Honor or Freedom

[MJS]

Mike,

I can't say it any clearer than I have. Try consulting a lawyer on this stuff and show him the posts and the language and ask him what language would be more effective during legal proceedings. It is sticky business, but it really depends on what your local courts/LEO are like as well.

If you read my posts, I clarify the idea of three areas that you will be judged/scrutinized by (actions before during and after the incident) as well as the full spectrum of SD (inside you, street, legal system). So, I am not 'merely' saying that "I feared for my life" I am demonstrating it in all three areas that I will be scrutinized by from the legal system.

I am also making it very clear and as unarguable a point as possible in court that my INTENT to use the force I did was because I wanted to stop a threat and escape. Throw up all the stuff you want, but that is the hinging difference. I am - in the legal arena - presenting as consistent an impression of 'stopping the violence' and with no room for any other interpretation. The consistency of language, the lack of variation and the avoidance of mentioning any 'lethal force' on my part is what I am focusing on.

I think I have to be done with this, I see the difference, you don't so I guess we have to simply settle on disagreeing here.

Paul- this is really getting old. I think Im done as well. The thing that I see, is that you and I are saying the same thing. The difference is that the fact that i'm not saying like you, well, that makes it wrong. Sorry I'm not an expert like you! We have both talked about deadly force, the proper time to use it, etc. I notice that you never bothered to look for any of my posts. Hmm..makes me wonder. Could it be, that I have never said the lauguage that you say I have? Again, I looked through all of my posts, and not one time did I mention deadly force. It was YOU however, in your little court room drama, that put words into my mouth, making it seem like that is what i was referring to. Go back and check for yourself, although I dont think that you will have the stones to admit that is exactly what happened!! I have talked about using the amount of force necessary to stop the attacker, but you still seem to think that I set out from the beginning to kill the guy, just cuz hes coming at me with a knife. Not the case. Show me where I said that. I have said however, that If, and only IF, it comes to it, then deadly force will have to be used.

I know this much. In a situation, I will do everything I possibly can to avoid it. Be it talking, walking, etc. But, if all of those wonderfull little options run thin, then getting physical is the only other choice. If the situation can be ended with an armlock, fine. If it ends with a choke, fine. If it ends with his arm getting broken, fine. Will I set out to break his arm? Not at all. But if he doesnt get the hint, then maybe he will then.

Mike

 

[MJS]

"I used the level of force appropriate to stopping his attack on my at the time. He had a knife and was showing intent to kill me. I just wanted to get away. I even reported the incident right away because I knew that he was hurt and just wanted him caught, not dead."

Here is a quote from your fantasy..I mean court room drama! Notice that we are saying the same things here. I have said that I will first talk my way out, try to leave, etc. but if all else fails, look what happens. And you have just said the same damn thing!!!

Mike

 

[Ceicei]

Ceicei- I hear ya. So basically, the bottom line is, the bad guy wins, the good guy gets screwed! No matter what I do, say, etc. it will always be wrong in the eyes on the court. Well, it looks like if I ever get attacked with a knife, I'll be the one who ends up in jail then.

Oh well.

Mike

No... don't take too much of a dim view of the legal system. With a very good lawyer who knows and understands how you think/do, then it is definitely possible to win your case. It has been done with other people.

Basically, I think Loki and you both agree on what to do in an actual altercation. You both agree on the necessity of trying to defuse the situation whenever possible. When there isn't any choice left, you both agree in fighting back with whatever level is necessary to get out and remain alive. The attack might stop with a word, a punch, a broken bone, a slashed back, or maybe even death, depending on how far the attacker goes and how much you need to defend yourself to end the attack. As you have mentioned, we use words to try to defuse the potential bad situation in the first place by finding calming words.

Now the controversy I see between Loki and you isn't over that (what action to take). It is over "semantics", or how words are used to describe the incident.

Both of you are different individuals and will have a different way of saying things. That's ok. Nobody says you have to be exactly like him.

Just be aware that in the legal system, even with the worse and best of words you choose to say, the prosecutor will always try to discredit what you say and do. With a very good defense lawyer on your side, and your awareness of their (prosecutor's) verbal tactics to manipulate, it is important to understand how the court system will work and carefully choosing words to say what would present your position the best.

You already know full well the power words have in creating an atmosphere and how people can imply/infer just simply based on certain choices of words.

- Ceicei

 

[Cryozombie]

But what I am taking away from this... Regardless of what MJS or Loki are saying about "verbal sparring" is this:

REGARDLESS OF THE LEVEL OF FORCE YOU USE, IF YOU ARE TRAINED YOU NEED TO BE PREPARED TO GO TO JAIL IF YOU DEFEND YOURSELF...

(P) "So, you claim the Deceased attacked you without provokation and you used the minimum force neccessary to defend yourself"
(D) "Thats correct, when he attempted to stab me with the Knife, I moved and executed a basic hip throw to take him off balance and get him off his feet so I could safely flee"
(P) "As a trained fighter, didn't you realize that there was danger in throwing that man to the ground"
(D) "No, sir, I thought I could throw him and flee, I did not know his head would strike the curb and he would die"
(P) "So you admit to fleeing the scene, AFTER you killed him"

I mean, yeah... thats a "fantasy" situation, based on that aforementioned case that brought this thread up... The point being "The state choosing to prosecute the VICTIM of the attack because the outcome was in his favor instead of the criminal's is... well... CRIMINAL!"

I submit that every prosecuter who is TRAINED to prosecute a case, wins and then and loses an appeal be disbarred. Its the same thing, right?

 

[MJS]

Ceicei-

Thanks for the reply. I realize that the legal system will manipulate your wording. They'll get you so confused, that you'll have no idea what you're saying, and in the long run, you will look like a fool, and that is exactly what they want.

Its funny, because if you watch the news when there is a cop related shooting, you'll hear the exact same thing. "Why did you have to shoot my son?" "Why did you have to shoot him in the chest? How come you didnt shoot him in the leg? If you did that, he'd still be alive!" "How come you shot him, when you had other things to use to defend yourself?"

Here you have a cop, whos job it is to protect and serve. His life is on the line, and he defends himself, and yet, he still gets put on the grill. Now, you have John Q. Citizen, whos minding his own business. He gets attacked, defends himself and gets put on the same grill as the cop. Granted, you may not have shot the guy, but you still defended yourself in some way. Just seems that the light will be taken off of the bad guy and his ill intentions, and focused on you, because you defended yourself. Its almost like, who cares that he broke into your house, robbed you, stabbed you, raped your wife, and stole your car. We just want to know why you broke this guys nose??

Makes no sense to me! :idunno:

Mike

 

[Ceicei]

Ceicei-

Thanks for the reply. I realize that the legal system will manipulate your wording. They'll get you so confused, that you'll have no idea what you're saying, and in the long run, you will look like a fool, and that is exactly what they want.

Its funny, because if you watch the news when there is a cop related shooting, you'll hear the exact same thing. "Why did you have to shoot my son?" "Why did you have to shoot him in the chest? How come you didnt shoot him in the leg? If you did that, he'd still be alive!" "How come you shot him, when you had other things to use to defend yourself?"

Here you have a cop, whos job it is to protect and serve. His life is on the line, and he defends himself, and yet, he still gets put on the grill. Now, you have John Q. Citizen, whos minding his own business. He gets attacked, defends himself and gets put on the same grill as the cop. Granted, you may not have shot the guy, but you still defended yourself in some way. Just seems that the light will be taken off of the bad guy and his ill intentions, and focused on you, because you defended yourself. Its almost like, who cares that he broke into your house, robbed you, stabbed you, raped your wife, and stole your car. We just want to know why you broke this guys nose??

Makes no sense to me! :idunno:

Mike

Yes, I hear you. I wish the focus would stay on the bad guy too.

What seems to be missing in today's society is the lack of emphasis on personal responsibility (particularly those who instigate the problem in the first place and result in too many lawsuits), but that is another thread....

- Ceicei

 

[Cryozombie]

What seems to be missing in today's society is the lack of emphasis on personal responsibility (particularly those who instigate the problem in the first place and result in too many lawsuits), but that is another thread....

- Ceicei

THANK YOU... THAT'S WHAT I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO SAY, IN A VERY ROUND ABOUT WAY!

It amazes me how simply someone can say what I try and convey in 30 odd paragraphs sometimes! :asian:

 

[Ceicei]

I wonder whether the table would be turned if we decided to press civil charges (because he attacked us and caused harm/damage) immediately after the incident instead of waiting for the criminal or his family members to press charges? The problem is this adds to the glut of lawsuits out there...

Generally the DA decides which charges to bring up and against whom. It's bad enough if criminal charges are brought up against us for doing self defense.

- Ceicei

 

[Tgace]

Very few of these situstions are so "cut and dry" as these examples you are discussing. The whole "good guy minding his own business gets attacked...yadda yadda." 9 times out of 10 (OK maybe 7out of 10) the parties are drunk/in a mutual fight that turns into one party pulling a weapon/a little "payback" after you defend yourself etc. I think you guys are going a little overboard in generalizing post self-defense prosecution here. Ive let quite a few people walk after they lumped up a guy who deserved it. Not saying you wont face civil suits, but thats a different story.

 

[Cryozombie]

I agree with that as well... I was generalizing based on the example set up in this thread.

Ive seen both situations happen, and two guys mutually going at it seems to happen far more often.

I can think off the top of my head of one siutation where the "good guy" minding his own buisness was walking down the street and 3 guys beat him up because they did not like his pants... They (the three) got arrested and he got a walk...

So yeah, I agree, Scenario one is most likely.