“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
it looks like the court is afraid of him intimidating or personally trying to buy off witnesses, he's not going anywhere. they're finally giving him the r.kelly treatment
It’s amazing how the Republicans still get away with causing a host of ACTUAL problems and then deflect by blaming the country’s woes on immigrants (or LGBTQ people, or DEI, etc.).
Isn’t the entire point of the CIA doing evil and vile shit? This is just a normal Tuesday for them. I’m glad he is being punished. But damn, how can anyone think the CIA protects people?
Although I agree with you to some level, I don’t think it’s totally fair to say they don’t have skin in the game. These people could have easily stayed silent for that potential job offer, an extra connection, or some potential to make more money.
Unless, they have somehow more to gain from endorsing Harris. But idk. Looks sincere to me.
Very sensationalistic title. “Somewhat supporting the deportation of illegal immigrants” is broad enough that most people can make it compatible with whatever their more specific worldview is. Deporting illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes, for example, would fall under that.
68% also support a path for citizenship for undocumented immigrants who came here as children. Really, the only thing this says is 54% of Americans don’t support mass amnesty - which, while unfortunate, should not be surprising to anyone who hasn’t bought into the “99% of the electorate is secretly far-left!” shite sometimes peddled by the deluded.
If anything, I’m very surprised that 46% effectively support mass amnesty. That’s much higher than I’d have guessed. If the question were posed to me as “would you deport known cartel members who are actively operating while in the country illegally” I’d say yes. That of course would be a vanishingly small percentage of illegals, but it shows how easily the answers can be manipulated.
I don’t support deporting cartel members. If we do that, then they’re free to continue operating. If we try to prosecute them, it puts the prosecutor, witnesses, jury, judges, all in danger. We should declare them terrorists and ship them to gitmo.
I’m going to assume you’re just being facetious here, but I’m strongly against facilities like Guantanamo. Human rights have to be universal, otherwise they’re only suggestions.
This shit is the 21st century witch hunt. Covid cripples the economy from all the governments basically telling you to stay inside and businesses shuttering all over followed by ballooning the national debt by giving out tons of handouts for this. Then once they say “ok it’s been enough time, go out there and get back to work” suddenly all that covid money given to people is being spent, driving up the cost of everything.
Now just a couple years later, everyone is looking for someone to blame for why costs are so high. “They gave us money to survive before… now it costs so much to do everything! It must be the BROWN people’s fault!” simply because they are the newest wave of immigrants in a country built by immigrants for centuries.
Surely it can’t be due to poor zoning laws, bad economic policies by the last administration (which set us up to fail with massive multi-trillion dollar debt thanks to all those big business tax cuts) and a news media gone wild, controlled by a handful of oligarchs who have more money and power than ever before after profiting from it all.
As always, a masterful performance by the rich and powerful. Let’s make america get fucked again! #Recession2029
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.