GBH justifying the use of force is a separate issue from making an arrest where no crime has been committed. You can have GBH without the commission of a crime. You're not justified in using force after the threat is gone.

If he reasonably feared GBH, then the illegals committed assault, and he was justified in detaining them for law enforcement.

Everything depends on whether a jury decides he reasonably feared for his safety. If he did, he's done nothing wrong. If they decide it was unjustified (as you did even without all the facts), then he'll be convicted of aggravated assault.

Also, you need to stop saying that he used force. He never did. He used threat of force. Significant difference. A home owner can continue pointing a gun at a burglar even after the felon has surrendered, because until law enforcement arrives and cuffs him, there is still a threat. The homeowner was justified in drawing and covering the burglar. If the jury decides he was justified in drawing, then he was completely justified in continuing to cover the illegals.

Everything depends on whether the draw was justified.

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

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I'll agree there is a distinction, and that he only threatened deadly force. In any event, he can only threaten deadly force to counter a reasonable fear for his safety. He can't threaten deadly force after they retreated and the threat ended, absent the commission of a crime which we have no evidence of at this point.

If he reasonably feared GBH, then you don't need a crime to draw a weapon. Also, if he reasonably feared GBH, you could argue that the ilelgals were guilty of asault.

A good rule of thumb, though no always true, is that "if you're justified in drawing, then you're justified in detaining."
(as long as detaining does not require an escalation of force - you can continue to point the gun at them, but if they run, tackling and/or shooting might not be justified)

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

[Kennedy 0]

I don't know about over there, but those statements are not true here in the states.

Here, pointing a gun at someone is threatening deadly force.

Shooting them is using deadly force.

I don't know of any self defense instructors or police agencies who suggest "wounding shots." If a shot is necessary, it is a shot to stop. Wounding shots will generally lead to very serious felony charges.

There are however instances where threat of GBH is ustified where a shooting might not be. If someone is breaking into your house through your window, you're probably not justified in shooting, but pointing the gun at him and shouting a "stop or else" warning is justified. Hence threat of GBH is ok but causing GBH is not unless the criminal escalates the situation to a threat to your life.

Quote

There's even been a test case where a shop owner was found to have been perfectly justified in chucking fire bombs at rioters who were trying to ransack his shop... sure that could have killed and if it had he'd have been in jail... but as it only horibly burnt some of them he was ok to do it.

That strikes me as ridiculous. If he was justified in using deadly force, then why does it matter if a person is killed or just maimed?

(over here, uding deadly force does not require death. shooting or stabbinga person is using deadly force whther they die or not)

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

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Take the opposite angle.

A Mexican man comes out of a shopping mall. Several people who look like off duty border patrol agents appear seemingly out of nowhere and approach him. He draws his (legal) gun because he fears for his safety, believing the agents to be unfriendly towards Mexicans. They pass him and get in an SUV. He takes the keys, orders them out of the SUV, and has them lie on the parking lot until the police arrive.

Commendable?

Six men walking towards you is not cause for reasonable fear.

The GI was shaken enough to state that he was attacked, even though they didn't ge to physically harm him (this is a vet returned from Iraq, not some field mouse jumping at shadows).

"who he said rushed toward him out of the darkness of an Arizona rest stop"

If your six BPA-looking men seemed to surround or actually threaten the man leaving the mall, then drawing a pistol would be justified. Also, six men leaving a mall are less likely to lead to suspicion than six hsipanics coming out of the bushes of a highway rest stop at night.

Besides, if they look like BPAs, why would your Mexican man fear them?

Let's do a little analogy check:
Six men? yes
walking? no, rushing
out of a mall? no, dark bushes at a rest stop at night
look like law enforcement? no

You changed a little more than just the race to make oyur "opposite angle," Bill.

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

[billvon 2,989]

>Let's do a little analogy check:
>Six men? yes
>walking? no, rushing

These men were rushing too. Not running, just rushing.

>out of a mall? no, dark bushes at a rest stop at night

Out of a mall at night. Think there are no attacks in mall parking lots? There are far more muggings/carjackings/assaults in mall parking lots than in rest stops.

>look like law enforcement? no

And what the heck does that have to do with anything? Are out-of-uniform police officers never involved in altercations? From my experience they are a lot more likely to get in fights and a lot less likely to get arrested for doing so.

>this is a vet returned from Iraq, not some field mouse jumping at
> shadows.

I am sure you have met someone with PTSD.

>If your six BPA-looking men seemed to surround or actually threaten the
> man leaving the mall, then drawing a pistol would be justified.

They did surround him momentarily, then continued on to their vehicle.

>Also, six men leaving a mall are less likely to lead to suspicion than six
>hsipanics coming out of the bushes of a highway rest stop at night.

I have been far more threatened by people in malls and stores by the hispanics I have met coming out of the bushes. (Don't forget, I jump at a DZ that's a bad spot from the border.) But that's irrelevant here. The issue that you seem to make is that if someone FEELS threatened they are justified in pulling a gun. Fine.

Now, let's say you're one of those cops. You see a small hispanic man who stops seemingly in your path. You are in a hurry, but as you pass him he pulls a gun and points it at your friend. You are armed. What do you do?

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

Quote

I'll agree there is a distinction, and that he only threatened deadly force. In any event, he can only threaten deadly force to counter a reasonable fear for his safety. He can't threaten deadly force after they retreated and the threat ended, absent the commission of a crime which we have no evidence of at this point.

If he reasonably feared GBH, then you don't need a crime to draw a weapon. Also, if he reasonably feared GBH, you could argue that the ilelgals were guilty of asault.

A good rule of thumb, though no always true, is that "if you're justified in drawing, then you're justified in detaining."
(as long as detaining does not require an escalation of force - you can continue to point the gun at them, but if they run, tackling and/or shooting might not be justified)

Let's see how the facts play out and then argue how the law applies to them.

[gkc1436 3]

>I believe I predicted this.

>I further predicted that even worse things will happen to both sides.


Can anyone say

Kent State......

[TAndrews 0]

In order for the self defense rule to apply, he must have fear of imminent bodily injury and or death to himself or a third party.

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

Border Patrol Agents do not wear BDU's in the course of their routine duties.

The paper failed to mention if he was a member of one of the controversial groups currently at the border.

The fact that he is not currently active duty military makes all of his previous service irrelevant to the case at hand.

And no the military has no jurisdiction in regard to immigration laws.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

The issue that you seem to make is that if someone FEELS threatened they are justified in pulling a gun. Fine.

Remember, the standard is reasonable fear, as considered by a prosecutor and decided by a jury. Not having fear, or using an "unreasonable" fear is grounds for indictment/conviction of aggravated assault.
(assault for threatening someone/making them afraid, and aggravated because a deadly weapon was involved)

Quote

Now, let's say you're one of those cops. You see a small hispanic man who stops seemingly in your path. You are in a hurry, but as you pass him he pulls a gun and points it at your friend. You are armed. What do you do?

- Everything humanly possible to de-escalate and seem non-threatening.

- If he wants to wait for the cops, hey, that's just great by me.

- Constantly reassess the situation and revise my response if it does go bad.

- Be very, very thankful that I've trained, practiced, shot, and mentally prepared for this shit.

- If I've got time, pray.

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

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

I don't know about over there, but those statements are not true here in the states.

Yup - question was asked of the UK and answered from a UK perspective. I specifically bowed out of the conversation re US self defence as I don't have any detailed knowledge of the law.

Quote

I don't know of any self defense instructors or police agencies who suggest "wounding shots."

I agree. No one really suggests wounding shots, it's just there can be differences in the legal side of things depending on whether you kill someone or simply wound them. That's the only issue I was addressing.

Quote

There are however instances where threat of GBH is ustified where a shooting might not be. If someone is breaking into your house through your window, you're probably not justified in shooting, but pointing the gun at him and shouting a "stop or else" warning is justified. Hence threat of GBH is ok but causing GBH is not unless the criminal escalates the situation to a threat to your life.

It's exactly the same here. Maybe at least... here we might even be justified in just shooting without a warning. We have no duty to retreat or to warn nor even to wait until they strike first... we are simply to use "reasonable" force. That is heavily dependant on the exact situation... but a burglar at night in your house is all but open season.

Quote

That strikes me as ridiculous. If he was justified in using deadly force, then why does it matter if a person is killed or just maimed?

The point is he wasn't justified in using deadly force as he was only defending property and not anyone’s life. I believe the situation involved him stood on the roof of his stoor and the rioters below. I think he confessed he never had any fear that he would be injured (hell I would have done but whatever).

Since he was only defending property and not life, the defence of self defence would not have been open to him had he killed anyone. As he only injured people, the defence was open to him, so he got off.

Quote

(over here, uding deadly force does not require death. shooting or stabbinga person is using deadly force whther they die or not)

Therein lies a difference between our legal systems. Here there is only reasonable and unreasonable force. If the jury thinks that under all of the circumstances your actions were reasonable; fine. If not, then that defence may not work.

Personally I can't think of anything more sublimely simple. If a jury of your peers consider your actions to have been unreasonable under all of the circumstances, how can that not be worthy of punishment?

As I highlighted though, the only caveat comes with the defence of property alone - it's been decided that property is not worth taking a life over, thus killing will always be unreasonable force.... apparently setting fire to someone though might not be (so long as you don’t kill them of course).

Although there is another test case in which a home owner woke to find someone burgling their house. They went downstairs, found the burglar, beat the guy unconscious (up to this point their actions are probably fine). The home owner then dragged them into the back garden and stopped to dig a pit. Setting the would-be-burglar in the pit, they then set fire to them and they burnt to death.

Ok, said the jury... self defence is one thing but that's just a bit on the harsh side. Off to jail he went, no passing GO, no collecting £200.

So kids... be careful with matches.

[TAndrews 0]

You are absolutely right the term reasonable does apply as with every case.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

In order for the self defense rule to apply, he must have fear of imminent bodily injury and or death to himself or a third party.

It must be reasonable fear, as decided by police, prosecutors, and/or a jury.
(it also helps his defense that he didn't actually shoot - restraint always helps a case for self defense)

Quote

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

That may be true in some states, but the federal standard is having been committed to a psych ward or ruled mentally incompetant by a court.

Quote

Border Patrol Agents do not wear BDU's in the course of their routine duties.

I suppose that depends on what you call their routine duties. See attachments.
edit: damn, pics are corrupted, anyway, they weren't current military issue BDUs, but they were boot cut cargos and a miltiary-looking green uniform

- do a google images search for border patrol agent, you'll see them in BDUs.

Quote

The paper failed to mention if he was a member of one of the controversial groups currently at the border.

The article quoted him or his family as saying he has nothing to do with the Minutemen Project.

Quote

The fact that he is not currently active duty military makes all of his previous service irrelevant to the case at hand.

It may affect the thoughts of the jury in both good and bad ways for the defense, and it may provide mitigating circumstances if he's convicted, but you're right in that it doesn't affect the material facts of the case.

Quote

And no the military has no jurisdiction in regard to immigration laws.

True, for now. Once the argument is made that it is a threat to national security or that it is an invasion, you never know...

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

[TAndrews 0]

Good thing i don't need to see the pics, as I am wearing a BP uniform

[Kennedy 0]

ok, in that case...

(A) Thank you.

(B) Is it really that unusual to see BPAs in BDUs? Admittedly I don't know your job any better than you know my neighborhood, but it seems like the ones doing surveillance etc would, while the ones to round up and other functions wouldn't. Am I that far off?

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

[TAndrews 0]

We have some special teams mainly rescue teams that wear BDU's, but for the most part we use the standard uniform for everything.



As a former Police Officer, I agree police officers never get the credit they deserve!

[Keith 0]

The guy is a wanna-be-cop freak. Not only should his guns be taken from him, he should be jailed.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville