Stay off a Marine's lawn

[BoomerD]

I'm assuming you're exaggerating. I highly doubt you know much at all about United States Marines, and if you do, then you're just typing bullshit. Either way works I guess.

Nah, he's just a "Hate Everything American" kiwi.

 

[CRXican]

Easier to hit him when he's standing still...moving targets require you to actually aim...

The guy assaulted him first. That makes this self-defense. Murder not found.

trolling

 

[chalmers]

Easier to hit him when he's standing still...moving targets require you to actually aim...

The guy assaulted him first. That makes this self-defense. Murder not found.

I have that moron on ignore, but I see the quote. So anyone can attack anyone, and as long as they back off and stand still after the attack, no retaliation is appropriate?

 

[guyver01]

The guy assaulted him first. That makes this self-defense. Murder not found.

Justification does not make a criminal use of force lawful; if the use of force is justified, it cannot be criminal at all. ... The defense of justification affirmatively permits the use of force under certain circumstances. ... The defense does not operate to 'excuse' a criminal act, nor does it negate a particular element of a crime. Rather, by recognizing the use of force to be privileged under certain circumstances, it renders such conduct entirely lawful.

The defense of justification would fail, for example, if a defendant deliberately killed a petty thief who did not commit robbery and who did not appear to be a physical threat. However, the owner or lawful possessor of property has a privilege to use any degree of non-deadly force necessary to protect his possession or recover his property, regardless of no physical threat to his person.


However, when an assailant ceases to be a threat (e.g. by being tackled and restrained, surrendering, or fleeing), the defense of justification will fail if the defending party presses on to attack or to punish beyond imposing physical restraint.

A somewhat less obvious application of this rule is that admitting the use of deadly force in an attempt to disable rather than kill the assailant can be construed as evidence that the defendant wasn't yet in enough danger to justify lethal force in the first place.

In some countries and U.S. states, the concept of "pre-emptive" self defense is limited by a requirement that the threat be imminent. Thus, lawful "pre-emptive" self defense is simply the act of landing the first-blow in a situation that has reached a point of no hope for de-escalation or escape.

 

[guyver01]

I have that moron on ignore

lies

 

[zinfamous]

kid was dumb.

marine should be in jail.

 

[SandInMyShoes]

We have no idea what was said between them. For all we know, the kid may have backed off just long enough to scream "I'MMA KILL YOU!!" and that's when the Marine shot him. Or maybe the Old Guy goaded the kid into punching him in the face.

I don't think anyone is qualified to pass judgement on this unless they heard the testimonies under oath.

 

[chalmers]

We have no idea what was said between them. For all we know, the kid may have backed off just long enough to scream "I'MMA KILL YOU!!" and that's when the Marine shot him. Or maybe the Old Guy goaded the kid into punching him in the face.

I don't think anyone is qualified to pass judgement on this unless they heard the testimonies under oath.

Was thinking the same thing, well put.

 

[BoomerD]

We have no idea what was said between them. For all we know, the kid may have backed off just long enough to scream "I'MMA KILL YOU!!" and that's when the Marine shot him. Or maybe the Old Guy goaded the kid into punching him in the face.

I don't think anyone is qualified to pass judgement on this unless they heard the testimonies under oath.

BAN!! NEVER bring any sort of common sense into an OT discussion...the ONLY worse offense is trying to do the same thing in P&N.

Git a rope!

 

[guyver01]

Git a rope!

just shoot him.

it's self defense.

HE'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!

 

[irishScott]

I have that moron on ignore, but I see the quote. So anyone can attack anyone, and as long as they back off and stand still after the attack, no retaliation is appropriate?

Retaliation to assault is appropriate. Lethal retaliation only if the threat is also lethal. The situation in the OP is where you pull out your gun and pistol whip the guy below the shoulders until he's down. All legitimate self defense and chances are he'll never look you in the eye again.

He's a marine. The other guy TMK was untrained. He could have done it.

 

[guyver01]

The situation in the OP is where you pull out your gun and pistol whip the guy below the shoulders until he's down. All legitimate self defense and chances are he'll never look you in the eye again.

i agree. If the marine in the OP did this, i don't think anyone would have an issue. The issue is the fact he felt he needed to jump straight to shooting the guy.

Hell.. he's a TRAINED MARINE. if he needed to shoot him... shoot him in the foot... the leg... the arm... ALL reasonable uses of force.

WHY did he need to shoot to kill. I haven't seen anything which indicated he was in mortal danger.

 

[chalmers]

Retaliation to assault is appropriate. Lethal retaliation only if the threat is also lethal. The situation in the OP is where you pull out your gun and pistol whip the guy below the shoulders until he's down. All legitimate self defense and chances are he'll never look you in the eye again.

He's a marine. The other guy TMK was untrained. He could have done it.

Yeah I don't mind that explanation. I don't wish death upon anyone. It certainly could've been solved a better way, that's for sure.

 

[OCGuy]

Retaliation to assault is appropriate. Lethal retaliation only if the threat is also lethal. The situation in the OP is where you pull out your gun and pistol whip the guy below the shoulders until he's down. All legitimate self defense and chances are he'll never look you in the eye again.

He's a marine. The other guy TMK was untrained. He could have done it.

Didnt we learn recently that one punch can kill you?

If he feared another blow that could possibly kill him, who are you to call him a pussy for ending the threat?

 

[Lithium381]

Didnt we learn recently that one punch can kill you?

If he feared another blow that could possibly kill him, who are you to call him a pussy for ending the threat?

I was just thinking about that, it is therefore reasonable for an elderly man to assume he will be killed by a single punch. I feel no sympathy for the man who was shot, for it seems he was the one to escalate from verbal to physical force. No excuse. None.

 

[BoomerD]

i agree. If the marine in the OP did this, i don't think anyone would have an issue. The issue is the fact he felt he needed to jump straight to shooting the guy.

Hell.. he's a TRAINED MARINE. if he needed to shoot him... shoot him in the foot... the leg... the arm... ALL reasonable uses of force.

WHY did he need to shoot to kill. I haven't seen anything which indicated he was in mortal danger.

You watch too many movies. Proper firearms training teaches you not to shoot in the foot/leg/arm.
If the threat is serious enough to shoot someone, ALWAYS shoot to kill...otherwise, they just might get to you and take your gun and use it on you.

Did the "yard trespasser" deserve to be killed? We'll likely never know how things actually happened...so without that information, I'll side with the shooter. Self Defense.

 

[SandEagle]

award-winning lawn? lol. No wonder we have the dont ask dont tell policy. Imagine if the enemy had known that our marine was a lawnboy

 

[SandInMyShoes]

He's a marine. The other guy TMK was untrained. He could have done it.

A 69 year old Marine. This man probably received his combat training 45-50 years ago, and a young man in/near the prime of life punched him in the face. If you think being a Marine makes you invincible, why don't you roll into a nursing home with a team of cage fighters and sell PPV of old guys in wheelchairs beating up young punks.

Again, I'm not saying who was right and who was wrong. There's way too many variables for any of us to know what really happened.

 

[Narmer]

Pics of the lawn?

 

[Jeeebus]

I love threads like these. All the ATOT armchair lawyers always come out, armed with a sharp command of wikipedia articles.

 

[chalmers]

I love threads like these. All the ATOT armchair lawyers always come out, armed with a sharp command of wikipedia articles.

we're mad, and we're not gonna take it anymore.

 

[Venix]

Retaliation to assault is appropriate. Lethal retaliation only if the threat is also lethal. The situation in the OP is where you pull out your gun and pistol whip the guy below the shoulders until he's down. All legitimate self defense and chances are he'll never look you in the eye again.

He's a marine. The other guy TMK was untrained. He could have done it.

This is an even dumber idea than "shoot him in the arm," which is already incredibly stupid. "Pistol whipping" is not a legitimate self-defense technique and anyone who tries it deserves the likely outcome of having his weapon taken and used against him. That's if the gun doesn't inadvertently fire and kill an innocent bystander because you're violating one of the most fundamental rules of firearm safety.

If shooting your assailant dead is not an acceptable reaction to a situation, don't draw your weapon. Once the firearm has been drawn and its presence hasn't stopped the assault, the only proper response is to shoot center mass until the assailant is no longer a threat. I don't know whether deadly force was justified in this case, but endangering yourself and others by shooting at easy-to-miss extremities or "pistol whipping" is certainly never warranted.

 

[SSSnail]

1. Trespassing
2. Assault
3. Elder man, possibly been through a few wars, who was trained shoot to kill (also may have some PTSS)
4. Sssnail is not surprised at the outcome.

 

[Amused]

pushed and punched in the face by a 23-year-old man


left amazingly far down it seems.

Typical MSNBC. They know most people don't read the whole story, so the facts are left far down and buried deep in the story.

BTW, if you piss on my lawn then punch me in the face you'll be WISHING I shot you after I'm done with you.

If I was 70, I'd probably just shoot your dumb ass, though.

 

[ciba]

Steinbeck covered this
Don't pick a fight with an old man.If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.

I think this sums it up.