Self-Defense and Entitlement

[Purpelia]

So basically we have a situation where a couple of idiots escalated what should have been an innocuous accident by aggressively verbally assaulting the other side knowing that race was on their side due to the current political narrative and when the victims decided to defend them self they get sued. Typical modern society. If the races were the other way around the media would be screaming their lungs out about racism.

[Diopolis]

The one adult in the room gets cancelled. Typical.

Nm, I have a retraction. He did draw his gun. He has it pointed at the ground not at them, but he did draw it.

It was really fast in the video.

He still looks like more of the adult in the room than the other three, albeit not drawing his gun probably would have been best.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I think the daughter said "excuse you" as well and that seems to be designed to initiate a confrontation. I had a situation where an African American woman said that to me and it wasn't even my fault nor did we even bump. She didn't even want an apology as much as she wanted a confrontation.

I don't know if the pulling of the gun in the cited case was warrented though. I don't even think either side is purely innocent either.

[Galloism]

Nm, I have a retraction. He did draw his gun. He has it pointed at the ground not at them, but he did draw it.

It was really fast in the video.

He still looks like more of the adult in the room than the other three, albeit not drawing his gun probably would have been best.

It wasn’t really a “draw your gun” type of scenario. It’s a “get in your vehicle, lock your doors, and if they block you from leaving, call the cops” situation.

[Diopolis]

He still looks like more of the adult in the room than the other three, albeit not drawing his gun probably would have been best.

It wasn’t really a “draw your gun” type of scenario. It’s a “get in your vehicle, lock your doors, and if they block you from leaving, call the cops” situation.

I agree that he shouldn't have drawn his gun.
But it really shouldn't be a felony to draw your gun when someone threatens your pregnant(?) wife and attempts to keep her from leaving.

[Purpelia]

He still looks like more of the adult in the room than the other three, albeit not drawing his gun probably would have been best.

It wasn’t really a “draw your gun” type of scenario. It’s a “get in your vehicle, lock your doors, and if they block you from leaving, call the cops” situation.

And than the police arrive 30 minutes later and shoot you. Or they arrest you for harassing the black folk. Depends where you are. Remember, this is america we are talking about. They don't play well with the police.

[Galloism]

It wasn’t really a “draw your gun” type of scenario. It’s a “get in your vehicle, lock your doors, and if they block you from leaving, call the cops” situation.

And than the police arrive 30 minutes later and shoot you. Remember, this is america we are talking about. They don't play well with the police.

I mean, that is a question.

Given the whole police shooting black people problem, would we prefer they pull their guns to force them to allow them to leave, or get the police to come pull their guns to allow the couple to leave?

[Galloism]

Had to listen to it four times (daughter’s phone was far far away), but after the car bump she says something like “you hit me? I will beat your fucking ass!”

So that’s two threats of severe bodily harm.

One while preventing them from leaving by blocking their vehicle.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Had to listen to it four times (daughter’s phone was far far away), but after the car bump she says something like “you hit me? I will beat your fucking ass!”

So that’s two threats of severe bodily harm.

One while preventing them from leaving by blocking their vehicle.

Expect the media to omit that to promote socjus.

[Galloism]

Had to listen to it four times (daughter’s phone was far far away), but after the car bump she says something like “you hit me? I will beat your fucking ass!”

So that’s two threats of severe bodily harm.

One while preventing them from leaving by blocking their vehicle.

Expect the midia to omit that to promote socjus.

Incidentally, the gun drawing thing still wasn’t a good idea. Inside a vehicle with lockable doors, they are likely to be pretty safe until police arrive to get them out of the situation.

And that’s the right answer.

[Diopolis]

Expect the midia to omit that to promote socjus.

Incidentally, the gun drawing thing still wasn’t a good idea. Inside a vehicle with lockable doors, they are likely to be pretty safe until police arrive to get them out of the situation.

And that’s the right answer.

Depending on state law, preventing them from leaving while making a verbal threat might be considered justifiable grounds for use of force.

[Galloism]

Incidentally, the gun drawing thing still wasn’t a good idea. Inside a vehicle with lockable doors, they are likely to be pretty safe until police arrive to get them out of the situation.

And that’s the right answer.

Depending on state law, preventing them from leaving while making a verbal threat might be considered justifiable grounds for use of force.

Maybe. I dunno about Michigan.

[Diopolis]

Depending on state law, preventing them from leaving while making a verbal threat might be considered justifiable grounds for use of force.

Maybe. I dunno about Michigan.

In Texas or Florida they'd stand a pretty good chance. I don't know Michigan state law that well.

[Major-Tom]

I have no clue as to what the law says is an appropriate charge when you pull a gun on someone because you feel threatened, nor do I know what level of threatening behavior warrants pulling a gun in the eyes of the law.

This looks like one of those ridiculous situations where one side escalates an otherwise easily diffusible situation and the other party responds to that escalation by making it even worse. It could've ended with the wife simply saying "'Ope sorry about that" and the daughter responding with a simple "No problem." Christ almighty.

[Diopolis]

I have no clue as to what the law says is an appropriate charge when you pull a gun on someone because you feel threatened, nor do I know what level of threatening behavior warrants pulling a gun in the eyes of the law.

This looks like one of those ridiculous situations where one side escalates an otherwise easily diffusible situation and the other party responds to that escalation by making it even worse. It could've ended with the wife simply saying "'Ope sorry about that" and the daughter responding with a simple "No problem." Christ almighty.

Exactly.
There is, however, the complication that unjustly pulling a gun is pretty much always a felony. Pulling a gun on someone because they're threatening your panicking, possibly pregnant wife and preventing her from leaving certainly shouldn't be a felony, even if it should be a crime.

[Galloism]

Maybe. I dunno about Michigan.

In Texas or Florida they'd stand a pretty good chance. I don't know Michigan state law that well.

This appears to be the law:

SELF-DEFENSE ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 309 of 2006


780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.
Sec. 2.

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:
(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.
(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.
(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

History: 2006, Act 309, Eff. Oct. 1, 2006

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(4zsvzg ... y0zhktpwwb))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-780-972

So there’s two tiers - deadly force and other than deadly force. Brandishing guns is deadly force, so it would seem to turn on whether they were under imminent threat of death (unlikely) or “great bodily harm”. I’m not sure if “I will beat your fucking ass” is a threat of “great bodily harm” or merely “unlawful use of force”.

Also, there’s a question of if a locked car makes it not “immediate”.

Basically, they might have been fine had they grabbed baseball bats instead.

[Diopolis]

In Texas or Florida they'd stand a pretty good chance. I don't know Michigan state law that well.

This appears to be the law:

SELF-DEFENSE ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 309 of 2006


780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.
Sec. 2.

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:
(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.
(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.
(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

History: 2006, Act 309, Eff. Oct. 1, 2006

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(4zsvzg ... y0zhktpwwb))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-780-972

So there’s two tiers - deadly force and other than deadly force. Brandishing guns is deadly force, so it would seem to turn on whether they were under imminent threat of death (unlikely) or “great bodily harm”. I’m not sure “I will beat your fucking ass” is a threat of “great bodily harm” or merely “unlawful use of force”.

Also, there’s a question of if a locked car makes it not “immediate”.

Basically, they might have been fine had they grabbed brass knuckles instead.

IIRC brass knuckles count as deadly force, though.
In any case this is going to be a cluster of a trial and probably turn on jury selection.

[Galloism]

This appears to be the law:



http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(4zsvzg ... y0zhktpwwb))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-780-972

So there’s two tiers - deadly force and other than deadly force. Brandishing guns is deadly force, so it would seem to turn on whether they were under imminent threat of death (unlikely) or “great bodily harm”. I’m not sure “I will beat your fucking ass” is a threat of “great bodily harm” or merely “unlawful use of force”.

Also, there’s a question of if a locked car makes it not “immediate”.

Basically, they might have been fine had they grabbed brass knuckles instead.

IIRC brass knuckles count as deadly force, though.
In any case this is going to be a cluster of a trial and probably turn on jury selection.

Spoilsport.

Edit: oh that’s one of those weird things. Brass knuckles are straight up illegal in Michigan.

Guns: cool
Brass knuckles: you some kind of monster?

Baseball bats it is.

[Major-Tom]

I have no clue as to what the law says is an appropriate charge when you pull a gun on someone because you feel threatened, nor do I know what level of threatening behavior warrants pulling a gun in the eyes of the law.

This looks like one of those ridiculous situations where one side escalates an otherwise easily diffusible situation and the other party responds to that escalation by making it even worse. It could've ended with the wife simply saying "'Ope sorry about that" and the daughter responding with a simple "No problem." Christ almighty.

Exactly.
There is, however, the complication that unjustly pulling a gun is pretty much always a felony. Pulling a gun on someone because they're threatening your panicking, possibly pregnant wife and preventing her from leaving certainly shouldn't be a felony, even if it should be a crime.

Certainly she shouldn't have pulled a gun on the people since they didn't pose an immediate threat to her life, though yeah, she shouldn't really go to jail over this or anything.

I think it speaks to one facet of our gun culture - a lack of training and knowing when to pull out your firearm. So many people buy guns without the slightest clue as to when it's appropriate to pull it out, which leads to trigger happiness / an idea of "I'm scared, time to get my gun out."

[Godular]

IIRC brass knuckles count as deadly force, though.
In any case this is going to be a cluster of a trial and probably turn on jury selection.

Spoilsport.

Edit: oh that’s one of those weird things. Brass knuckles are straight up illegal in Michigan.

Guns: cool
Brass knuckles: you some kind of monster?

Baseball bats it is.

Reminds me of when I used to work in security at a Six Flags.

Police officer comes in: "You can keep your firearm with you sir, but that utility knife needs to be turned in."

Police officer responds: "!#%$#^$%#&@$%^%&^^@#^%$$%&^#^@#^% BETTER NOT COME TO OKLAHOMA CITY!"

Me (thinking): "Why the fuck would I wanna go to Oklahoma?"

[Verate]

RE: Topic

I am right of center, and I think both were likely in the wrong. The lady and her daughter should not have escalated things. Obviously there are going to be more details than what we know, however I think the couple probably went to drawing weapons before they should have. Both parties should be charged for disturbing the peace. I don't think jail is appropriate, but fines for each side could be.

Exactly.
There is, however, the complication that unjustly pulling a gun is pretty much always a felony. Pulling a gun on someone because they're threatening your panicking, possibly pregnant wife and preventing her from leaving certainly shouldn't be a felony, even if it should be a crime.

Certainly she shouldn't have pulled a gun on the people since they didn't pose an immediate threat to her life, though yeah, she shouldn't really go to jail over this or anything.

I think it speaks to one facet of our gun culture - a lack of training and knowing when to pull out your firearm. So many people buy guns without the slightest clue as to when it's appropriate to pull it out, which leads to trigger happiness / an idea of "I'm scared, time to get my gun out."

Indeed. But a lot of this is to be expected with the civil unrest and instances of violence happening all over the country. Especially with some people calling not just for police reform, but severe limitations on their abilities. Gun classes and proper self-defense training could go a long way in this environment.

[Godular]

Also, I am sad that support for the Penguin Revolution has fallen.

[Krasny-Volny]

I would’ve just said sorry even if I didn’t mean it. If you’re packing heat, it pays to deescalate as much as possible. You have even more reason to be diplomatic.

You never, ever, ever pull a firearm unless the other person has displayed a firearm of their own or you have run out of options to retreat.

I’m in a vehicle, the other people are unarmed and on foot, I have no reason to pull that gun. At best, I can show it while I politely tell them to stop obstructing traffic.

[Verate]

You never, ever, ever pull a firearm unless the other person has displayed a firearm of their own or you have run out of options to retreat.

It can be a very bad idea to try pulling a gun on someone who has already drawn, and in most close range attacks going to draw a gun is also dangerous. All the self-defense instructors I have seen say you need to either gain distance or short term control before drawing a weapon.

[Diopolis]

Exactly.
There is, however, the complication that unjustly pulling a gun is pretty much always a felony. Pulling a gun on someone because they're threatening your panicking, possibly pregnant wife and preventing her from leaving certainly shouldn't be a felony, even if it should be a crime.

Certainly she shouldn't have pulled a gun on the people since they didn't pose an immediate threat to her life, though yeah, she shouldn't really go to jail over this or anything.

I think it speaks to one facet of our gun culture - a lack of training and knowing when to pull out your firearm. So many people buy guns without the slightest clue as to when it's appropriate to pull it out, which leads to trigger happiness / an idea of "I'm scared, time to get my gun out."

I broadly agree that there's blame enough to go around but that no one needs to go to prison for it.
The problem is that, at least for pulling a gun when you're not supposed to, there's no way to file a non-felony charge.