[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]

Re: Reforming the Point

From: Beerio
Category: Superhero Chat
Date: 16 Feb 2006
Time: 02:36:48 -0600


Ya we touched on some of that stuff in the private area in my forum. I think People v. Goetz is a pretty good example of what can be done and what shouldn't. I can't say I'll be crying for the guys he shot but I can't condone it either. On the other hand if my wife and kid were there and I had a gun I would do it without a bit of mercy. People v. Goetz: Self Defense Relevant Facts: Four youths boarded a subway train in the Bronx and headed toward Manhattan. Two of them had screwdrivers in the coats, reportedly to break into video machines. Df boarded the same train. He carried an illegal handgun in his waistband. One or two of the youths approached df and demanded five dollars from him. Df stood up, produced the gun and began shooting. He fired four times in rapid succession, striking three of the youths. Then he fired another shot at the first youth who approached him. This bullet severed his spinal cord. Df made two statement to the police when he turned himself in nine days later. He claimed he was certain none of the youths had a gun, but based his acts on the fear of previous experiences being maimed. He stated his intent was to murder, to hurt them, to make them suffer as much as possible. Legal Issue(s): Whether a person must reasonably believe that the use of deadly force is necessary before its implementation? Court’s Holding: Unclear remanded. Procedure: 3 Grand Jury indictments for attempted murder, assault, lower ct. dismissed the attempted murder, assault, and weapons possession charges. Reversed and reinstate all charges with instructions for petit jury trial. Law or Rule(s): A person may use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or another from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force. A person may not use deadly force upon another under circumstances specified unless he reasonably believes that such person is using or about to use deadly physical force or he reasonably believes that the other is committing or attempting to commit a kidnaping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy, or robbery. Court Rationale: Penal law of the state allows the use of physical force only where requirements as to triggering conditions and the necessity of a particular response are met. It requires the actor to “reasonably believe,” that another is using or about to use deadly force or is committing or attempting to commit enumerated felonies. As to the need for the use as a response the actor must “reasonably believe,” such force is necessary to avert. The legislative intent retained a reasonableness requirement to avoid the df’s perceptions as the only standard to use as a determination. The basis for reasonableness is the circumstances facing a df or his situation. Including the relevant knowledge about the assailant; physical attributes of all persons involved; any prior experiences;, on these factors the jury should decide. Plaintiff’s Argument: Under the circumstances the conduct of the df were inconsistent with a reasonable man similarly situated. Defendant’s Argument: Df actions, based on prior experiences, and the circumstances under which the events occurred were reasonable and necessary. Anyhow if I remember correctly he was more or less cleared of the charges. Everyone pretty much agreed the scum had it coming. The guy who was paralyzed even had his mother say he deserved it. Let's stay focused though. I don't think anyone here can call themself a hero if they use guns. There has to be rules or you go the way of the anti-hero or even villain. Pepper spray, mace, high voltage devices are the way we should go. As far as training sessions, I am only waiting on two things, enough people close enough to actually come to make it worth while, enough time and trust to develop to actually want to meet up with people.

Last changed: 11/16/08