Self Defence or Murder - You Decide

[a_unique_person]

http://heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,7383465%255E2862,00.html



Video finds killer guilty

A HOME security camera has recorded its owner murdering another man.

The camera that was supposed to protect Thomas Ivanovic and his family instead led to him being found guilty of murder yesterday.
After deliberating for nearly two days, a Supreme Court jury found 28-year-old Ivanovic guilty of murdering 38-year-old Ivan Conobere on January 8 last year.

The main piece of evidence in the trial was a video recording from Mr Ivanovic's own security video camera.

It showed him twice shooting Mr Conobere on the footpath outside Ivanovic's Cornwall St home in West Brunswick.

The tape showed Ivanovic stepping out of a silver Mercedes Benz coupe just before entering his driveway and walking over to Mr Conobere, who was angrily gesticulating while standing on his motorbike.

Mr Conobere was then videoed pushing Ivanovic over and stumbling off his motorbike.

Ivanovic was filmed springing to his feet and firing a shot from .32 pistol at Mr Conobere and then another after Mr Conobere staggered back.

[corplinx]

When defending oneself (in most US law), you are only allowed to respond in kind.

You may not use lethal force unless your life in is peril.

In this case, it doesn't seem the killer's life was in peril.

I am also suspect of his intentions from the gun he carried. Self defense guns are usually 9mm/40sw/45acp autos or 38/357 revolvers. A 32 caliber handgun is insufficient for self defense. Its a "belly gun". I am actually surprised he managed to kill the man with it.

Of course, Australia's laws have become so radical that using an actual self-defense handgun for self-defense is might be illegal. I think because of new size restrictions most of the better models are banned. So 32 acp may have been part of having limited choice and not just from malicious intent.

[a_unique_person]

I think he had the gun illegaly. Because prices for handguns are pretty high, due to the difficulty in obtaining them illegally, he probably could only afford that.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by corplinx
Of course, Australia's laws have become so radical that using an actual self-defense handgun for self-defense is might be illegal. I think because of new size restrictions most of the better models are banned. So 32 acp may have been part of having limited choice and not just from malicious intent.

I wouldn't describe them as "Radical" I would describe them as "conservative" It all depends on what you see as the default position. In the USA many people believe that the default is anyone should be able to have whatever firearms they wish and a good reason has to be provided to modify that position. In Australia the default position tends to be that people have no guns and a good reason has to be provided to modify that position.

There are plenty of gun owners and armed people in Australia, you just have to have a reason or circumstance that satisfies the licencing requirements. Certainly large calibre handguns are not banned, until recently I owned a SW .357 revolver (heavy frame with a 6 inch barrel). I was a member of a pistol club and used it at range competitions. Lack of time and having children meant I could no longer attend the range so I was required to sell the Pistol to a gun dealer because my licence was issued on the basis that I used the handgun as a member of the pistol club. There were also strict storage restrictions, I now use the safe for my fabulous diamond collection....;)

This guy would have been highly unlikely to have been legally carrying this .32 handgun. You cannot get a licence in Australia to carry a gun for personal protection...you have to be a security guard or something similar. .32 handguns are quite popular with the criminal element because they are small, easy to hide and There are also MILLIONS of them washing around the world which makes them cheap even on the black market.....

[Kodiak]

From the evidence presented here, it seems like 2nd degree murder to me...

[shanek]

Originally posted by corplinx
When defending oneself (in most US law), you are only allowed to respond in kind.

You may not use lethal force unless your life in is peril.

In this case, it doesn't seem the killer's life was in peril.

That's impossible to tell without the audio. If a verbal threat had been made to immediately take his life, then he would have been justified.

I sincerely hope this trial didn't come down to just the video.

I am also suspect of his intentions from the gun he carried. Self defense guns are usually 9mm/40sw/45acp autos or 38/357 revolvers. A 32 caliber handgun is insufficient for self defense. Its a "belly gun". I am actually surprised he managed to kill the man with it.

But wouldn't that go against the murder angle? In any case, I don't think the type of weapon is relevant, except maybe for whether or not the man believed he could actually kill the other man with it. With self-defense, you're just trying to drop the guy, and all you need to do that is to put enough holes in his body.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by shanek


That's impossible to tell without the audio. If a verbal threat had been made to immediately take his life, then he would have been justified.


Shane...are you suggesting that it is justifiable to pull a gun and shoot someone if they make a verbal threat, and I don't care if he threatened to kill him immediately, tomorrow or next saturday...are you F**king serious?????

[corplinx]

Originally posted by The Fool

Shane...are you suggesting that it is justifiable to pull a gun and shoot someone if they make a verbal threat, and I don't care if he threatened to kill him immediately, tomorrow or next saturday...are you F**king serious?????

Shanek has a point. If someone says "My name is Royce Gracie, I am the world's greatest bareknuckle fighter, and I will kill you with my bare hands" then the judge won't even hear your case as the person threatened you with lethal force.

Unfortunately, going by verbal threats of hand-to-hand violence is dangerous. You see, "dead men don't testify". In theory you could kill anyone without witnesses present and say "the guy said he was a karate master and he was going to kill me".

In the case in question, it might have seemed like the killer could have fled instead of killing. If this is the case, then it might have affected the decision.

[Julia]

I agree that the video alone leaves too many grey areas, and that hopefully the jury had a great deal more to base their decision on.

Having said that, I still feel strongly this was not a case of self defense. Of course we don't know if the victim was someone who had threatened to kill the shooter the next time he saw him. Even so, it still doesn't add up to self defense. It seems that an attempt to flee would still precede the shooting.

IMO, self defense would be if shooting the victim was the last resort to saving one's own life. It did not seem to be the case in this situation.

From what information I have, I would call it 2nd degree murder.

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Fool
Shane...are you suggesting that it is justifiable to pull a gun and shoot someone if they make a verbal threat, and I don't care if he threatened to kill him immediately, tomorrow or next saturday...are you F**king serious?????

If he made it clear he intended to kill him immediately, and had the means to do so (be it gun, knife, or bare hands), then yes, he absolutely was justified in doing so!

What's he supposed to do in a situation like that, wait and see if he actually follows thorough on it? It's too late then!

[shanek]

Originally posted by corplinx
Unfortunately, going by verbal threats of hand-to-hand violence is dangerous. You see, "dead men don't testify". In theory you could kill anyone without witnesses present and say "the guy said he was a karate master and he was going to kill me".

Note that I was referring to the possibility of there being audio on the tape, not just what he claimed.

[Skeptic]

Shane...are you suggesting that it is justifiable to pull a gun and shoot someone if they make a verbal threat, and I don't care if he threatened to kill him immediately, tomorrow or next saturday...are you F**king serious?????

It depends if the threat is credible. If you surprise a mugger in your home and he tells you that he's going to kill you, that's a pretty credible threat.

In this case, it seems to me more like murder--not first degree (pre-planned), but a case of an argument between neighbor that went bad, escalated to shoving, and then to shooting. In this case, the A shoves B--B shoots A in retaliation scenario seems more likely than the A shoves B--A threathens to kill B instantly--B shoots A self-defense scenario.

But, of course, I was not on the jury.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by shanek


If he made it clear he intended to kill him immediately, and had the means to do so (be it gun, knife, or bare hands), then yes, he absolutely was justified in doing so!

What's he supposed to do in a situation like that, wait and see if he actually follows thorough on it? It's too late then!
Absolutely unmitigated rubbish..
Pulling a gun and shooting someone simply because they have made ANY form of verbal statement is not Justified or justifiable under any legal system I have ever heard of.....

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Fool

Absolutely unmitigated rubbish..
Pulling a gun and shooting someone simply because they have made ANY form of verbal statement is not Justified or justifiable under any legal system I have ever heard of.....

What's he supposed to do in a situation like that, wait and see if he actually follows thorough on it? It's too late then!

I'll keep answering this question until you answer it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Fool
Absolutely unmitigated rubbish..
Pulling a gun and shooting someone simply because they have made ANY form of verbal statement is not Justified or justifiable under any legal system I have ever heard of.....

Oh, and by the way, from FindLaw.com:

Self-Defense
Self-defense is a defense commonly asserted by someone charged with a crime of violence, such as battery (striking someone), assault with a deadly weapon or murder. The defendant admits that she did in fact commit the crime, but claims that it was justified by the other person's threatening actions. The core issues in most self-defense cases are:

Who was the aggressor?

Was the defendant's belief that self-defense was necessary a reasonable one?

If so, was the force used by the defendant also reasonable?

Self-defense is rooted in the belief that people should be allowed to protect themselves from physical harm. This means that a person does not have to wait until she is actually struck to act in self-defense. If a reasonable person in the same circumstances would think that she is about to be physically attacked, she has the right to strike first and prevent the attack. But she cannot use more force than is reasonable -- if she does, she may be guilty of a crime.

So if the guy made a threat, even a verbal one, as long as it was credible enough that the man believed that defense was reasonable, then yes, it was reasonable. If the threat involved a threat to kill him, then killing the other person in defense is reasonable and justified.

No one else is responsible for what you may or may not have heard of.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by shanek


Oh, and by the way, from FindLaw.com:



So if the guy made a threat, even a verbal one, as long as it was credible enough that the man believed that defense was reasonable, then yes, it was reasonable. If the threat involved a threat to kill him, then killing the other person in defense is reasonable and justified.

No one else is responsible for what you may or may not have heard of.
Once again Shane this is absolute rubbish. I urge you to do some research before you persue this. No amount of verbal abuse or threats clears anyone to shoot anyone.....Simple as that. The threat has to be real not verbal.... Read your own link shane. Threat has to be real, response has to be reasonable and proportional to the threat. Verbal threats not accompanied by any other form of assault just doesn't cut it...you cannot cap someone for verbally abusing you, no matter how much you may want to...

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by The Fool

Once again Shane this is absolute rubbish. I urge you to do some research before you persue this. No amount of verbal abuse or threats clears anyone to shoot anyone.....Simple as that. The threat has to be real not verbal.... Read your own link shane. Threat has to be real, response has to be reasonable and proportional to the threat. Verbal threats not accompanied by any other form of assault just doesn't cut it...you cannot cap someone for verbally abusing you, no matter how much you may want to...

I hope suddenly can log in and clarify it once and for all, but as far as I know self defense some times can mean that you throw the first punch or fire the first shot. If someone says give me the money or I am going to kill you and you shoot them, that is self-defense. You don't have to wait for that person to attack you before you can act, that would just be ridicules.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I hope suddenly can log in and clarify it once and for all, but as far as I know self defense some times can mean that you throw the first punch or fire the first shot. If someone says give me the money or I am going to kill you and you shoot them, that is self-defense. You don't have to wait for that person to attack you before you can act, that would just be ridicules.

I agree Grammatron, I hope somebody does clarify this once and for all because it scares me that armed people can hold a belief that they are entitled to shoot people for making verbal threats. Its just plain scary. I would encourage anyone interested to read the numerous sites on the web dealing with self defence issues.

You are entitled to defend yourself with force, even deadly force...But it must be in proportion to the threat, so sorry folks...no shooting bigmouths. Answering Vebal threats with gunfire will land you in Jail.

[Wolverine]

Here in Texas it's not justifiable to act on verbal threat alone:

PROTECTION OF PERSONS
PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
Texas Penal Code (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe/pe0000900.html#pe009.9.31)

[Stig]

"Mr Conobere was then videoed pushing Ivanovic over and stumbling off his motorbike."

A quote from the moriginal article.

He pushed him over so he physically assaulted him. Pehaps he should have waited to get assaulted some more before he shot him. Perhaps then he would have been in less trouble.

When do you make the decision to use the gun? Do you attack the assailant with your fists first and risk the fact he might be a double-hard b*st*rd or do run like mad?

I think he should have ran considering he was already outside. I appreciate that it might be harder to run out of a building when a potential attacker is between you and the exit. Guns are ideal at that point.

Seeing as he could have run away, I think he went too far in shooting him here.

Stig

[karl]

Originally posted by shanek
So if the guy made a threat, even a verbal one, as long as it was credible enough that the man believed that defense was reasonable, then yes, it was reasonable. If the threat involved a threat to kill him, then killing the other person in defense is reasonable and justified.

No. Read that text again. The issue isn't whether the man believed the defense was reasonable, but whether his belief was reasonable.

A documented verbal threat and a 100% solid conviction that the aggressor would kill you still don't give you the right to use deadly force unless you can motivate that any reasonable person would have done the same.

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Fool
Once again Shane this is absolute rubbish. I urge you to do some research before you persue this. No amount of verbal abuse or threats clears anyone to shoot anyone.....Simple as that.

I provided evidence for my point. Can you not provide evidence for yours?

The threat has to be real not verbal.

Verbal threats are real. Our body of law here in the US maintains that a verbal threat against property is a violent act, and that a verbal threat on one's person is assault if it's accompanied by an aggressive act, which "angrily gesticulating" qualifies as.

[Tmy]

From the description I really dont see self defense. HE walks over to the victim escalating the situation, then shoots the guy 2x. It doesnt appear that the victim was advancing on him. Its almost like he wanted to shoot the guy all along. That he just drew and fired. And then fired again while the guy stumbled back. I would like to see the video

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Wolverine
Here in Texas it's not justifiable to act on verbal threat alone:


Texas Penal Code (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe/pe0000900.html#pe009.9.31)

Thanks Woverine, It is the same, as far as I know, in nearly all civilized societies. Shane never acknowledges when he is wrong so I assume he will now retrospectively modify his original statement to include physical threats/violence etc.... oops, I noticed he has already started rewriting history, he's adding "angrily gesticulating" to his origional "verbal threat" he'll probably add more when he realises that not even being the victim of "angry gesticulation" gives him the right to shoot someone....

[SRW]

The first problem with the self-defense is if someone was verbally attaching you, having a gun should discourage someone from hitting you. Even a 32 is a good deterrent, it may not kill you but most people would rather not get shot.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by SRW
The first problem with the self-defense is if someone was verbally attaching you, having a gun should discourage someone from hitting you. Even a 32 is a good deterrent, it may not kill you but most people would rather not get shot.

Good point. Waving a gun would certainly get the persons attention. They may even stop threatening you. If that were to happen, chalk up one for carrying guns.

If, however, pulling the gun made the Verbal threatener decide that you were about to kill them would they be entitled to pull a gun and shoot you? After all, they have only made verbal threats, you are the one that pulled a gun first.

Or maybe an armed passerby will see two guys shouting at each other, one waving a gun and decide to cap the gunman in order to exercise his rights to protect the life of others. He should have realised that it may have been the "goodie" blazing away with the shooter..... Hmmmm, the whole scenario gets more and more complicated, how could it be simplified? Hint: remove the guns then, we have an argument and a scuffle instead of a re-enactment of the OK corral.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Verbal threats are real. Our body of law here in the US maintains that a verbal threat against property is a violent act, and that a verbal threat on one's person is assault if it's accompanied by an aggressive act, which "angrily gesticulating" qualifies as.

A verbal threat is assault. However, the response has to be in reasonable proportion.

[Jessica Blue]

That Ivanovic character sounds like he was generally nervous and paranoid about something. Home video surveillence, guns?? Perhaps he was involved with some underworld dealings. Course not everyone who drives a Silver Mercedes coupe is a criminal but ...hmmm.

Not enough information.

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Fool
Thanks Woverine, It is the same, as far as I know, in nearly all civilized societies. Shane never acknowledges when he is wrong

Oh, that's a laugh! He said "physical threat alone." As I apparently must remind you, I said:

Our body of law here in the US maintains that a verbal threat against property is a violent act, and that a verbal threat on one's person is assault if it's accompanied by an aggressive act, which "angrily gesticulating" qualifies as.

so I assume he will now retrospectively modify his original statement to include physical threats/violence etc.

:rolleyes:

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
A verbal threat is assault. However, the response has to be in reasonable proportion.

And so again, we go back to how reasonable it was for him to believe that his life was in imminent peril...which, as I've been saying along, cannot be seen from the video alone.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


And so again, we go back to how reasonable it was for him to believe that his life was in imminent peril...which, as I've been saying along, cannot be seen from the video alone.

Are you saying that, since the video would not give good enough evidence of the situation, you would have found him not guilty?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by shanek


Oh, that's a laugh! He said "physical threat alone." As I apparently must remind you, I said:

"Our body of law here in the US maintains that a verbal threat against property is a violent act, and that a verbal threat on one's person is assault if it's accompanied by an aggressive act, which "angrily gesticulating" qualifies as."
:rolleyes:
Not quite right shane...What you quoted above was your second version.....Its a modification of your original statement to add some sort of inference of physical threat. And you are right, apparently I do have to remind you. What you said was.

"That's impossible to tell without the audio. If a verbal threat had been made to immediately take his life, then he would have been justified."

Which is wrong, I have pointed this out to you and you instantly start to rewrite what you said to add physical acts into the equation. Even then, you didn't add enough physical acts as "angrily gesticulating" still doesn't justify you shooting the person. Neither does pushing them, which you didn't include. These are examples of minor assaults, they do not justify shooting anyone.

[reprise]

There was a case here a couple of weeks ago where the jury dismissed a murder charge on the basis that the accused acted in self-defence. Lethal force was not deemed to have been an inappropriate response under those particular circumstances. I'll see if I can locate a news report of the case so that people can get some idea of what is regarded as "reasonable force" for the purposes of self-defence under Australian law.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by The Fool

Once again Shane this is absolute rubbish. I urge you to do some research before you persue this. No amount of verbal abuse or threats clears anyone to shoot anyone.....Simple as that. The threat has to be real not verbal...

Define "real".

Can I rob you using a toy gun even if I tell you its a toy gun??

Can an abused wife kill her husband if he corners her in the bedroom and says he is now going to kill her??

[gnome]

After two days of deliberating, I imagine the jury's decision was far from hasty. If the video tape was the only evidence available, I would watch it very carefully. The written description of the videotape may miss crucial details.

Generally I tend to assume the jury knew more than what one finds out from reading a story about it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Fool

Not quite right shane...What you quoted above was your second version.....Its a modification of your original statement to add some sort of inference of physical threat. And you are right, apparently I do have to remind you. What you said was.

"That's impossible to tell without the audio. If a verbal threat had been made to immediately take his life, then he would have been justified."

Which is wrong, I have pointed this out to you and you instantly start to rewrite what you said to add physical acts into the equation.

That;s just bull$#!7! I said that the audio IN ADDITION TO THE VIDEO (with all of the agressive actions on it) would be enough! I NEVER SAID THE AUDIO ALONE WOULD DO IT!!!

Now, why don't you stop deliberately misprepresenting what I say to make yourself feel good and actually try and have a REAL debate???

Even then, you didn't add enough physical acts as "angrily gesticulating"

I didn't have to—THEY'RE ON THE F*CKING VIDEO!!!

These are examples of minor assaults, they do not justify shooting anyone.

In combination with a threat on someone's life, they can justify the person acting in self-defense. That's why I said we'd need the audio to be able to tell!

[shanek]

Originally posted by gnome
After two days of deliberating, I imagine the jury's decision was far from hasty.

I don't know about Australia, but in America two days isn't all that much for a murder trial. Some juries deliberate for weeks on them.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Define "real".

Can I rob you using a toy gun even if I tell you its a toy gun??

Can an abused wife kill her husband if he corners her in the bedroom and says he is now going to kill her??

Please don't do a Shane on me. The point I was challenging was that a verbal threat is enough to justify shooting somebody. Now the person who thought it was is backpeddling when challenged.

Kodiak, do you think verbal threats can justify shooting somebody? Or are you going to add other factors in too, such as a prevous history of physical abuse in your "abused wife" example. Or waving something that looks like a gun.... Can't you show Shane the way and just answer a perfectly simple question?

Lets tmake this really simple folks.
Who believes that you can shoot somebody for verbally threateneing to kill you?...Its a pretty simple question.....What worries me is the prospect of gun carrying people not understanding that you can't....

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Fool
The point I was challenging was that a verbal threat is enough to justify shooting somebody.

Which is a strawman, as I never claimed that.

Now the person who thought it was is backpeddling when challenged.

No, i'm correcting your misunderstanding and clarifying my point. People who debate reasonably would be satisfied with that, but you aren't really interested in that, now, are you?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by shanek

No, i'm correcting your misunderstanding and clarifying my point. People who debate reasonably would be satisfied with that, but you aren't really interested in that, now, are you?

sigh....ok Shane...clarify your point. Do you think you can shoot someone for verbally threatening you? Simple question....how long do you intend to dance around it?

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Fool
sigh....ok Shane...clarify your point. Do you think you can shoot someone for verbally threatening you? Simple question....how long do you intend to dance around it?

I'm NOT dancing around it...I HAVEN'T been dancing around it. A verbal threat CAN justify self-defense IF it's accompanied by aggressive action, as in this tape.

There, now go take whatever points you think you've won and see if you can trade them in for a cookie.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by shanek


I'm NOT dancing around it...I HAVEN'T been dancing around it. A verbal threat CAN justify self-defense IF it's accompanied by aggressive action, as in this tape.

There, now go take whatever points you think you've won and see if you can trade them in for a cookie.

Oh I give up....Not dancing around it shane?

you said this...


"So if the guy made a threat, even a verbal one, as long as it was credible enough that the man believed that defense was reasonable, then yes, it was reasonable. If the threat involved a threat to kill him, then killing the other person in defense is reasonable and justified."


But, of course now you protest loudly that you have been maliciously misrepresented and that you really meant verbal threats if accompanied by aggressive action.....

[Suddenly]

For your enjoyment, some legal generalities cribbed from the parallel thread re self defense in american law:

Ignore for a second that this is a matter almost exclusively state law, so there is going to be a slight variance as to each particular state, but according to LaFave & Scott's Criminal Law "Hornbook" (a usually one volume summary of a particular area of law):



For a "perfect right" of self defense, the shooter must:

a) Be free of fault in bringing about the situation
b) Have a reasonable belief of the following:
i) The adversary will, unless forcefully prevented, immedately inflict upon the shooter a fatal or serious bodily injury.
ii) Deadly force is necessary to prevent such an injury.

An "imperfect right" of self defense exists if only "b" above can be shown. This "downgrades" the charge from murder to manslaughter.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Suddenly
For your enjoyment, some legal generalities cribbed from the parallel thread re self defense in american law:

Ignore for a second that this is a matter almost exclusively state law, so there is going to be a slight variance as to each particular state, but according to LaFave & Scott's Criminal Law "Hornbook" (a usually one volume summary of a particular area of law):



For a "perfect right" of self defense, the shooter must:

a) Be free of fault in bringing about the situation
b) Have a reasonable belief of the following:
i) The adversary will, unless forcefully prevented, immedately inflict upon the shooter a fatal or serious bodily injury.
ii) Deadly force is necessary to prevent such an injury.

An "imperfect right" of self defense exists if only "b" above can be shown. This "downgrades" the charge from murder to manslaughter.

Thanks Suddenly.
This is going to get the shooters all frisky again, they will interpret someone verbally threatening them as being enough to form a reasonable belief....possibly you could comment on the body of precedence that establishes what is considered "reasonable belief". Certainly no Juristiction I know of has ever ruled verbal threats alone as sufficient to justify retaliating with deadly force.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by The Fool


Please don't do a Shane on me. The point I was challenging was that a verbal threat is enough to justify shooting somebody. Now the person who thought it was is backpeddling when challenged.

Kodiak, do you think verbal threats can justify shooting somebody? Or are you going to add other factors in too, such as a prevous history of physical abuse in your "abused wife" example. Or waving something that looks like a gun.... Can't you show Shane the way and just answer a perfectly simple question?

Lets tmake this really simple folks.
Who believes that you can shoot somebody for verbally threateneing to kill you?...Its a pretty simple question.....What worries me is the prospect of gun carrying people not understanding that you can't....

My hope was that the examples I posted for you above would illustrate to you that it is what the victim perceives that is crucial, and that there is indeed instances where it would be reasonable that one could defend oneself from a verbal threat to one's life, though, as you point out, other factors must be present (past abuse, "cornered", etc...).

I am a gun-toter, and know full well that a verbal threat alone is not enough for me to shoot anyone, though the addition of other factors would likely affect my response.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by The Fool


Thanks Suddenly.
This is going to get the shooters all frisky again, they will interpret someone verbally threatening them as being enough to form a reasonable belief....possibly you could comment on the body of precedence that establishes what is considered "reasonable belief". Certainly no Juristiction I know of has ever ruled verbal threats alone as sufficient to justify retaliating with deadly force.

There are 51 seperate criminal jurisdictions here. Plus, this is a question where caselaw will be rare. The only times it would come up on appeal is where 1) an instruction to the jury on self defense was refused by the trial judge because the defendant failed to present evidence of such a defense (The whole state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt does not apply to affirmative defense, and in most jurisdictions self defense is an affirmative defense) or 2) where there is a conviction and the evidence was so, even looked at in the light favorable to to state, that no reasonable jury could not find self defense exists (w/r/t the appropriate burden of proof, which would vary)

The "immediate threat" part is quite hard to convince a jury with only words and gestures. A future promise of harm doesn't cut it, like "I'm going to kill you" with no act towards that goal or an apperant means of doing so. Also, there is as part of the "reasonably necessary" point in most states a duty to retreat if possible.

This is going to be a jury question, and also this kind of thing even if it doesn't justify the homocide, can bring it down to a level of manslaughter.

Here is a case from Massachusetts (http://www.socialaw.com/appslip/appAug02n.html) that illustrates some of the above. Note this defendant was verbally threatened by the victim, and then enterted into combat with the victim. This court refused to instruct the jury as to self defense because no deadly weapon was seen possessed by the victim.

edited to correct a spelling error

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Fool
you said this...

IN THE CONTEXT OF IT OCCURING WITH THE VIDEO!!!! I said "the guy," as in the guy in the video, not any guy.

And if you can't accept that, then you're just another biased egomaniac trying to make someone else look small. Either way, you're contributing nothing new to this discussion.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by shanek


IN THE CONTEXT OF IT OCCURING WITH THE VIDEO!!!!

It bothers me that someone as easily excitable as you is in possesion of a loaded weapon.

[shanek]

Originally posted by tamiO
It bothers me that someone as easily excitable as you is in possesion of a loaded weapon.

I don't own any firearms.

(And I'm not really that excitable. I just have a problem with people like The Fool insisting on continuing with a misconception long after I've clarified it.)