Originally posted by Silent Master
So you believe, a reasonable person would not feel that level of threat when faced with an angry mob illegally entering their property and then refusing to leave. Keeping in mind that they live in an area that has been subjected to weeks of protests, several of which escalated into violence?
Yes, I think if the St. Louis couple had shot someone they should be prosecuted and face punishment for it.
Originally posted by Artol
I mean we are at the start of the conversation again. Because I don't think they faced a level of threat that warrants lethal force.I agree with dadudemon though at this point, I don't think we will get to common ground on this point.
What are you basing your opinion that they did not face that level of threat on?
Originally posted by Artol
Yeah, it does seem like we won't agree on the topic as we just fundamentally see it differently. I found it very informative anyways you hear your and Silent Master's perspective, so thank you for sharing it with me.
Good news is, your position of "duty to retreat" on your property is the law in many locations outside the US including the UK. You're not alone in your position nor are you crazy for thinking you have a duty to retreat. 👆
This is why I say let us have a national castle doctrine. You would prefer to take yourself and your loved ones away instead of standing your ground on your "castle" and defending yourself and your loved ones. I prefer the standing of the ground on my "castle" and protecting the myself and loved ones.
This is just a difference in approach to the situation. And I don't think you should be brown beaten into submission to have to think like I do. "Duty to retreat" is a valid position. In a large enough mob, if I foolishly try to defend my "castle", I could get myself and my loved ones killed and you would be the objectively most correct person in the scenario.
Originally posted by Artol
I mean we are at the start of the conversation again.
haermm
This is why you don't argue with Silent Master: he's almost always right.
He's correct, here. No reasonable person should conclude that they were not at threat for their life or personal integrity based on the body count and injuries from the violent rioting, up to that point. A reasonable person should assume they were in danger. This event occurred near or after the apex of the violent rioting. It was at the most heated.
Originally posted by Silent Master
So you believe, a reasonable person would not feel that level of threat when faced with an angry mob illegally entering their property and then refusing to leave. Keeping in mind that they live in an area that has been subjected to weeks of protests, several of which escalated into violence?
I think it should be pointed out that these violent riots had resulted in multiple deaths and injuries, by that point. They were reasonably justified in assuming they would be another one of the bodies.
Let's be honest here, you were basing your opinion that the threat level was not high enough to justify violence or killing because nothing ended up happening.
The problem with that logic is, that information was not available during the confrontation. You were doing the very definition of Monday morning quarterbacking.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Let's be honest here, you were basing your opinion that the threat level was not high enough to justify violence or killing because nothing ended up happening.The problem with that logic is, that information was not available during the confrontation. You were doing the very definition of Monday morning quarterbacking.
That’s what we are all doing. However I am suggesting that such a case needs an investigation, if that investigation find that lethal force was appropriate I am perfectly fine with that outcome. I can not imagine that it would in this case, but that’s what investigations and trials are for, to uncover the truth regardless of how it seems from media reports or biased first hand accounts.
Artol seems to think that the couple would not be justified in shooting anyone until the "protestors" had already shot at the couple or tried to injure them in some other way.
If the couple had warned them repeatedly to stay off their lawn though and they came on it anyway that would be more than enough reason, imo, for the couple to think they were in very real danger and thus would be justified in shooting before the "protestors" got too close to them.
Wrong. DDM and I are looking at it from the perspective of what was actually known during the confrontation to determine how a reasonable person would have viewed the threat level. You on the other hand are using future knowledge to try to claim that a reasonable person wouldn't have felt they were in danger of bodily injury or death.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Wrong. DDM and I are looking at it from the perspective of what was actually known during the confrontation to determine how a reasonable person would have viewed the threat level. You on the other hand are using future knowledge to try to claim that a reasonable person wouldn't have felt they were in danger of bodily injury or death.
I am saying that the outcome that we know suggests that it was not as dangerous, of course if they had shot someone no one would know that this would have been the outcome.
Originally posted by Silent Master
In other words, you're doing exactly what I said. You using future knowledge to justify that a reasonable person would not have felt in danger during the actual event. Even though, the reasonable person would not have had the benefit of that future knowledge during the confrontation.
No.
I am saying that I think a reasonable person should not have determined that they were in danger to a degree that warrant lethal force based on the information publicly available at the time that you, dadudemon, and I are all referencing
I am also making an additional point that all three of us with the power of hindsight can now see that if the couple had shot someone that would have lead to more deaths than the alternative of not shooting anyone.
I am now also adding another additional point, that with the power of hindsight, it now seems clear that if they did shoot someone that would have significantly increased the likelihood that they would have died or be harmed in retaliation.
The publicly available information at the time was the area had experienced violent riots that resulted in multiple deaths and injuries. So why knowing that information do you believe a reasonable person would not have felt they were in danger of being injured or killed when an angry mob illegally entered their property and then refused to leave?
Originally posted by Silent Master
The publicly available information at the time was the area had experienced violent riots that resulted in multiple deaths and injuries. So why knowing that information do you believe a reasonable person would not have felt they were in danger of being injured or killed when an angry mob illegally entered their property and then refused to leave?
Because we can see videos of the protestors walking by not threatening them. I don’t believe that there having by been violent protests is sufficient reason to take a life.