No, I didn't. I asked what would you do? My correspondent just kept dancing around.Originally Posted by HCM
So I will ask again. Plainly
In this situation, given what we saw on the tapes - JodyH, would you come out of the house with your spouse and take their actions?
Tactically, as long as I have a back way out, and cameras to see flanking actions or barriers to block them, would want to bunker up in the house because by going out front I’m giving up multiple advantages including all that good open killing ground in front of the house but that is a trained response, not how John Q. Public thinks.
It begs the question though, we have looked at this tactically and legally but how about behaviorally ?
My professional experience has born out the idea that the fight or flight model of human danger / confrontation reaction is flawed and a more accurate model in most instances is the 4 part Fight/flight/posture submit.
“Officer presence” for LEOs is simply a ritualized form of posturing whether one on one or the classic old west Marshal facing down a lynch mob.
Who is the pink polo guy ? He is a successful trial attorney. What makes someone a successful trial attorney ? A mix of aggression, narcissism gift for oratory I.e. persuading or intimidating other people etc. Right or wrong, a guy like that is primed to think he can run posture his way out of a situation.
Missouri Annotated Statutes
Title 38. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders (Chs. 556 — 600)
Chapter 563. Defense of Justification (§§ 563.011 — 563.810)
§ 563.031. Use of force in defense of persons
2. A person shall not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;
(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or
(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual, or is occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property, claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.
3. A person does not have a duty to retreat:
(1) From a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining;
(2) From private property that is owned or leased by such individual; or
(3) If the person is in any other location such person has the right to be.
————————-
Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders § 571.030. Unlawful use of weapons--exceptions--penalties
Next »
1. A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons, except as otherwise provided by sections 571.101 to 571.121 , if he or she knowingly:
(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner; or
5. Subdivisions (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to persons who are engaged in a lawful act of defense pursuant to section 563.031 .
——————————
So probably legal. Wise? Currently under debate.....
Holy crap, why use one simple sentence when three mildly difficult to parse ones will do? That whole section could have been written as "A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in any location where they have the right to be," and it would have had exactly the same meaning, at least as far as I can tell.
It's a relevant rebuttal to one--for the second time, not you in particular, I feel I made that clear by citing the quotes--is going to claim their strategy was effective. As for them being threatened in their home--if they were in their home, properly buttoned-up, it would probably be a little hard for them to be threatened.
I'm looking at it from a juncture wwwaaaaaaaaayyyy before you are. My ass wouldn't have been there to get threatened in the first place.
I'm super not into arguing about rights, so sure.Some of us are fixated on the right to defend your home and life form viable threats and others are saying that the couples approach was retarded. IMO we can both be right.
The danger of crowds is exactly why I'm advocating for not being next to them, and why I think the whole "defend" paradigm is busted. You'd have as good a chance as defending your home from a tornado. Your best bet is to not make yourself into a target. The more resistance you offer, the more attention you draw.
The mentioning of Roof Koreans and such is really kind've interesting to me. In 1992, that strategy kinda worked, except for a whole bunch of dumbass shootouts where the defenders could have been killed if luck wasn't on their side. Today, that strategy seems significantly less successful. As evidence, IIRC, I'd point to:
*The retired police captain killed in the pawn shop
*The CHOP/CHAZ/whatever auto parts store where the owner held a looter at gunpoint, was forced to release him when a mob showed up and the police didn't, and had his store burned in subsequent attacks
*I'm pretty sure there was at least one store owner killed, was it a bakery or some damn thing?
On the other hand, there are also a metric fuck-ton of shootings by business owners that aren't getting a ton of coverage. We're only really seeing the losses get reported on. Even directly searching for follow-up stories is a crapshoot.
Another good reason not to play Lawn Hero is the possibility of getting sucked into a confrontation with someone who knows exactly how to play to the cameras and crowd. Even if you’re legally 100% right, you’ll lose.
“Get off my lawn!” (Displays weapon)
“Whoa, dude, chill. We just want to talk.” (One or more opens hands to sides in the universal “I got nothing” gesture, walks towards you)
“Stop! Back off!”
“Easy. I just want to talk”(put hands up, takes another couple of steps towards you)
What are you going to do?
Raylan has a response at 1:21 that might work.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-gbSIajg538
Sure seems so to hear some tell it.
And @TAZ, that "wardrobely retarded" bit had me laughing!
As much as I do love Justified, the context of that scene is just a wee bit different, even apart from the fact that it's fictional - the two guys had guns in hand when he told them not to come any closer.
Two guys with guns or a mob of a hundred, at some point a man should be able to draw a line on his own property.
Reply With Quote