- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 7/7/24 at 3:48 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
but it would absolutely be justified in Louisiana with the caveat that we didn't see the start of the fight, so we don't know who the initial aggressor was, and whether the person who hit him could therefore has a justifiable defense of others claim that would vitiate green shirt's self defense claim.
You have hit on the salient point, we can NOT answer whether gun guy or black shirt guy has the right to self-defense or defense of others.
While I am licensed in NY it is via reciprocity so I have never had any occasion to study NY criminal statutes professionally so I am going on what I remember from cursory research during the initial stages of the subway chock hold homicide.
If the gun guy was the original aggressor and never had the right to self-defense against any of the other three combatants and any of those three had a right to self defense against gun guy AT THAT MOMENT black shirt may have had the right to defense of others using
physical force upon gun guy when and to the extent he or she
reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend any of the third parties. This is somewhat complicated by NY's duty to retreat so you have to identify which if any of the three other combatants had a right to defense and if they did did they have the duty to retreat.
Without video or testimony as to what happened prior to the video there is no way to know who did or did not commit a crime.
Posted on 7/7/24 at 3:49 pm to lsupride87
quote:And you've put your confidence in black Twitter to assume that's true?
According to “black twitter”, two guys in green threw punches at other guys
Ok, personally I'd wait to see a video, but you do you.
Posted on 7/7/24 at 3:50 pm to shel311
quote:I don’t know if we will get a full video. Going by the only evidence we have now. I really couldn’t give a flying frick how a Brooklyn freaknik shooting episode turns out and neither will anyone as this wa black on black
And you've put your confidence in black Twitter to assume that's true? Ok, personally I'd wait to see a video, but you do you.
Posted on 7/7/24 at 3:50 pm to Jake88
quote:
Life wasn't in danger? Dude snuck him from the back. Hit your head in the ground and you're dead in many cases. He acted in self defense. Only fools say otherwise.
Actually only a fool or someone that doesn't understand the law could make that judgement from the four corners of the video. Simple as.
Posted on 7/7/24 at 3:52 pm to Jake88
quote:And if he started the altercation, pulled his gun, and the dude who "snuck him from the back" was acting in self defense, then what?
Life wasn't in danger? Dude snuck him from the back. Hit your head in the ground and you're dead in many cases. He acted in self defense. Only fools say otherwise.
Posted on 7/7/24 at 3:53 pm to Obtuse1
Obtuse, legal question
Let’s say old dude in green didn’t start the initial fight. The other guys he was fighting did
He then pulls gun. Guy in black not in original fight sees he pulls gun so hits him as somewhat of a Good Samaritan to stop a shooting. Guy in green shoots him
Even though guy in green didn’t start initial fight, would he actually have self defense on guy in black regardless?
Let’s say old dude in green didn’t start the initial fight. The other guys he was fighting did
He then pulls gun. Guy in black not in original fight sees he pulls gun so hits him as somewhat of a Good Samaritan to stop a shooting. Guy in green shoots him
Even though guy in green didn’t start initial fight, would he actually have self defense on guy in black regardless?
Posted on 7/7/24 at 3:55 pm to Falco
Depends.
I would think if he was attacked then yeah justifiable. If he started the fight then probably not. I'm retarded though so idk.
I would think if he was attacked then yeah justifiable. If he started the fight then probably not. I'm retarded though so idk.
Posted on 7/7/24 at 4:15 pm to Falco
I’d have to see how the scuffle started.
Posted on 7/7/24 at 4:16 pm to Falco
Firstly, whenever you see the term "Freaknik", run, do not walk, as far away as possible.
Posted on 7/7/24 at 4:23 pm to lsupride87
quote:
Let’s say old dude in green didn’t start the initial fight. The other guys he was fighting did
He then pulls gun. Guy in black not in original fight sees he pulls gun so hits him as somewhat of a Good Samaritan to stop a shooting. Guy in green shoots him
Even though guy in green didn’t start initial fight, would he actually have self defense on guy in black regardless?
Unless Obtuse wants to spill a law school exam's worth of of ink explaining the nuances of the "reasonable person" standard, just trust us in that it depends, and depends so heavily that it's unlikely there would be facts available in the real world for both (legal) sides to agree on the answer.
If you shoot someone, you had better be damned sure you have the right of the situation. Because if you make a mistake, trying to convince twelve people that your mistake was not only reasonable, but reasonable enough to take someone's life, is going to be a frick of a long row to hoe.
Posted on 7/7/24 at 4:24 pm to Falco
FAFO
Posted on 7/7/24 at 4:27 pm to Falco
It looks like a three on one fight to start. You can see the one guy in the teal shirt/green shorts get tossed away by the other two. Shooter looked to be friendly with the other two guys because they had their backs towards him after teal shirt gets thrown. The three appear to be the aggressors as well. Crowds might not be all too intelligent but I would find it more likely that the crowd knew who the aggressors were.
Posted on 7/7/24 at 4:28 pm to Falco
Yea I think it’s justified because he got sucker punched from behind. He hits the ground and doesn’t know what’s coming next. In the heat of the moment, I think he’s justified.
Posted on 7/7/24 at 4:35 pm to Falco
New York means guilty. I don't know enough about the preceding events but I would pull out my gun in what I just seen.
Posted on 7/7/24 at 4:42 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
If you shoot someone
quote:
if you make a mistake,
quote:
going to be a frick of a long row to hoe.
This!
I'm a huge 2nd amendment supporter but so many people think they can just pull a gun and shoot someone and think it'll be an easy task to go to court and prove they had the right to.
It's going to cost a WHOLE LOT of money and the cards are going to be against you right from the get go. Better be damn sure you're justified, especially in todays climate.
Posted on 7/7/24 at 4:43 pm to lsupride87
quote:
Obtuse, legal question
Let’s say old dude in green didn’t start the initial fight. The other guys he was fighting did
He then pulls gun. Guy in black not in original fight sees he pulls gun so hits him as somewhat of a Good Samaritan to stop a shooting. Guy in green shoots him
Even though guy in green didn’t start initial fight, would he actually have self defense on guy in black regardless?
That hypo is interesting. In NY you step into the shoes of the person you are claiming to defend. So if none of the other three guys had a right to self-defense against the gun guy then black shirt guy had no right to defense of others. In some states you don't simply step into the shoes you have a reasonable person burden instead so it is possible to be absolved even if you use force against the person that actually has the right to defend themselves.
So if gun guy didn't start the fight and had the right to self defense black shirt guy would not have had a right to hit him and effectively started a new altercation. If gun guy rolls over and shoots him the argument against him would be black shirt guy made not attempt to come forward and with the gun trained on him gun guy was in control and then had a duty to retreat as long as black shirt made no furtive movement. Gun guys counter would be he had three previous assailants that were then behind him out of his vision and could be setting on him with bad intent so he didn't have a clear avenue of retreat and thus has a right to shoot black shirt guy so he had a chance to turn and confront the other 3 before they had a chance to attack him from the rear. Thats a jury question.
As you know the issue is convoluted by the lack of facts prior to the video starting. Added on you have the jury question of who if anyone had a duty to retreat and when did they have it.
Sometimes when you see a partial video you just have a feeling about what lead up to that point, it isn't black and white but you just feel like you can divine the reality through the gray mist. I don't get that intuition here. I don't have any feeling one way or another regarding who was right or wrong morally or legally. Since no one got shot unless there is more video or multiple strong witness statements heavily leaning one way we may never know because the cops might just leave it as no harm no foul based on it didn't look like anyone had any significant injuries.
Posted on 7/7/24 at 4:46 pm to Shanegolang
quote:
This!
I'm a huge 2nd amendment supporter but so many people think they can just pull a gun and shoot someone and think it'll be an easy task to go to court and prove they had the right to.
It's going to cost a WHOLE LOT of money and the cards are going to be against you right from the get go. Better be damn sure you're justified, especially in todays climate.
Brings to mind the old chestnut about Gen. Patton. Story goes that he was walking down the street when he saw a few young men shoving a clearly drunk young woman into a car. Thinking they were about to abduct and rape her, he ran up, pulled his revolver and threatened them off. As the story goes, turns out they were her friends, and they weren't shoving her into a car, but helping her into a cab.
I think in that story, he'd probably come out ok under a reasonable person standard. But if he pulls the trigger, Georgie is almost certainly going to jail.
Posted on 7/7/24 at 4:52 pm to Joshjrn
I love these threads. I generally come in fired up, get a tad embarrassed because I'm not a legal expert.
Posted on 7/7/24 at 4:53 pm to Falco
better to be safe than sorry
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News