Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad

[BKKMAN]

This page amplifies on the Yahoo article...

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/24...ctim-a-doofus/

[Streck-Fu]

Claimed to be the audio of the judge's ruling and seems to be. His voice starts at ~2:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf11F3y9LOE

It doesn't take long for him to comment that the Founding Fathers did not want us to use the 1st Am. to piss of other people.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

Good point.



Depends. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "you can't bring a knife to a gun fight-" well as far as the law is concerned, whomever escalates the situation is the one at fault.

So, if you are attacked, with fists, and you defend yourself with a knife, you're at fault...if you're attacked with a knife and you defend yourself with a gun, you're also at fault. If you return fists for fists and knife for knife, you're ok (at least legally).

All of this of course, is dependant on case-by case facts. If you respond to fists with fists, but you happen to be a black-belt (or, you know, otherwise deadly like ...uhm, say an SF soldier) you just might be the one found guilty.

These are just the very very basics and "surface" of the law, so don't get too worked up about it.

You are incorrect.

Deadly force may be met with deadly force, as long as it is applied reasonably and IAW the law.

If you are a 6'6" 275 pound martial artist, and you attack an elderly woman, she has the right to utilize deadly force to defend herself from what could reasonably be a lethal encounter, to include a firearm.

If you threaten me with a knife (or a baseball bat, a screwdriver, etc.), and are within a range where you could possibly harm me (usually considered to be 21 feet or less) before I can defend myself, I can employ any deadly weapon to protect myself, including a firearm.

If you brandish a firearm, and threaten me with it, and I have reason to be afraid for my safety, I may lawfully engage you with any lethal weapon I possess, to include another firearm. Obviously, if I engage you at 1000 meters, and you have a knife or a pistol, that is not reasonable.

There is no requirement that my response or weapon be proportional so long as you are offering a deadly threat to me, and have the means and opportunity to inflict it. The only requirements are that I have reason to fear for my life, and that you are threatening to harm me with force or a weapon that could be considered to be lethal.

There are some local nuances as far as rightful possession of the firearm, location in home, business, or vehicle, ability/duty to attempt to withdraw etc., but by and large, if you meet the above circumstances, I can shoot you until you have ceased being a threat to me or my family.

TR

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

I'm sure you've heard the phrase "you can't bring a knife to a gun fight-"

Wrong. The phrase is normally expressed as "You shouldn't bring a knife to a gun fight." If you bring a knife to threaten me, are within range, appear intent on using it and I have a gun, I am going to shoot you till you are no longer a threat. No proportionality is required if the aggressor has a weapon considered deadly and within range.

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

So, if you are attacked, with fists, and you defend yourself with a knife, you're at fault...if you're attacked with a knife and you defend yourself with a gun, you're also at fault. If you return fists for fists and knife for knife, you're ok (at least legally).

Wrong. If the aggressor is the aforementioned monster, and attacks someone physically weaker his fists, and they respond with a knife or a firearm, it can be justified.

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

All of this of course, is dependant on case-by case facts. If you respond to fists with fists, but you happen to be a black-belt (or, you know, otherwise deadly like ...uhm, say an SF soldier) you just might be the one found guilty.

Wrong. I believe that I would be permitted to defend myself from an assailant with my hands, regardless of the skills mismatch, as he attacked me and initiated the assault. What do you think I should legally be required to do, take the beating?

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

These are just the very very basics and "surface" of the law, so don't get too worked up about it.

I disagree. IMHO, you should not dispense imprecise or incorrect legal advice concerning the use of deadly force.

TR

[greenberetTFS]

In good old Mississippi if you step on my property and I tell you to get off and you refuse to leave and either threaten me with bodily harm with or without a weapon I have the right to defend myself with a weapon and shoot you if I feel my life's in danger....... That's what my LEO(State Police) grandson told me,I don't have any reason to doubt him,he did mention I'd be better off legally of course if I were to kill him to keep from being sued.......If there aren't any witness's it's my word over his because he died on my property and he was told to leave...... With witness's of course it would be to my advantage...........If I shot him invading my home and inside of my house it's a no brainer,especially if I take him out........ Hope TR agrees or I'm going to be the next to go into the wood shed.........

Big Teddy

[tonyz]

Nice to see sound advice on this topic.

The reasonably contemporaneous 911 call (that is recorded stating that you are in fear for your life) if at all possible shortly before you engage the threat may be helpful after the fact, too. But first things first in order to preserve your life.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

All of this of course, is dependant on case-by case facts. If you respond to fists with fists, but you happen to be a black-belt (or, you know, otherwise deadly like ...uhm, say an SF soldier) you just might be the one found guilty.

These are just the very very basics and "surface" of the law, so don't get too worked up about it.

This it is where The LAW becomes a farce and why the Profession gets a bad name.

So if some clown is trying to stab me in the neck and face with a pencil, I pull out a pistol and put them down.....I could be found at fault. That's a joke!

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by Paslode

This it is where The LAW becomes a farce and why the Profession gets a bad name.

So if some clown is trying to stab me in the neck and face with a pencil, I pull out a pistol and put them down.....I could be found at fault. That's a joke!

IME, the law is decidely not a farce. However, many folks - arm chair or otherwise may not always exercise common sense and they sometimes misapply, misunderstand and yes even abuse the law. Unfortunately, many in the personal injury field of law have never observed an injury that did not require a lawsuit. So, in some circumstances, yes, you may in fact rightfully protect your life and still face a civil law suit. That sucks but you are still alive.

Having said that, IMO, TR's well written summary captures many of the fundammental rules regarding self defense in many jurisdictions.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by tonyz

IME, the law is decidely not a farce. However, many folks - arm chair or otherwise may not always exercise common sense and they sometimes misapply, misunderstand and yes even abuse the law. Unfortunately, many in the personal injury field of law have never observed an injury that did not require a lawsuit. So, in some circumstances, yes, you may in fact rightfully protect your life and still face a civil law suit. That sucks but you are still alive.

Having said that, IMO, TR's well written summary captures many of the fundammental rules regarding self defense in many jurisdictions.

And trial attorneys are exactly what I am talking about. Many Trial Attorneys make an absolute mockery out of the law.

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

I am neither wrong, nor am I dispensing incorrect information. Your attack on my professional credentials is completely unwarranted.

Counselor, I did not attack you personally or your credentials. I lamented the fact that the accepted practices used by some, not all, make a farce of the law and those individuals give your profession a bad name.


Essentially what we are discussing is a Bernhard Goetz scenario.

[John_Chrichton]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

None of this has anything to do with the fact that the Judge's statements were outrageous and I expect there's going to be a serious investigation into the propriety of his conduct.

This has everything to do with the judge's statements in this case. It is clear that the judge was unable to render a correct legal decision, because of his personal biases.

All that aside, Paslode is right. People like this judge (and many others in the legal profession) make a mockery out of the law and the Constitution.

This case is just the latest sign of the radicalization of Muslims in our country. I'm sure the MSM will try to swipe this under the rug, just like it does with "honor" murders, for fear of offending our latest persecuted minority group.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

I am neither wrong, nor am I dispensing incorrect information. Your attack on my professional credentials is completely unwarranted.

You dispensed opinions that are not factually correct.

I have said nothing about your legal qualifications.

There are a number of aspects to the application of deadly force as understood in common law. Some states have further permissions or restrictions.

This is what one expert advises regarding lethal force:

http://www.personaldefensesolutions....diciousUse.htm

"Deadly force is justified when you are confronted with "an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm" to either yourself or other innocents, whose innocence and situation you are totally certain about. You can't intervene with deadly force in a situation you come upon without knowing what's really happening. Don't make assumptions based on what seems to be happening. The danger must be clear and present, immediate and unavoidable. This formula is based on English Common Law and Dutch/Roman Law, and it applies in all fifty states. It is determined by three criteria which can be remembered by the acronym A.O.J. Think "Administration Of Justice". The situation must meet all three criteria.

A = Ability. The person deemed to be a threat must possess the ability or power to kill or maim.

O = Opportunity. The person deemed to be a threat must be capable of immediately employing his power to kill or maim.

J = Jeopardy. This means that the person deemed to be a threat must be acting in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude beyond doubt that his intent is to kill or cripple.

All of the above are judged by the doctrine of the "reasonable man". That is, what would a reasonable and prudent person have done in that situation knowing what the defendant knew at the time? After the fact information is inadmissible into the equation. Your defense of self-defense is affirmative if you knew all of the above at the time you employed deadly force....

Another caveat has to do with how you size up the criterion of ability. Here we are talking about the concepts of power and disparity of force. Clearly, a person with a gun or a knife, and the ability to use it, has the power to kill or cripple you. However, you can't shoot that person unless he has the immediate opportunity to use that ability on you, and he acts in such a manner that leads you to reasonably conclude you are in immediate jeopardy. What about if the threat does not have a gun, or a knife, or a bludgeon? There are several other factors that would fulfill the ability criterion:

One factor is force of numbers. Two or more threatening persons, even without identifiably deadly weapons, against you alone, would constitute a disparity of force. If they attack you and act in such a manner as to lead you to believe that, unless you do something, they are going to kill or cripple you, you are on solid legal ground. Against a group of attackers, each member of the group shares the same responsibility for the fear the group creates in the intended victim, and also shares the danger from the intended victim's lawful response.

A second factor is the able bodied against the disabled. So, if you are old and frail, or physically challenged, and you are viciously attacked by a younger, more able bodied man (and the criteria of opportunity and jeopardy are in play), you are on solid legal ground.

A third factor is greater physical size and strength. If you are attacked by King Kong Bundy, you are on solid legal ground in using a force multiplier (a weapon) to avoid being killed or crippled.

A fourth factor is training or reputation. Is the attacker or threat a person known to you to be highly trained in the destructive (martial) arts? For this criterion to be considered a valid, affirmative defense for the defensive use of deadly force, you must have known about it before you resorted to using deadly force. It is not valid if you didn't know it at the time, but learned that it was so after the fact. You will be judged based solely on what you knew at the time!

A fifth factor is male versus female. Our society assumes that females are more vulnerable and that there is a cultural predisposition for males to be more inclined than females to violent physical aggression. So, if you are female, and you are being attacked by a lone male, and the other criteria of opportunity and jeopardy are in play, you are on solid legal ground in terms of using deadly force if you have no other viable choice to avoid being killed or crippled. This would also include self-defense against rape....

The knife or edged weapon is a lethal threat.

Now let us briefly address the issue of being threatened by someone who has a knife. Clearly, a knife or edged weapon is a contact weapon, as opposed to a firearm which is a remote control weapon. So, a man one hundred feet across a busy street who yells and threatens to kill you with a knife is not an immediate threat. You can't shoot him! However, that same man brandishing a firearm is an immediate threat if, by his actions, he places you in imminent jeopardy.

The knife issue merits a closer look. Here, opportunity is of special importance. The opportunity factor is a component of two things: distance and obstacles. It may not be part of the common knowledge, but a man with a knife or club twenty-one or fewer feet away from you, has the ability and opportunity to place you in imminent jeopardy. Thanks to the pioneering work in the 1980s of Dennis Tueller, a since-retired Salt Lake City Police Dept. Lieutenant and Gunsite instructor, we now know that it takes around 1.5 seconds for a person with a knife to close a gap of twenty-one feet and be on top of you! For the average trained person who is carrying a concealed handgun, it will take more than 1.5 seconds to draw from concealment, fire, and hit the target at seven yards. So, a person who is threatening you with a knife at twenty-one feet is placing you in imminent jeopardy. The original Tueller study was published in 1983 in SWAT Magazine in an article entitled, "How Close Is Too Close?"

I have spent a fair amount of time studying lethal force, I suspect more time than is devoted to the subject in law school.

I believe that I can apply the law in this case properly and am licensed to carry a concealed weapon, which requires training in the state statutes pertaining to lethal force.

Under the previously mentioned circumstances you described, you may, in fact, employ lethal force via a firearm in self-defense against person(s) who attack you with fists, chairs, brooms, knives, or firearms.

The key is not going out looking for trouble, and understanding when it is justifiable and necessary to employ lethal force. Of course, you must also have the willingness to use the lethal force when you are threatened by someone with the ability, opportunity, and jeopardy to harm you.

The decision to carry is a personal one that requires knowledge of the law and the ability to employ a firearm within the legal limits. Anyone who is not willing to learn the rules and discipline themselves should not carry.

TR

[The Reaper]

Okay. Let's review your statements and you tell me if they are correct or not. They are your direct quotes, just so there is no misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

So, if you are attacked, with fists, and you defend yourself with a knife, you're at fault...

Is that actually correct? If three assailants of my approximate size and age attack me, may I not legally defend myself with a lethal weapon, to include a knife or a gun?

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

If you're attacked with a knife and you defend yourself with a gun, you're also at fault.

Really? So I have to stand there and let him carve me up with a knife, even though I have a gun, because it is somehow illegal to defend myself with it? Now I have to travel with an entire satchel of weapons when I am armed, so that I might call time out and select the appropriate and equal weapon with which to defend myself? Seriously?

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

If you return fists for fists and knife for knife, you're ok (at least legally).

Okay, are you again saying that I may not use a lethal weapon (specifically, a firearm) to defend myself, even if the assailants are numerous or armed with knives?

What, I should hand my pistol to a bystander, strip to the waist ala Jim Bowie, and draw my knife to make it a fair fight? Are you serious?

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

If you respond to fists with fists, but you happen to be a black-belt (or, you know, otherwise deadly like ...uhm, say an SF soldier) you just might be the one found guilty.

Really? So even if I am attacked with fists, I cannot defend myself with my own hands, because I went to the SFQC? My hand to hand defense against an assault makes me guilty? Of what? Do tell.

I would like to see your explanation of the above quotes, if you would be so kind.

TR

[GratefulCitizen]

Had to use force (less than lethal) in more instances than I care to remember.
Knew the law (in Colorado) quite well and took into consideration how local law enforcement tended to apply it.

Therein lies the problem.
Not every LEO agency, prosecutor's office, or judge views the exact same law the same way.

It's a crap shoot.

Have a buddy who became the target of an assistant DA in his town a few years ago.
He gets in frequent scraps, but knows the law and the limits.

She prosecuted him for felony assault, attempting to force a plea bargain.
He was in his suit getting ready to walk in the courtroom for trial when the charges were finally dropped.

To much power with DA's and judges to selectively bully some citizens.
If you don't know your rights, the law, or lack the resources, you'll get railroaded.

[MTN Medic]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

Good point.



Depends. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "you can't bring a knife to a gun fight-" well as far as the law is concerned, whomever escalates the situation is the one at fault.

So, if you are attacked, with fists, and you defend yourself with a knife, you're at fault...if you're attacked with a knife and you defend yourself with a gun, you're also at fault. If you return fists for fists and knife for knife, you're ok (at least legally).

All of this of course, is dependant on case-by case facts. If you respond to fists with fists, but you happen to be a black-belt (or, you know, otherwise deadly like ...uhm, say an SF soldier) you just might be the one found guilty.

These are just the very very basics and "surface" of the law, so don't get too worked up about it.

No offense, but you kinda seem like a s#!t-house lawyer. I have taken concealed carry courses in 4 different states and not one of them concurred with your line of reasoning.

If you are in fear for you life and it can reasonably be proven, you can use whatever available means to protect yourself; including lethal force.

I usually don't care, but I don't want anyone second guessing their rights to protect themselves where it could cause them to not act in their defense for fear of prosecution.

[MTN Medic]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

I am neither wrong, nor am I dispensing incorrect information. Your attack on my professional credentials is completely unwarranted.

And IMHO, you are deliberately twisting my words to form an unwarranted and very personal attack. I have stated over and over again that I was giving a very basic very sketchy outline of the law: deadly force = deadly force = ok and non-deadly force = deadly force - not ok.

Reasonable force based on what is justified in the circumstances.

WE could just as easily make that old elderly sick woman in our hypothesis a secret FBI Ninja, and then we would be here all night, and I don' t have the energy.

He sin't the only one. Think about the secondary and tertiary effects of your words; as a lawyer on a BBS. They could cost someone their life.

Plus, you are straight wrong. Lawyer or not, there are a few things I know about and the legality of protecting myself with my POW is one of them.