coyotehitman
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2007
- Messages
- 558
______________________________
Let's see, expelled person causes fight, makes threats and is expelled. Comes back later to make good on threats and trespasses and is shot and killed.
Family members and some residents of the community have speculated that race was a factor in the shooting
I'm going to let you in on the dirty little secret of violence in America. It's almost exclusively confined to the criminal class. They prey on each other. They get drunk or high and fight with each other.
White you love to make posts over and over again on how "You can't shoot someone" for this or that or it's murder when apparently you can't even own a home pay , taxes and expect to be able to sit in it and enjoy minding your own business when you have ***** neighbors who think destroying and or stealing your property , relieving themselves in your yard or just screaming and fighting until 4 am every weekend night.
If the [ ] don't drive the average person nuts the cops will beating on the door in the middle of the night just to ask you what you know about something that is going on several houses away when you don't know a thing and were trying to get a decent nights sleep !!
And people wonder how some people get pushed to their limits and just shoot someone !
Can you shoot someone for criminal trespass in your state? We don't know what led up to the shooting. This thread is focused on what could have been done before things degenerated to shooting. Breaking up the party and sending everyone home might have been a better option.
Family kids get dad, who comes to protect his family and home. So - if I understand Jeff White's position, at this point we should cower to thugs and allow them to dictate where and when we can have our parties by canceling the party and sending everyone home??? I disagree.
Jeff, you're an IL cop. I think that taints your viewpoint, and think that your comments don't apply here at all. SC has castle doctrine. IL does not.
(720 ILCS 5/7‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑2)
Sec. 7‑2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or
(2) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)
(720 ILCS 5/7‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑3)
Sec. 7‑3. Use of force in defense of other property.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)
In 22 years as a police officer, I saw very few "classic" self defense situations where someone was just attacked out of the blue and then defended himself. Most of what I've seen were situations that started with a conflict, many were actually mutual combat and not self defense.
Sometimes it just pays to be smart and let them dictate where and when you can have a party.
Maybe it was self defense and maybe it wasn't.
Yes the kid who ran the other one down claimed self defense, then he claimed it was an accident. 911 wasn't called until many of the underage drinkers had left, in the meantime the victim is on the ground bleeding from a compound fracture. It was a mess. I imagine very similar to this case.
I saw very few "classic" self defense situations where someone was just attacked out of the blue and then defended himself. Most of what I've seen were situations that started with a conflict, many were actually mutual combat and not self defense.
But if Reeves had taken his children and gone home with them, would it have happened at all?
I'm going to let you in on the dirty little secret of violence in America. It's almost exclusively confined to the criminal class. They prey on each other.
This thread is focused on what could have been done before things degenerated to shooting. Breaking up the party and sending everyone home might have been a better option.
To be clear, Jeff White doesn't make that argument - but his statement would appear to support it.
No offense - but I put more stock in sources such as the Civilian Gun Self Defense Blog, the Kleck study, etc as the basis for being an armed citizen - rather than the anecdotal experience of one LEO (from a state that does not permit it's citizens to arm themselves for self-defense).
Personally, I think that the only reason the guy was arrested was because the police came by to check on him and only arrested him because he was drunk when they showed up.
That sure was an expensive cell phone.
I have yet to see one that was worth the price of a human life.
Just how much impact does verbal judo have on gang members? I'm guessing very little. They only understand one thing. Violence. And that's exactly what they got from Dad.
At least he got rid of one useless thug.
Here in Boston, a top criminal defense attorney told me he charges $75k plus expenses for a murder defense. I expect that the total would be close to $100k when all is said and done.But at what cost? $50K plus for a murder defense with no guarantee you'll win?
How many gang bangers have you had to deal with? We have Gangster Disciples as the main gang around here and verbal judo works with them as well as anyone else. Sometimes nothing works and you have to fight. We don't know what happened. We don't know that deescalation wouldn't have worked.