I guess hunters DO use assault rifles.

The specific mention of the weapon (and it's supposed domain in the Assault Rifle-class) is just about as relevant as videogames and Eminem and violent movies/tv are when fuckwits go apeshit. The point being, IT'S NOT RELEVANT. What is relevant, however, is the fact that the guy was a psycho. Focus on that, not your fuckin agenda.

The above is directed to those in which it applies =D

Now, back to my movie. And Half-Life 2. And Eminem.

If things happened the way the shooter said they did, then the guy had the right to defend himself against the guy who actually shot at him, only.

You don't get to shoot unarmed bystanders, no matter who they're friends with, especially if they're running away. If those bystanders had guns and pointed them at you after threatening you, it'd be a different story. If all the people had 2x4s and rushed him en masse, he might have a defense.

They didn't and he dosen't. He shot unarmed people in the back as they ran away from him. He's done.

Legally, probably. But I already conceded that. Legally, if someone is stalking you, they'll give you a little piece of paper that says the person can't come near you and tell you to wait until the person is actually in the process of killing you to defend yourself or call for help. It's a similar situation where the letter of the law actually hinders you from sensible self-defense.

Bad analogy, and incorrect about restraining orders to boot. Defending yourself does not always involve deadly force, people violating restraining orders don't kill the other party every time the restraining order is violated. The victim can (and many times does) call for help - and gets it - long before anyone gets killed.

I am appalled that you seem to think that "sensible self defence" involves shooting fleeing, unarmed people in the back. The self-defense clause does not protect this guy, as well it shouldn't.

Has anyone heard of the intense racial tension that was developing in the community between the white farmers, and the Hmong refugees?

I am not trying to make any excuses here, but it seems that there is a lot more to this sittuation then the press is letting on.

As for the case, I heard the guys statement, and he said before he killed the second person he stated "oh, your not dead yet", then fired again. That's first degree murder, and there is no way around that one.

Yeah. A couple of pages back, maybe.

I can kill someone with a fork. We need to ban forks.

Not such a bad analogy, you just chose to fill in the unspecified parts with specifics that make it bad.

I am appalled that you are unwilling to acknowledge that if you are lost in the woods, with no means of escape or calling for help, and 7guys whose friend you just shot are running to go get their guns to come back and kill you, it might be a damn good idea to shoot the rest of them before you become hopelessly outgunned... if you want to survive, regardless of what the law says.


[Edited on Nov 28, 2004 by anatomist1]

I should elucidate the analogy. I once knew a girl who was being stalked by an ex-husband. He would routinely beat her, treat her like shit, threaten to take the baby, and threaten to kill her if she tried to move away or defend herself in any way that pissed him off. From her prior experience with him, she had little doubt he was capable of killing her. The cops she talked to offered her exactly what I said: we can get you a piece of paper and "call us when he's kicking in your door". This in a rural area. I don't think she'd find much consolation in "The victim can (and many times does) call for help - and gets it - long before anyone gets killed."

I give that guy 2 days in a WI State Prison.

His behavior cannot be explained by tension between the Hmong community and Whites, or self defense, or not knowing the laws. If you move to another country you better make sure you educate yourself on the hunting laws ( all laws ) and fucking try to get along with your hosts.

That's pretty reductive, don't you think?

That dosen't work, either. This hunter didn't know any of these people, and had no prior interaction with them from what I've read.

You can make up hypotheticals all you want, but the law has the final say. You don't get to shoot unarmed, fleeing people in the back because there is no demonstrated, immediate threat to your life in that situation.

You are advocating using self-defence to justify shooting people who might eventually become a threat.

You cannot use self-defense to justify killing unarmed, fleeing people on speculation that they might become a threat in the future. See above post.

Yes, I see. Thoughts firmly closed inside box. Message received.

No, not really. If we follow your line of thinking, then where do we end up?

How vague of a threat then justifies pre-emptive killing? The self-defense clause is written the way it is for a good reason. There is a high standard to prove self-defense when exercising lethal force, and there should be.

lol lol

Considering I stated several times that I was not talking about codifying my view into law, why do you keep reiterating the same thing like a DOS program? What I was saying is that there are cases where following the letter of the law would likely render you a fine, law-abiding corpse.

In the case of Vang, I don't necessarily think he was right or I'd do the same. However, assuming his story is accurate, I'm not so sure that his behavior was crazy or incomprehensible, as many seem to.

I just don't understand why you seem to be defending the guy. I don't think the majority of the people here said vang was crazy, or that his acts were incomprehensible.

Indefensible, yes.

Murder, yes.

Crazy, no.

you can claim self-defense for shooting someone in the back, but it probably won't be successful. First, the defendant has to reasonably believe that the other person was about to inflict death or serious bodily injury upon her. Generally, the allowable force in self-defense must be roughly equal to the force threatened.

Second, a person has to have reasonably believed that deadly force was necessary to prevent the death or serious bodily injury with which she was threatened. If she realized, or in the exercise of due care, would have realized, that non-deadly force would suffice, then she has no defense to a crime consisting of the use of deadly force.

Third, in some states, there is a duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense.

Finally, all of the same things apply to person A or B or whomever.

So, Stiles is pretty much correct. That's just what the law is, no comment on whether I agree with any of it.

[Edited on Nov 28, 2004 by Lemonnier]

<note to self>
don't argue with people with guns

</note>

I still think indefensible is too far, unless one is speaking in a strictly legal sense. You seem to keep equating legality with more absolute judgements in the realm of morality or sensibility.

It depends on his priorities... If he valued survival at any cost, it sounds like what he did may have made sense. If he ranks life in prison vs. whatever probability of getting killed via gunshot on the same hierarchy of undesirability as I do, then he acted pretty stupidly. As far as the morality of it goes, I wouldn't get too haughty about judging unless I had been in a similar situation myself.

<note to self>
don't try to break up arguments between people with guns
</note>