• r00ty
    link
    fedilink
    186 months ago

    I’m not American and I’ll never understand your fascination with guns.

    But to me the important aspect is the driver was already moving away when shot at, or immediately did so once shooting began.

    Surely this invalidates any self defense claim? If you shoot and they retreat, you stop shooting, right?

    • @jordanlund
      link
      146 months ago

      It actually varies state by state which is part of the problem.

      Here in Oregon, there are only 3 use cases where lethal force is allowed:

      1. Someone is about to use lethal force on you.
      2. Someone is about to use lethal force on someone else.
      3. Someone breaks into your home.

      That’s it.

      In Tennessee…

      https://casetext.com/statute/tennessee-code/title-39-criminal-offenses/chapter-11-general-provisions/part-6-justification-excluding-criminal-responsibility/section-39-11-614-protection-of-property

      “© Unless a person is justified in using deadly force as otherwise provided by law, a person is not justified in using deadly force to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on real estate or unlawful interference with personal property.”

      BUT:

      https://www.mcelaw.com/blog/what-are-the-rules-on-self-defense-in-tennessee/

      “According to Tennessee law, individuals can use deadly force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to avoid death or serious bodily injury at the hands of another person.”

      So in this case, even if Pizza guy had been messing with perps car, lethal force wouldn’t be authorized.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        26 months ago

        I don’t think he’d win, but Tennessee is a castle doctrine state.

        If he had reasonable belief that the pizza delivery driver was breaking in, the home owner is likely justified to use deadly force.

        I’m pretty sure it doesn’t apply to shooting out of your house unless you’re being shot at, though.

    • SuiXi3D
      link
      fedilink
      106 months ago

      I’m not American and I’ll never understand your fascination with guns.

      Hell, I’m a born and raised Texan and I don’t get it either.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        26 months ago

        I’m from Finland and I definitely get it. It’s the same exact reason for why I loved shooting soda cans with my bb gun as a kid and airsofting as little older. I’d definitely buy a real one if I could and I’m glad I can’t.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      106 months ago

      Babcock told police what he could see on his Ring camera made him think someone was breaking into his car, so he went outside and started shooting.

      He’s already invalidated that claim with his own words. In the US you’re only allowed to use deadly force in proportional response, to prevent death or great bodily injury to yourself or another innocent party.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        16 months ago

        Sorry, but that’s not exactly right, because in several areas, the prevention of death or great bodily harm also includes the scenario where if you were to attempt to reclaim control over your property, you would be putting yourself in those same risk categories. See 9.42 (3)(B) here, where I have had the misfortune of having to research the law before. In other words, if you think the person is stealing your stuff and could harm you if you try to recover said stuff… well, you’re ‘legally’ allowed to start blasting.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          16 months ago

          Not exactly. You can defend property with normal force, and if that turns deadly you can then be authorized to use deadly force, but the deadly threat does still have to present itself.

          As in, he could have walked outside, gun in holster or even in hand at low ready, and said “get the fuck out of here,” or punched or OC sprayed him (of course, this is all if he was actually stealing the car, since he wasn’t this would also be assault, but ykwim), and then if the guy pulls a knife, or blunt instrument like a pipe, or goes for a gun instead of retreating, then you can shoot him.

          These laws are all very state specific, as well, but by and large that’s how it works, you can’t just start blasting because “well anyone could have a gun or knife.”

          That said, it’s still up to the DA to bring charges and the jury to convict, even though it is a crime I’m sure you can find a case that fits the description where the guy got off, hell OJ got off, but it is still illegal. In this case the DA did bring charges, which indicates to me it’s illegal enough that the DA thinks they can win.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            16 months ago

            I’m disagreeing with your statement that “you’re only allowed to use deadly force in proportional response,” not with whether this case is being prosecuted rightly or not.

            Mate, read that link I put in there. I can tell you, from experience, that if you shoot at someone stealing your property in Texas, where that penal code I posted is from, that exact portion of the statute is going to be used and you will not be convicted. It really is “anyone could have a gun or knife.” At least Texas has it so just theft has to be during the nighttime, so I guess that’s something.

            You’ll also get similar worded statutes in many other states in the US, several of which, stating this again, where I’ve had the misfortune of having to research those laws. And that “reasonable belief” part about exposing yourself to risk of serious bodily injury or death? I have seen it applied to people who are simply physically larger than you. Proportional response is a moot concept.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              26 months ago

              Ah yes the “that literally only applies to texas and only at night which means it must be true for the whole US” thing, I’ve heard this one before.

    • FuglyDuck
      link
      English
      36 months ago

      generally, the right to self defense requires a reasonable belief that there is imminent, severe bodily harm; and even then, the measures you take must be proportionate and reasonable. every state has it’s own nuances, though.

      As far as the general laws go… somebody standing on a street corner leering at you? it’s proportionate and reasonable to cross the street. Somebody brandishes a firearm and says they’re going to kill you? it’s reasonable to believe them. (unless you know them, and you know they’re joking. Details. those kind of jokes aren’t really funny though.)

      Simple trespass is not itself a threat. The teen was presumably unarmed. At no point was the asshole reasonably in need of self defense.

    • @meco03211
      link
      36 months ago

      Mostly yes. Consider an actual deadly threat with someone shooting at you. You start shooting back and they duck for cover. They shoot again, you shoot again, and again they duck for cover. If I was on that jury, I’m not convicting you for shooting at the person ducking for cover. This is an extremely specific and nuanced hypothetical. So mostly yes, but there could be some million to one scenario that doesn’t follow that track.