Angry tourists break mugger's neck

[Keith Hamburger]

An assault while it can be a serious crime isn't necessarily. It's just the threat of battery, not a battery itself. And it's an aggravated assault if they use a weapon.

In case there are still further questions ...

18-1-707. Use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape.
(7) A private person acting on his own account is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to effect an arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person who has committed an offense in his presence; but he is justified in using deadly physical force for the purpose only when he reasonably believes it necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force.

Annotations

In addition, the person on whom physical force is used under subsection (7) must have either committed a crime in the presence of or attempted escape from custody in the presence of the person using the physical force. People v. Joyce, 68 P.3d 521 (Colo. App. 2002).

So far, it appears as if most all of the citations I've given would apply in a similar case in Colorado.

Keith

[Chaossaber314]

(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate

That doesn't mean you can use it whenever the following apply. You can only use them if you reasonably believe lesser force is inadequate. Gunning down an unarmed person who is fleeing you is clearly an abuse of this and does not apply per your hypothetical.

(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or

Emphasis on IMMINENT. Not fleeing. This means the action is either happening or about to immediately happen. Not afterward or after an attempt has failed.

(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203.

In case you can't see the bolded section I highlighted "About to." Indicating a preventative measure. Not chasing someone down after the fact.

18-1-707. Use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape.
(7) A private person acting on his own account is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to effect an arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person who has committed an offense in his presence; but he is justified in using deadly physical force for the purpose only when he reasonably believes it necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force.

Once more, if he's fleeing you and unarmed, there's no threat of imminent use of deadly physical force against you.

So far, it appears as if most all of the citations I've given would apply in a similar case in Colorado.

Not in your hypothetical it wouldn't.

Further if you hadn't misinterpreted your state's statutes, Tennessee v. Garner would prevent it as the US Supreme Court's decision supersedes state law. As it stands, this fits perfectly within Tennessee v. Garner precedent as the restrictions on the concept make it so that you can't just use deadly force against a fleeing felon. You clearly don't know what Fleeing Felon Doctrine was otherwise we wouldn't even be having this argument.

Just so there's no confusing what the hypothetical was:

In Colorado, at least, you are allowed to pursue and use deadly force against someone who has assaulted another. Even if you are a third party witness to the incident. Even if you have a firearm and the "suspect" is unarmed.

So breaking this down:

In Colorado, at least, you are allowed to pursue and use deadly force against someone who has assaulted another. Even if you are a third party witness to the incident.

You used assaulted in the past tense indicating the offense had already been committed, so you can only pursue and use deadly force if you believe there is an imminent threat of deadly force to yourself or a third party which you negate by indicating they are fleeing and you are in pursuit of them.

Even if you have a firearm and the "suspect" is unarmed.

When you add this onto the end there is no question you are wrong since an unarmed person removes the reasonable belief that a lesser degree of force is unacceptable. On top of that, if they're fleeing AND unarmed, they're without a doubt of no danger of using imminent deadly force on yourself or a third party.

[Keith Hamburger]

That doesn't mean you can use it whenever the following apply. You can only use them if you reasonably believe lesser force is inadequate. Gunning down an unarmed person who is fleeing you is clearly an abuse of this and does not apply per your hypothetical.

Emphasis on IMMINENT. Not fleeing. This means the action is either happening or about to immediately happen. Not afterward or after an attempt has failed.

In case you can't see the bolded section I highlighted "About to." Indicating a preventative measure. Not chasing someone down after the fact.


Once more, if he's fleeing you and unarmed, there's no threat of imminent use of deadly physical force against you.

Not in your hypothetical it wouldn't.

Further if you hadn't misinterpreted your state's statutes, Tennessee v. Garner would prevent it as the US Supreme Court's decision supersedes state law. As it stands, this fits perfectly within Tennessee v. Garner precedent as the restrictions on the concept make it so that you can't just use deadly force against a fleeing felon. You clearly don't know what Fleeing Felon Doctrine was otherwise we wouldn't even be having this argument.

Just so there's no confusing what the hypothetical was:



So breaking this down:

You used assaulted in the past tense indicating the offense had already been committed, so you can only pursue and use deadly force if you believe there is an imminent threat of deadly force to yourself or a third party which you negate by indicating they are fleeing and you are in pursuit of them.


When you add this onto the end there is no question you are wrong since an unarmed person removes the reasonable belief that a lesser degree of force is unacceptable. On top of that, if they're fleeing AND unarmed, they're without a doubt of no danger of using imminent deadly force on yourself or a third party.

So, I guess you skipped the annotations, a limited selection of court decisions on the subject.

Once again ...

The defendant, if he did not provoke the assault, is not obliged to retreat or flee to save his life, but may stand his ground, and even, in some circumstances, pursue his assailant until the latter has been disarmed or disabled from carrying into effect his unlawful purpose, and this right of the defendant goes even to the extent, if necessary, of taking human life. Boykin v. People, 22 Colo. 496, 45 P. 419 (1896); Enyart v. People, 67 Colo. 434, 180 P. 722 (1919).

So, if I reasonably believe that life is in danger and someone is carrying out one of the infractions listed in the law, including but not limited to robbery and assault, I can act until I am confident the attacker poses no threat, including pursuing the attacker using deadly force.

As to an unarmed attacker not being a danger when they're fleeing, that's not necessarily the case. If I can reasonably believe that the attacker is fleeing to his vehicle, in order to use it to injure me or someone else, or if I believe he is fleeing to obtain a weapon in which to injure me or somone else, I can pursue and take action to prevent the realization of that fear. It is highly unlikely that any jury, properly instructed on the law as written, would convict me in Colorado, given that precedent says that I don't have to back down from an attacker. And, if proper instructions are not given in regards to the right of self defense, if ANY mention of an obligation to flee is made in the jury instructions, precedent indicates that a higher court will throw out any conviction.

Given that, it is unlikely that any prosecutor worth his pay would bring a case if the defendant could show that there was any reasonable fear for the safety of himself or others had any lesser force been used.

And, to tie back to the original post, which is what we should have been discussing here all along ...

If such a thing had happened in Colorado, whether the marine intended to kill the suspect, or it merely happened as an accident when he tried to restrain the attacker, the results would have been the same. All involved would have been questioned and they would have been sent on their way. Even had the marine had a firearm and shot the person with the gun, and the other two accomplices who may or may not have been unarmed, there would have been no prosecution for such an act.

Of course, we're the wild and lawless west out here. Gunfights every evening on every streetcorner.

Keith

[Chaossaber314]

The defendant, if he did not provoke the assault, is not obliged to retreat or flee to save his life, but may stand his ground, and even, in some circumstances, pursue his assailant until the latter has been disarmed or disabled from carrying into effect his unlawful purpose, and this right of the defendant goes even to the extent, if necessary, of taking human life. Boykin v. People, 22 Colo. 496, 45 P. 419 (1896); Enyart v. People, 67 Colo. 434, 180 P. 722 (1919).

"If necessary" which your source quotes as the threat of Imminent deadly force.
You're not reading and you're certaintly not comprehending. If someone is fleeing you, your life is no longer in danger. There is no imminent threat.

So, if I reasonably believe that life is in danger and someone is carrying out one of the infractions listed in the law, including but not limited to robbery and assault, I can act until I am confident the attacker poses no threat, including pursuing the attacker using deadly force.

If they're fleeing you, you no longer have the reasonable belief that they're a threat to you. If they're unarmed they really don't.

As to an unarmed attacker not being a danger when they're fleeing, that's not necessarily the case.

It most certainly is.

If I can reasonably believe that the attacker is fleeing to his vehicle, in order to use it to injure me or someone else, or if I believe he is fleeing to obtain a weapon in which to injure me or somone else, I can pursue and take action to prevent the realization of that fear.

Unless I'm mistaken you are not psychic and there is no way for you to know that someone who is fleeing is going to their car to do anything but drive. If they pulled another weapon from their car then they're no longer unarmed and we have a new instance of aggravated assault and it's no longer the same instance. If they start to drive away and come back toward you, we have a new instance of aggravated assault and it's no longer the same instance.

Prior to either of these however, if you gun the man down it's going to be second degree murder at worst and manslaughter at best.

It is highly unlikely that any jury, properly instructed on the law as written, would convict me in Colorado, given that precedent says that I don't have to back down from an attacker.

Who says you have to back down. The word "pursuit" means gaining ground not losing it.

And, if proper instructions are not given in regards to the right of self defense, if ANY mention of an obligation to flee is made in the jury instructions, precedent indicates that a higher court will throw out any conviction.

Who argued an obligation to flee? It certainly was not me. Plus if you gun someone down when they're no longer an imminent threat it's no longer self defense.

Given that, it is unlikely that any prosecutor worth his pay would bring a case if the defendant could show that there was any reasonable fear for the safety of himself or others had any lesser force been used.

You reasonably can't show that. All you have is a dead unarmed man shot in the back somewhere who was running away from you, and your gun used in the commission of this act you have already admitted to. You give your word a lot of credit since you've listed no other proof that an assault even took place. If I'm a prosecutor I'm certainly not going to buy this crap that you feared for your life so you had to kill an unarmed man in cold blood like a coward shooting him in the back when he was running away from you no less.

Let's provide for a minute that you hadn't misinterpreted you state laws. If you were right this would provide an affirmative defense for murder that if you claimed you had been "assaulted" by someone, they would be innocent.

You're not reading the law correctly and this has been pointed out ad nauseam. At this point it's trolling.

[Keith Hamburger]

You're not reading the law correctly and this has been pointed out ad nauseam. At this point it's trolling.

I guess I could go to the news and case reports from Colorado that support my position further, but, you're obviously not willing to look at that because your mind is made up. If I'm ever in such a situation, I'll put it to the jury and we'll see what happens. I'm confident enough in my position to go with that.

But, you skipped the part that brought my points to what started this and tied it to the original post. If what happened in Costa Rica were to happen in Colorado, no charges would be filed against the marine.

As stated before, even if the marine had a gun, and killed all three assailants, even though two had not shown they had a gun, it would be completely justified in Colorado.

So, I've tried to bring this back, at least three times, to the original topic and you've ignored that each time. Your contention that started this line of discussion is that, in the US, the marine's actions would be wrong and most likely illegal. I stated that was not true in all states. You argued that and I started supporting my argument that, in Colorado, the marine's actions were perfectly legal.

Now, you're simply nitpicking on side issues in my argument, which I will stand by, but you're completely ignoring the topic.

You want to try to come back to the actions of the marine who killed an armed robber?

Keith

[Chaossaber314]

I guess I could go to the news and case reports from Colorado that support my position further, but, you're obviously not willing to look at that because your mind is made up. If I'm ever in such a situation, I'll put it to the jury and we'll see what happens. I'm confident enough in my position to go with that.

You do that. You'll be one of the many people in the prison system who "knew their rights".

But, you skipped the part that brought my points to what started this and tied it to the original post. If what happened in Costa Rica were to happen in Colorado, no charges would be filed against the marine.

You didn't bring it back because the Costa Rican situation was completely different. There were three guys in Costa Rica. All of them were armed. The one that died did not attempt to flee as he was dead. His friends did flee and the veteran didn't chase them down to summarily execute them per the Colorado example.

As stated before, even if the marine had a gun, and killed all three assailants, even though two had not shown they had a gun, it would be completely justified in Colorado.

Incorrect once more.

So, I've tried to bring this back, at least three times, to the original topic and you've ignored that each time. Your contention that started this line of discussion is that, in the US, the marine's actions would be wrong and most likely illegal.

Also incorrect.

You say that like it couldn't have still happened this way with the same actions on the part of the tourists. As things happened, the one gunman was in a headlock and the gun was potentially restrained.

If it was, then at this point he used excessive force given the circumstances. You can only use lethal force as long as its being threatened/applied toward you. Not a week later. Not a day later. Not moments later. I'm not saying these people/this marine are guilty of murder. It just has a lot of the same markings as a voluntary manslaughter to me.

If it wasn't, then it was reasonable force in order to stop the man.

I was using a legal descriptor to differentiate between a murder and manslaughter not saying that this was the law. This was back at post #39. Following that, we discussed the morality of the issue. Such as post #54 where myself and God's Merc were discussing instinctive actions. You brought up this issue exclusively in post #58 with your idiotic example.

In Colorado, at least, you are allowed to pursue and use deadly force against someone who has assaulted another. Even if you are a third party witness to the incident. Even if you have a firearm and the "suspect" is unarmed.

The legal definition of assault involves the threat of injury and the ability to carry it out. Pointing a gun at someone is clearly assault. In such a case, where I live, if I see someone doing that, even if they throw down the gun and flee, I can pursue them and use deadly force to stop them.

If such use of deadly force results in the death of the perpetrator, I might be arrainged but it is nearly certain I wouldn't be convicted of any wrongdoing whatsoever.

Keith

You can stop now.

[Keith Hamburger]

You can stop now.

Why? Because you keep repeating that I'm wrong? Even after I've shown you the statues and the case law that says that, in Colorado, the actions of the marine would have been perfectly legal?

It doesn't matter how often you repeat something. That doesn't make what you say true.

Keith

[Chaossaber314]

Why? Because you keep repeating that I'm wrong? Even after I've shown you the statues and the case law that says that, in Colorado, the actions of the marine would have been perfectly legal?

It doesn't matter how often you repeat something. That doesn't make what you say true.

Keith

Once more, you weren't arguing about the marine since your hypothetical wasn't even close and was entirely unrelated.

[Nono]

If it's inherently unstable, how can it be regulated?
Sorry, but I just couldn't let this one pass by.

Quite so, Auto. So let's look at your question and consider a few facts.

The fuel-air mixture in your car's engine is inherently unstable. The engine is designed to regulate it. It does this, and productive work is the result.

The clash of sticks, skates and human bodies in a hockey game is an inherently unstable mix. The referees regulate the proceedings on the basis of the rules (yep, sorry, the rules) and the game stays a game instead of turning into a brawl.

Air traffic is an inherently unstable phenomenon -- bigtime. The controllers act on the basis of The Rules to regulate it and thus ensure safety rather than carnage.

Etcetera
Etcetera.
Etcetera.

Sorry, Auto, but I just couldn't let that one pass.

[Autolykos]

That's what I was afraid of. It's obvious now that we're each attributing a different meaning to "unstable". While I consider it to mean "uncontrollable", you seem to take it to mean something else.

Now I'm sure you'll just deride me for being a semantic tightrope walker, etcetera, etcetera... :rolleyes:

- Rob

[Nono]

Nah, I'll just note that you didn't understand what I meant.

[Autolykos]

cop-out - Wiktionary

- Rob