Florida man cites ‘Bush doctrine’ after pre-emptive killing of neighbors at Labor Day cookout

[noneedtoaggress]

Video at the link.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/04/florida-man-cites-bush-doctrine-after-pre-emptive-killing-of-neighbors-at-labor-day-cookout/


Florida man cites ‘Bush doctrine’ after pre-emptive killing of neighbors at Labor Day cookout

Lawyers for a Florida man this week cited President George W. Bush’s pre-emptive war in Iraq and the “Bush Doctrine” as a defense after their client killed two neighbors and attempted to kill a third on Labor Day.

Florida Today reported on Wednesday that attorney’s for William T. Woodward had filed a motion asking for charges against him to be dismissed under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, which says that gun owners do not have a duty to retreat in the face of an “imminent” threat.

According to officials in Titusville, Woodward had snuck up on his neighbors while they were having a Labor Day barbecue. Police responding to the scene found that Gary Lee Hembree, Roger Picior and Bruce Timothy had all been shot.

Hembree and Picior were later pronounced dead. Blake survived, even though he had been hit 11 times.

In their motion, Woodward’s attorneys claimed that the victims had called him names and threatened to “get him.”

The motion referenced Enoch V. State, which suggests that an “imminent” threat can include something that is likely to occur at sometime in the future.

“I think legally that term has sort of been evolving especially given changes of our government’s definition of ‘imminent,’” attorney Robert Berry, who is representing Woodward, told Florida Today. “It’s become more expansive than someone putting a gun right to your head. It’s things that could become, you know, an immediate threat.”

The court document filed by the defense also cited “The Bush Doctrine,” a foreign policy principle used by President George W. Bush to justify the invasion of Iraq. “The Bush Doctrine” embraces “preventive” or pre-emptive war.

Watch the video below from Florida Today, broadcast Sept. 4, 2013.

[aGameOfThrones]

Cops use it so...

http://biscadmission.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/3879-animated_gif-chuck_norris-dodgeball-thumbs_up.gif

[ClydeCoulter]

The comments...SMH.

[UWDude]

sorry, but this is hilarious.

[J_White]

this isn't Onion ?

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

"Imma kill you!"
"Oh yeah?" *BANG BANG BANG*

[RonZeplin]

That defense might work with a jury of neocon MitTards.

[noneedtoaggress]

The comments...SMH.

Yeah, while I was reading them I was reminded of...


Cops use it so...

http://biscadmission.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/3879-animated_gif-chuck_norris-dodgeball-thumbs_up.gif

that story where the Florida cops took down that young black kid for staring at them defiantly and made him drop the puppy he was holding.

[osan]

I doubt this defense will fly, but the man has a legitimate and credible point. It sounds crazy until one stops, takes a breath, engages his brain, and starts examining the interrelationships between the factors involved. When done competently, a very different picture emerges than that which most people appear to hold based on nothing but gut impulse emotionalism, which in turn is almost always based on emotional nonsense bearing no relationship to the real world.

Utterances matter - they are the way we communicate our ideas and intentions to one another. If you tell me that you are going to kill me, all else equal, how am I to know that this is not a true intention and if you in fact hold such an intention the law is clear that I am within my rights to defend myself. If I am unable to tell that you are either joking around or are simply having a momentary lapse in your sense of discretion, what else am I to make of your threat? Am I obliged to assume the risk of being murdered just because the "only" thing you did was threaten me verbally? To suggest this is to demonstrate a hopelessly inadequate understanding of the role of language and all forms of messaging in general.

If we are to assume that people do not mean what they say, chaos would erupt and the world of humanity could not function. If we decide we will assume people do not know what they say only when making such threats against us, we render ourselves largely incapable of defending ourselves properly. Such would turn the world into an even riskier place. I vote no.

It all boils down to personal responsibility for one's actions and the circumspection that it requires. If my neighbor tells me he is going to get his bully boys to "get" me, I see that as a perfectly firm basis for me to plan a preemptive strike to remove the threat, again all else equal. People who run their mouths foolishly need to be allowed to pay for their mistakes, whether that involves a good beating or being killed. I am not entitled to verbally threaten you with impunity. To do so by necessity places myself at risk of possibly losing my life precisely because people must be able to trust what others say or the world ceases to function at a very fundamental level.

[Antischism]

Wow, what a fucked up dude.


I doubt this defense will fly, but the man has a legitimate and credible point. It sounds crazy until one stops, takes a breath, engages his brain, and starts examining the interrelationships between the factors involved. When done competently, a very different picture emerges than that which most people appear to hold based on nothing but gut impulse emotionalism, which in turn is almost always based on emotional nonsense bearing no relationship to the real world.

Utterances matter - they are the way we communicate our ideas and intentions to one another. If you tell me that you are going to kill me, all else equal, how am I to know that this is not a true intention and if you in fact hold such an intention the law is clear that I am within my rights to defend myself. If I am unable to tell that you are either joking around or are simply having a momentary lapse in your sense of discretion, what else am I to make of your threat? Am I obliged to assume the risk of being murdered just because the "only" thing you did was threaten me verbally? To suggest this is to demonstrate a hopelessly inadequate understanding of the role of language and all forms of messaging in general.

If we are to assume that people do not mean what they say, chaos would erupt and the world of humanity could not function. If we decide we will assume people do not know what they say only when making such threats against us, we render ourselves largely incapable of defending ourselves properly. Such would turn the world into an even riskier place. I vote no.

It all boils down to personal responsibility for one's actions and the circumspection that it requires. If my neighbor tells me he is going to get his bully boys to "get" me, I see that as a perfectly firm basis for me to plan a preemptive strike to remove the threat, again all else equal. People who run their mouths foolishly need to be allowed to pay for their mistakes, whether that involves a good beating or being killed. I am not entitled to verbally threaten you with impunity. To do so by necessity places myself at risk of possibly losing my life precisely because people must be able to trust what others say or the world ceases to function at a very fundamental level.

So in this society of yours, I can shoot someone point blank in the head and claim that they verbally threatened me at some point, even if I'm bullshitting, and get away with it. I want no part of that world.

[noneedtoaggress]

I doubt this defense will fly, but the man has a legitimate and credible point. It sounds crazy until one stops, takes a breath, engages his brain, and starts examining the interrelationships between the factors involved. When done competently, a very different picture emerges than that which most people appear to hold based on nothing but gut impulse emotionalism, which in turn is almost always based on emotional nonsense bearing no relationship to the real world.

Utterances matter - they are the way we communicate our ideas and intentions to one another. If you tell me that you are going to kill me, all else equal, how am I to know that this is not a true intention and if you in fact hold such an intention the law is clear that I am within my rights to defend myself. If I am unable to tell that you are either joking around or are simply having a momentary lapse in your sense of discretion, what else am I to make of your threat? Am I obliged to assume the risk of being murdered just because the "only" thing you did was threaten me verbally? To suggest this is to demonstrate a hopelessly inadequate understanding of the role of language and all forms of messaging in general.

If we are to assume that people do not mean what they say, chaos would erupt and the world of humanity could not function. If we decide we will assume people do not know what they say only when making such threats against us, we render ourselves largely incapable of defending ourselves properly. Such would turn the world into an even riskier place. I vote no.

It all boils down to personal responsibility for one's actions and the circumspection that it requires. If my neighbor tells me he is going to get his bully boys to "get" me, I see that as a perfectly firm basis for me to plan a preemptive strike to remove the threat, again all else equal. People who run their mouths foolishly need to be allowed to pay for their mistakes, whether that involves a good beating or being killed. I am not entitled to verbally threaten you with impunity. To do so by necessity places myself at risk of possibly losing my life precisely because people must be able to trust what others say or the world ceases to function at a very fundamental level.

I'm withholding too much judgement because there is very little information in this story, and all we have is how the lawyers presented his side. The video of him discussing the situation in handcuffs shows how there was a lot more going on there and I could easily see him feeling provoked to the point of it being a "last straw" rather than an actual "imminent threat". The description of their "threat" sounds pretty weak as well, "get him" can mean a lot of things that aren't life threatening.

That being said, he broke into their property and engaged them. They didn't come to his property and engage him. I can understand the justification for self defense against credible threats, but the way this story has been presented (again, withholding too much judgement) leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to justifying breaking into their property and engaging them.

[Christian Liberty]

That defense might work with a jury of neocon MitTards.

No it wouldn't. They worship politicians. If they were actually that logically consistent, they wouldn't be real MitTards or Neocons.

[Brian4Liberty]

Florida man cites ‘Bush doctrine’ after pre-emptive killing of neighbors at Labor Day cookout

It was inevitable.

[newbitech]

He made a pretty good case for premeditated murder tho. derp...

[kcchiefs6465]

..

[better-dead-than-fed]

Evidence being presented of the dangerousness of an individual

The DOJ bases its dangerousness assessments on this instrument (the documentation notes that its predictions are not validated scientifically, but anyway....):

http://www4.parinc.com/Products/Product.aspx?ProductID=HCR-20-V3

Ever told anyone you are glad Gore lost the election? Dangerous.

Self-employed? Dangerous.

Ever smoked pot? Dangerous.

Mistrust the DOJ? Dangerous.

Failure to admit you need treatment for dangerousness? Dangerous.

Ever been awake "late in the night"? Dangerous.

Don't volunteer to take thorazine? Dangerous.

Associate with political groups that have problems with authority? Dangerous.

[heavenlyboy34]

I doubt this defense will fly, but the man has a legitimate and credible point. It sounds crazy until one stops, takes a breath, engages his brain, and starts examining the interrelationships between the factors involved. When done competently, a very different picture emerges than that which most people appear to hold based on nothing but gut impulse emotionalism, which in turn is almost always based on emotional nonsense bearing no relationship to the real world.

Utterances matter - they are the way we communicate our ideas and intentions to one another. If you tell me that you are going to kill me, all else equal, how am I to know that this is not a true intention and if you in fact hold such an intention the law is clear that I am within my rights to defend myself. If I am unable to tell that you are either joking around or are simply having a momentary lapse in your sense of discretion, what else am I to make of your threat? Am I obliged to assume the risk of being murdered just because the "only" thing you did was threaten me verbally? To suggest this is to demonstrate a hopelessly inadequate understanding of the role of language and all forms of messaging in general.

If we are to assume that people do not mean what they say, chaos would erupt and the world of humanity could not function. If we decide we will assume people do not know what they say only when making such threats against us, we render ourselves largely incapable of defending ourselves properly. Such would turn the world into an even riskier place. I vote no.

It all boils down to personal responsibility for one's actions and the circumspection that it requires. If my neighbor tells me he is going to get his bully boys to "get" me, I see that as a perfectly firm basis for me to plan a preemptive strike to remove the threat, again all else equal. People who run their mouths foolishly need to be allowed to pay for their mistakes, whether that involves a good beating or being killed. I am not entitled to verbally threaten you with impunity. To do so by necessity places myself at risk of possibly losing my life precisely because people must be able to trust what others say or the world ceases to function at a very fundamental level. I'd like you to elaborate on this a bit because it doesn't sound reasonable from a libertarian perspective. What if this fellow was just cranky and said he would "get you" as a Heat Of The Moment sort of offhanded remark? Some people really do have that sort of aggressive communication style. In reality, words are just abstractions that more or less attempt to represent very specific thoughts. (Linguistics is very elaborate and tedious to get into, so I'll leave it there for now) "Sticks and stones", as the old cliche goes.

[kcchiefs6465]

..

[Demigod]

This is not defending your self this is going on the offence.You cry all the time about how cops are killing people for nothing more than feeling threatened and then look at the posts here.He did not even try to call the cops all he did was go there and kill them,that is triple homicide with intention and he should spend his life in jail.

[better-dead-than-fed]

What would you suggest?

I do not know. Unlike evaluating past acts of violence, evaluating dangerousness entails making predictions about the future, and that would be difficult even if everyone involved were honest and competent. If physicists can't predict people's future actions, lawyers sure won't do an adequate job at it.

[kcchiefs6465]

..

[devil21]

He made a pretty good case for premeditated murder tho. derp...

Good point. Since Bush got away with it can this guy?

[kcchiefs6465]

..

[Neil Desmond]

Cops use it so...

http://biscadmission.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/3879-animated_gif-chuck_norris-dodgeball-thumbs_up.gif
What cops? Show me one example, and I'll believe you.

[osan]

Wow, what a fucked up dude.

which one - the guy who shot his neighbors, or me?


So in this society of yours, I can shoot someone point blank in the head and claim that they verbally threatened me at some point, even if I'm bullshitting, and get away with it. I want no part of that world.

Typical failed reasoning from someone who apparently neglected to use his brain whilst reading what I wrote. I wrote NOTHING about "bullshitting", so you can put a sock right in that nonsense. Note my fairly liberal use of "all else equal". Need I explain it?

The central thrust of my post was that messages matter. In general, people treat each other far too casually, taking far and away too much liberty with each other. You are responsible for the manner in which you communicate and in which you approach, regard, and deal with others just as they are responsible for the ways in which they receive and process those communications. It is a two-way street and I have noticed that many people fail to take it very seriously, apparently feeling free to make all manner of statements to others that are ill-advised. A lot of it depends on factors such as context and the nature of the relationships between the persons in question. For two men who have a "three stooges" type of relationship, for one to say "I'll murder you" is not likely to produce the same contextual frame as him saying the same thing to a stranger on the street, in which case he may well be placing his immediate future very much and very deservedly in the hands of another. Or are you of the opinion that you should be able to walk up to random persons and make such utterances with no fear of adverse consequences? And please do not come back at this with the likes of "oh people know when it's serious and when it's not", because they don't. They often assume that they do, most often in favor of the person making such statements. Most often they are right, but playing the odds in such matters can fail suddenly and with great catastrophe for the player when he bets wrongly.

The world of which you wrote you want no part is not the world that would result from what I wrote. You need to learn to take your time, read what is written, understand what it is, and ask questions before running your mouth. Your main sentence is a clear indication that you failed to do that because you very apparently did not understand a thing I wrote, yet presumed to respond before asking for clarification. It is an error most of us make, including myself at times - we are only human after all - but it behooves you to see your error and learn from it so that your habits improve. And as always, feel free to disregard the lesson if it so pleases you.

[osan]

What cops? Show me one example, and I'll believe you.


Jesus Neil, they do it every single day of every week of every year since at least 9/11. They shoot people dead and then start nancy-whining about how they felt "threatened".

[osan]

I'm withholding too much judgement because there is very little information in this story, and all we have is how the lawyers presented his side. The video of him discussing the situation in handcuffs shows how there was a lot more going on there and I could easily see him feeling provoked to the point of it being a "last straw" rather than an actual "imminent threat". The description of their "threat" sounds pretty weak as well, "get him" can mean a lot of things that aren't life threatening.

That being said, he broke into their property and engaged them. They didn't come to his property and engage him. I can understand the justification for self defense against credible threats, but the way this story has been presented (again, withholding too much judgement) leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to justifying breaking into their property and engaging them.

Go back and read what I wrote - I made no mention about his specific actions being right or wrong, though I did write that the defense would likely not fly - I write that he made some legitimate points; two very different things. I see no problem with preemptive attacks under certain circumstances that are not likely to be commonly encountered.

[osan]

I'd like you to elaborate on this a bit because it doesn't sound reasonable from a libertarian perspective.

OK, lessee - I wrote:


If my neighbor tells me he is going to get his bully boys to "get" me, I see that as a perfectly firm basis for me to plan a preemptive strike to remove the threat, again all else equal.

"All else equal" presumes admittedly much, but I was hoping it would be understood that in general to mean that circumstances supported the perception of a real threat to life, limb, and property. I suppose I expected too much from people.

Am I obliged to shrink away from threats, morally speaking? I say that I am not. If men armed with nothing more than their mouths and some brass demand I leave my house so they can sit down to my dinner, am I obliged to retreat or am I morally authorized to defend against their aggression as I deem fit? If the latter, then the general case can me strongly made, perhaps apodictically so, that I am within my rights to take action in response to any threat against my life, limb, or property. This would include my right to occupy space that may be said to be rightfully mine, the claim superseding those of all others, if those others may even be said to hold any claim whatsoever, which is not likely.



People who run their mouths foolishly need to be allowed to pay for their mistakes

Again, I may have assumed too much of readers in that context would be clear. By "foolishly" I meant that they speak or otherwise act in ways that put out messages indicating to those around them that they pose some brand of potential or imminent threat.

I am not entitled to verbally threaten you with impunity. To do so by necessity places myself at risk of possibly losing my life precisely because people must be able to trust what others say or the world ceases to function at a very fundamental level.

Not sure what else to say about this one - if the world were to become a garbled torrent of noise how would I be able to so much as set a foot outside my door without the accompanying terror? Sit back and think about that a bit - not being able to trust a thing that others say for truth. That is the logically absurd extreme of the condition of not communicating properly, with care and regard for how others will receive what you put out.

You wrote:


What if this fellow was just cranky and said he would "get you" as a Heat Of The Moment sort of offhanded remark?

There are a couple of things at play here, which you appear to be mixing together. Firstly, am I to subsidize your bad day/cranky mood by risking the injuries implied by the ill-advised use of words you chose simply because of that mood? I don't think so. That's like a woman justifying murdering someone because she's on her period and feeling all "hormonal". Doesn't fly too well, eh? If you level a threat against me, you must be prepared for the possible consequences of your action, your bad mood be damned - no?

"Heat of the moment" is similar to the "bad day" and "cranky mood" arguments - none of which justify one's departure from responsible behavior toward his fellows, none of whom are responsible to do the rather difficult book keeping task of peering into their crystal balls and determining whether you are joking.

The "offhand remark" argument - an attempt to defend poorly considered choices of behavior because they are "innocent". Once again, how does one know they are? At times it is readily determinable and at others the task becomes opaque, with plenty of gray in between. Different people will perceive the same situation with the same actors differently. There is no single and absolute standard of "reasonable" with regard to perception and THAT is precisely why onus rests with each of us to check the things we say and do prior to saying or doing them. This takes time, effort, and responsibility for what one thinks, feels, and does and it is one of the things people largely reject with vehemence. Too much work and the accountability aspect is just such a buzz-kill, right? Meanwhile, the rest of us are saddled with the legal burden of having to comply with a standard of behavior that uses the term "reasonable" quite liberally which itself having no connection to anything remotely reasonable. That makes as much sense as two monkeys humping a football.


Some people really do have that sort of aggressive communication style.

Yeah, well in a free world that would be the sort of thing that would stand to get them badly hurt or seriously dead one day. Note your use of "aggressive" - does this itself not answer much of your question?


In reality, words are just abstractions that more or less attempt to represent very specific thoughts. (Linguistics is very elaborate and tedious to get into, so I'll leave it there for now) "Sticks and stones", as the old cliche goes.

Be careful here. You are attempting to marginalize words apparently because they cannot in themselves jump out of someone's mouth and knock your teeth down your throat. This is a terrible error my friend. Words can be messages in themselves just as are phrases and sentences and so forth. Just as my raising a fist to you or going for a gun are MESSAGES indicating intention, so are words. Once again I return to the fact that if we cannot TRUST the messages emanating from the world around us, we are in very deep and immediate trouble. Were I to drug you in a way that would turn EVERY sensory impulse coming into you to white noise - sound sight, taste, smell, touch - how long do you think it would be before you simply died of the shock? I would bet it would be minutes - probably in the low double digits. Messages are literally LIFE to us and they take all the forms listed. The messages communicated to us by words and the information they bring to us are important. That we disregard this importance by so grossly devaluing the valence and salience of words is a grave risk countless people take every day of their lives. It is a shame upon us all that we are generally so lazy, ignorant, and self-absorbed that we would treat a primary communication method with such shabby disregard.

As to "sticks and stones", you once again make a grave error in confusing or conflating different types of utterances, the basic categories being "fact" and "opinion".

Calling a black man a Knygger is an opinion. Saying all white people should be sent back to Europe is an opinion. Saying I am going to kill you is a statement of fact. It may be a joke - or not seriously offered in any event - but is it nonetheless a statement of fact that carries with it an apparent intention. The credibility of the intention is partly dependent on context as it may be understood by the person on the receiving end of the message. Note the TWO independent variables - context and understanding as it applies to context. Two independent variables tend to complicate linearity (predictability) significantly over situations with only a single variable. This becomes very apparent when one studies any of a number of sciences such as engineering, statistics, computers, and so on. Add a third and complexity and non-linearity rises logarithmically. This presents inherent problems in human relations which are thankfully mitigated greatly by our ability to effectively ignore most of these complications through the filtering mechanisms of the brain - otherwise we would be reduced to non-function in a matter of seconds.

But certain categories of variables stand out to us - such as those related to threats - and we have to constantly assess those daily and the immediately connected factors can at times make that VERY difficult to do. Because of this, it behooves one and all to choose their words and deeds very carefully when interacting with others. Sadly, most people take all this so much for granted and on occasion it comes back to bite them, sometimes fatally. The choice is up to each of us every moment of every day how we are going to comport ourselves through the coming seconds.

[ClydeCoulter]

If you remove the state, and it's presumed protections, from considerations in these areas then responsibility to "consider before speaking" or "running off at the mouth" give a clearer view of the world according to relationships.

[osan]

If you remove the state, and it's presumed protections, from considerations in these areas then responsibility to "consider before speaking" or "running off at the mouth" give a clearer view of the world according to relationships.

Yes, yes, this is very much on the right track. The synthetic silliness of the state tends to block perception of the greater truths that lie beyond the artificial and idiotic glosses that the state's most often stupidly conceived notions places atop the truth. It is similar to no-fault insurance for autos - nobody is at fault in an accident, which is often pure nonsense, but on the average people welcome it because when they are at fault they use their get out of jail free card. These brands of ideas appeal to the inner corrupt-politician in all of us and that is why they succeed and we take them as a greater truth when in fact they are pure lies that pander to our desires to obtain something for nothing.

[noneedtoaggress]

Go back and read what I wrote - I made no mention about his specific actions being right or wrong, though I did write that the defense would likely not fly - I write that he made some legitimate points; two very different things. I see no problem with preemptive attacks under certain circumstances that are not likely to be commonly encountered.

I don't know why you were implying responding to credible, imminent threats was something that "sounds crazy until one stops, takes a breath, engages his brain, and starts examining the interrelationships between the factors involved." It certainly seemed you were referring to the factors in this case.

If what you're saying is that people have a right to defend themselves from credible, imminent threats then it's really not that controversial. A credible, imminent threat of (non-defensive) violence is clearly an act of aggression and use of force to prevent it from escalating is defensive and justified.

What constitutes a credible imminent threat is something may be disputed and require dispute resolution to sort out.

The part that makes this story more controversial is not the concept that force is a justifiable defense against credible, imminent threats of force. The part of this story that's controversial is whether the threat was actually a credible, imminent threat of violence and that the guy in the story broke into their property and confronted them with deadly force ("another story says they were "lounging" at the time ([URL="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/florida-killer-seeks-protection-stand-ground-article-1.1446535)), which doesn't really help your case if you're trying to prove your use of force was in defense instead of aggression. Defensive use of force that goes beyond the constraints of proportionality also become an aggressive use of force. It's these parts that are controversial in the case, rather the idea that individuals have the right to defend themselves from credible threats of violence that have been verbally asserted.

[angelatc]

A long time ago I had a friend who was killed, and the only reason the guy who killed him didn't get the electric chair was because he had witnesses that could verify that my friend had threatened him. It wasn't a real threat, IMHO. Just drunken hotheads mouthing off. He didn't get off - he still got life, but it would have been the death penalty if there hadn't been a threat.

Oh, and as evidence that my friend considered himself a badass (which he really didn't) they brought several people forward to testify that his nickname was Rambo, but they never bothered to mention that he hated that nickname, and that he bore a very strong resemblance to Sylvester Stallone. The early '80's Stallone, not the plastic freak of today.

[osan]

I don't know why you were implying responding to credible, imminent threats was something that "sounds crazy until one stops, takes a breath, engages his brain, and starts examining the interrelationships between the factors involved." It certainly seemed you were referring to the factors in this case.

I am fairly certain that my language was clearly not referring to the specifics of the case. I explicitly stated that the defendant had made a credible and valid POINT. I also stated that the specific defense was unlikely to fly in any event. How is that not clear?


If what you're saying is that people have a right to defend themselves from credible, imminent threats then it's really not that controversial. A credible, imminent threat of violence is an act of aggression and use of force against it is clearly defensive.

That is not all that I assert. In addition, and this is perhaps the more salient point, is that what constitutes "imminent" and "credible" is not a one-size-fits-all standard because human beings are not OSFA units. Different people view the same things differently. That is why personal conduct with and among one's fellows is important; that it be carried out with care and an eye to the differences in the perceptual timbre between individuals.

In addition to all of that, there is the fact that context and circumstance are not standard OSFA-issue. Just as an example - if I live in a place where police, the supposed guardians and protectors of the rest are not taking me seriously when I report that my neighbor is planning to harm or even kill me, what then? If I am a free man, meaning I hold claims to life equal to those of all other men, then it follows that I am in no way obliged to simply "move away". I retain my right to occupy my places, to own my property, and to protect it all from threats. In the event the "authorities" fail to fulfill their duties to "protect", I am basically on my own and if I feel I must preemptively strike another in order to avoid being stricken unjustly, I am well within my rights to so act.


What constitutes a credible imminent threat is something may be disputed and require dispute resolution to sort out.

Sounds good on paper, but in practice this can be VERY dicey on its best days. If I truly believed that to remain idle would have resulted in death or grave injury, who is to authorized to say I acted wrongly? Not talking about lying or bullshitting in order to avoid rightful culpability for an act of murder, but honest-to-god belief. Some will argue that this would let every punk get away with murder, to which I respond "bullshit" - but even if it were true, better that than to place a single righteous man into a cage. This is another price we pay when we speak of being free men - scoundrels will at times get away with literal murder. But to believe that the world would fall into blindly mad chaos is not credible. It barely qualifies as anorexically plausible.


The part of this story that's controversial is whether the threat was actually a credible

Exactly, and I for one haven't the first idea what the truth is there.


the guy in the story broke into their property and confronted them with deadly force, which doesn't really help your case if you're trying to prove your use of force was in defense instead of aggression.

Depends on the totality of the facts in evidence. All I was trying to say is that the core idea should not be dismissed in a generalized manner.

I recall ca. 1987 +/- 5 years hearing on the evening news that "the court" had ruled that preemptive strikes were indeed a valid means of responding when the person has a reason to believe he was about to be attacked. I did not catch which court it was - state, fed, SCOTUS. But I remember the report clearly as it seemed one of those impossibly rare instances of a judge making some damned sense.

[noneedtoaggress]

I am fairly certain that my language was clearly not referring to the specifics of the case. I explicitly stated that the defendant had made a credible and valid POINT. I also stated that the specific defense was unlikely to fly in any event. How is that not clear?


I doubt this defense will fly (read: I doubt the court will agree with this defense), but the man has a legitimate and credible point (concerning his case). It sounds crazy until one stops, takes a breath, engages his brain, and starts examining the interrelationships between the factors involved (in his case). When done competently, a very different picture emerges than that which most people appear to hold based on nothing but gut impulse emotionalism, which in turn is almost always based on emotional nonsense bearing no relationship to the real world.

This is how I initially read it. Whether you feel the court will agree with the defense or not doesn't make it readily apparent to me that you were unconcerned with how this argument related to the case, and the philosophic arguments are centered around this specific incident which is why I responded by relating it to the case. This is why I responded the way I did.

Considering your earlier comments in this thread, perhaps something to take into consideration is that people are interpreting what you write differently than you intend.


That is not all that I assert. In addition, and this is perhaps the more salient point, is that what constitutes "imminent" and "credible" is not a one-size-fits-all standard because human beings are not OSFA units. Different people view the same things differently. That is why personal conduct with and among one's fellows is important; that it be carried out with care and an eye to the differences in the perceptual timbre between individuals.

Yes. Exactly! This is precisely what I was talking about as well when I brought up that what constitutes a credible, imminent threat could be disputed, and could require dispute resolution.

In fact, it relates to your frustration in communicating with people who are misinterpreting your intent. It wasn't apparent to me that you were unconcerned about how the argument related to the case.

When people misinterpret what you're saying you've had to clarify and explain that you sometimes "expect too much from people" when it comes to interpreting the subjective perspective that you feel you've infused clearly enough into your writing for them.


Sounds good on paper, but in practice this can be VERY dicey on its best days. If I truly believed that to remain idle would have resulted in death or grave injury private property is unjust and preventing me from using your company car sitting in your reserve lot to visit my dying mother is immoral, who is to authorized to say I acted wrongly by taking it? Not talking about lying or bullshitting in order to avoid rightful culpability for an act of murder theft, but honest-to-god belief. Some will argue that this would let every punk communist get away with murder theft, to which I respond "bullshit" - but even if it were true, better that than to place a single righteous man into a cage. This is another price we pay when we speak of being free men - scoundrels will at times get away with literal murder. But to believe that the world would fall into blindly mad chaos is not credible. It barely qualifies as anorexically plausible.

It sounds good on paper because otherwise all you have is an unresolved conflict.

Let's say someone was utterly paranoid and became nervous simply by being in the vicinity of one of your family members (perhaps due to beliefs along racial lines or something), and ended up killing them for nothing other than a completely bizarre misinterpretation of utterly innocuous behavior that wouldn't have been interpreted as even remotely threatening by virtually anyone else.

Would you dispute that there was a credible and imminent threat? From your perspective it looked much more like aggression against your family member (perhaps due to racial or other bias). The person was truly in fear for their life from their subjective perspective according to their claims, which seems utterly irrational to everyone else, and if they hadn't responded by immediately resorting to (what you may be considering a disproportionate) use of deadly force in comparison to the perceived "threat" and taken another course of action your family member would almost assuredly not be dead.

If someone jumps at every shadow and is truly afraid, can they legitimately apply deadly force in every instance without the legitimacy of the threat being disputed?

If you did dispute their use of force, you have options to resolve the dispute through various methods. If you can't resolve it peacefully between yourselves then bringing a third party in is an option if you don't want the dispute to result in more deadly violence.


Depends on the totality of the facts in evidence. All I was trying to say is that the core idea should not be dismissed in a generalized manner.

Yes, exactly. And I didn't see anyone dismissing the "core idea" that it's legitimate to defend yourself against credible, imminent threats. The controversy isn't around that, it's around what a credible, imminent threat is and how the case relates to the core idea, which is why I responded by talking about the case and explaining that the "core idea" isn't that controversial.

[dannno]

Jesus Neil, they do it every single day of every week of every year since at least 9/11. They shoot people dead and then start nancy-whining about how they felt "threatened".

3 days ago

http://www.independent.com/news/2013/sep/02/police-officer-fatally-shoots-man-knife/

[ClydeCoulter]

I understood @osan completely from his first post. Just Sayin'

[satchelmcqueen]

i agree. hey, its worked for our government. if they can do it, so should i be able to. people shouldnt make threats especially if they live right next to someone. that puts the other person in a complete state of guard.
I doubt this defense will fly, but the man has a legitimate and credible point. It sounds crazy until one stops, takes a breath, engages his brain, and starts examining the interrelationships between the factors involved. When done competently, a very different picture emerges than that which most people appear to hold based on nothing but gut impulse emotionalism, which in turn is almost always based on emotional nonsense bearing no relationship to the real world.

Utterances matter - they are the way we communicate our ideas and intentions to one another. If you tell me that you are going to kill me, all else equal, how am I to know that this is not a true intention and if you in fact hold such an intention the law is clear that I am within my rights to defend myself. If I am unable to tell that you are either joking around or are simply having a momentary lapse in your sense of discretion, what else am I to make of your threat? Am I obliged to assume the risk of being murdered just because the "only" thing you did was threaten me verbally? To suggest this is to demonstrate a hopelessly inadequate understanding of the role of language and all forms of messaging in general.

If we are to assume that people do not mean what they say, chaos would erupt and the world of humanity could not function. If we decide we will assume people do not know what they say only when making such threats against us, we render ourselves largely incapable of defending ourselves properly. Such would turn the world into an even riskier place. I vote no.

It all boils down to personal responsibility for one's actions and the circumspection that it requires. If my neighbor tells me he is going to get his bully boys to "get" me, I see that as a perfectly firm basis for me to plan a preemptive strike to remove the threat, again all else equal. People who run their mouths foolishly need to be allowed to pay for their mistakes, whether that involves a good beating or being killed. I am not entitled to verbally threaten you with impunity. To do so by necessity places myself at risk of possibly losing my life precisely because people must be able to trust what others say or the world ceases to function at a very fundamental level.

[heavenlyboy34]

OK, lessee - I wrote:

[/B]

"All else equal" presumes admittedly much, but I was hoping it would be understood that in general to mean that circumstances supported the perception of a real threat to life, limb, and property. I suppose I expected too much from people.

Am I obliged to shrink away from threats, morally speaking? I say that I am not. If men armed with nothing more than their mouths and some brass demand I leave my house so they can sit down to my dinner, am I obliged to retreat or am I morally authorized to defend against their aggression as I deem fit? If the latter, then the general case can me strongly made, perhaps apodictically so, that I am within my rights to take action in response to any threat against my life, limb, or property. This would include my right to occupy space that may be said to be rightfully mine, the claim superseding those of all others, if those others may even be said to hold any claim whatsoever, which is not likely.


[/B]
Again, I may have assumed too much of readers in that context would be clear. By "foolishly" I meant that they speak or otherwise act in ways that put out messages indicating to those around them that they pose some brand of potential or imminent threat.[B]


Not sure what else to say about this one - if the world were to become a garbled torrent of noise how would I be able to so much as set a foot outside my door without the accompanying terror? Sit back and think about that a bit - not being able to trust a thing that others say for truth. That is the logically absurd extreme of the condition of not communicating properly, with care and regard for how others will receive what you put out.

You wrote:



There are a couple of things at play here, which you appear to be mixing together. Firstly, am I to subsidize your bad day/cranky mood by risking the injuries implied by the ill-advised use of words you chose simply because of that mood? I don't think so. That's like a woman justifying murdering someone because she's on her period and feeling all "hormonal". Doesn't fly too well, eh? If you level a threat against me, you must be prepared for the possible consequences of your action, your bad mood be damned - no?

"Heat of the moment" is similar to the "bad day" and "cranky mood" arguments - none of which justify one's departure from responsible behavior toward his fellows, none of whom are responsible to do the rather difficult book keeping task of peering into their crystal balls and determining whether you are joking.

The "offhand remark" argument - an attempt to defend poorly considered choices of behavior because they are "innocent". Once again, how does one know they are? At times it is readily determinable and at others the task becomes opaque, with plenty of gray in between. Different people will perceive the same situation with the same actors differently. There is no single and absolute standard of "reasonable" with regard to perception and THAT is precisely why onus rests with each of us to check the things we say and do prior to saying or doing them. This takes time, effort, and responsibility for what one thinks, feels, and does and it is one of the things people largely reject with vehemence. Too much work and the accountability aspect is just such a buzz-kill, right? Meanwhile, the rest of us are saddled with the legal burden of having to comply with a standard of behavior that uses the term "reasonable" quite liberally which itself having no connection to anything remotely reasonable. That makes as much sense as two monkeys humping a football.



Yeah, well in a free world that would be the sort of thing that would stand to get them badly hurt or seriously dead one day. Note your use of "aggressive" - does this itself not answer much of your question?



Be careful here. You are attempting to marginalize words apparently because they cannot in themselves jump out of someone's mouth and knock your teeth down your throat. This is a terrible error my friend. Words can be messages in themselves just as are phrases and sentences and so forth. Just as my raising a fist to you or going for a gun are MESSAGES indicating intention, so are words. Once again I return to the fact that if we cannot TRUST the messages emanating from the world around us, we are in very deep and immediate trouble. Were I to drug you in a way that would turn EVERY sensory impulse coming into you to white noise - sound sight, taste, smell, touch - how long do you think it would be before you simply died of the shock? I would bet it would be minutes - probably in the low double digits. Messages are literally LIFE to us and they take all the forms listed. The messages communicated to us by words and the information they bring to us are important. That we disregard this importance by so grossly devaluing the valence and salience of words is a grave risk countless people take every day of their lives. It is a shame upon us all that we are generally so lazy, ignorant, and self-absorbed that we would treat a primary communication method with such shabby disregard.

As to "sticks and stones", you once again make a grave error in confusing or conflating different types of utterances, the basic categories being "fact" and "opinion".

Calling a black man a Knygger is an opinion. Saying all white people should be sent back to Europe is an opinion. Saying I am going to kill you is a statement of fact. It may be a joke - or not seriously offered in any event - but is it nonetheless a statement of fact that carries with it an apparent intention. The credibility of the intention is partly dependent on context as it may be understood by the person on the receiving end of the message. Note the TWO independent variables - context and understanding as it applies to context. Two independent variables tend to complicate linearity (predictability) significantly over situations with only a single variable. This becomes very apparent when one studies any of a number of sciences such as engineering, statistics, computers, and so on. Add a third and complexity and non-linearity rises logarithmically. This presents inherent problems in human relations which are thankfully mitigated greatly by our ability to effectively ignore most of these complications through the filtering mechanisms of the brain - otherwise we would be reduced to non-function in a matter of seconds.

But certain categories of variables stand out to us - such as those related to threats - and we have to constantly assess those daily and the immediately connected factors can at times make that VERY difficult to do. Because of this, it behooves one and all to choose their words and deeds very carefully when interacting with others. Sadly, most people take all this so much for granted and on occasion it comes back to bite them, sometimes fatally. The choice is up to each of us every moment of every day how we are going to comport ourselves through the coming seconds.
The problem I see with your argument is that words alone do not a language make-especially a spoken language. Context is everything in spoken language. (paranthetically, this is how we get doctrines distinguishing "letters of law" from "spirit of law")

[heavenlyboy34]

I understood @osan completely from his first post. Just Sayin'
Some people just accept anything they're told. ;) :P

[osan]

The problem I see with your argument is that words alone do not a language make-especially a spoken language. Context is everything in spoken language. (paranthetically, this is how we get doctrines distinguishing "letters of law" from "spirit of law")

Context is not quite everything, but I agree it is very important. Equally important is understanding. The two, when taken as a dynamic gestalt shape perception in a very major fashion. None of those variables are either constant or standard. People, therefore, can perceive very differently. The Gaussian for perception, modeled in any of a number of ways is likely to show a pretty fat middle indicating a fairly broad range of perceptions close to the mean. Heading outward 3 or even 4 sigmas, you have the outliers - people who will have a very different perception of a given thing or event. If we are to assume that all men are equal in the proper sense of the term, it then must follow that we are obliged to respect the perceptual reality of the outliers just as we do those close to the mean. To suggest otherwise would demand an explanation that I can already tell you will be bloody, ugly, awkward, misshapen, unsupportable in sound reason and logic, and therefore sadly ridiculous on top of all that.

Therefore, if the Meaner's perception of a given event is to be taken as valid, the very different perception of the same event by the outlier is equally valid. We may not agree with the perception, but that is not relevant to the issue at hand. For example science, some people would have us believe, tells us that there are no such things as ghosts. This may be true, but what if it is not? What if there is no possible way to verify the existence of a ghost on the assumption that they in fact do exist? The Meaner, with respect to the issue of being able to perceive ghosts does not detect them and we call him "sane" or "normal". The outlier, with respect to the same issue, sees ghosts and perhaps even communicates with them. In days past, such people were placed against their wishes into squalid nut houses, often drugged and damaged in countless and unimaginably brutal ways. Before that, they were often burned at stakes as witches or at least as having congress with demons and devils. But if in fact those persons are seeing ghosts, then they are in fact normal with respect to the perception of them and the rest of the people are the one's loused up. That aside, does the fact that the meaners cannot do what the outliers do, that their perceptions are different - less capable in such cases - imply that the outlier's right to live and be left alone is somehow forfeit?

The same is true for the person who perceives the childishly casual behaviors of those around him differently to the point where they are unable to tell whether a person saying "I'm going to kill you" is serious. Are we to suggest that this honest perception is invalid and therefore serves as no affirmative defense in the event the outlier is so threatened and responds appropriately? To suggest the answer is "yes" is to accept statistical "democracy" as a valid instrument of political control - whatever the majority perceives, thinks, feels, or wants is to be considered "normal" and therefore "right", anything outside that envelope is "wrong" and if acted upon punished. Do you not see how wildly insane that is? It is barking, raving, perilous lunacy and has NO place in a world of free men, for in such a world the burden of responsibility in ALL THINGS is great.

The Bushi (samurai) understood this far and away better than does the typical modern day American nitwit. Why do you think they did EVERYTHING with such utter care and deliberation? They well understood the hazards of being misunderstood and how easily the variability of human perception and temperament could contribute to such misinterpretation of messages with possibly fatal results. In this very paradoxical way the samurai understood freedom better than most of the people here even, or so it seems at times.

PS: nowhere did I write that words in themselves make language - an obviously flawed statement, but they can of often do carry complete messages of their own.

[osan]

Let's say someone was utterly paranoid and became nervous simply by being in the vicinity of one of your family members (perhaps due to beliefs along racial lines or something), and ended up killing them for nothing other than a completely bizarre misinterpretation of utterly innocuous behavior that wouldn't have been interpreted as even remotely threatening by virtually anyone else.

Would you dispute that there was a credible and imminent threat?

Not so fast. We were talking about PLAUSIBLY credible threats such as someone uttering "I'm going to kill you". That is CLEARLY a threat as it is overt and very explicit. Just standing around, minding one's own business becomes vastly burdensome to credibly construe as an overt threat.

Shame on you for that.



If someone jumps at every shadow and is truly afraid, can they legitimately apply deadly force in every instance without the legitimacy of the threat being disputed?


Once again you are confusing a general state of timidity run wildly amok with someone unable to tell for sure whether the guy who just pulled a knife out is serious when he says he is going to kill you. Same planet, different worlds.


Yes, exactly. And I didn't see anyone dismissing the "core idea" that it's legitimate to defend yourself against credible, imminent threats. The controversy isn't around that, it's around what a credible, imminent threat is and how the case relates to the core idea, which is why I responded by talking about the case and explaining that the "core idea" isn't that controversial.

That is not the core notion to which I referred.

[noneedtoaggress]

Not so fast. We were talking about PLAUSIBLY credible threats such as someone uttering "I'm going to kill you". That is CLEARLY a threat as it is overt and very explicit. Just standing around, minding one's own business becomes vastly burdensome to credibly construe as an overt threat.

Shame on you for that.

Yes, and what is a plausibly credible threat must be subjectively interpreted and can be in dispute. That was the point.

You're saying it's not plausible. They subjectively felt it was. Now there's a dispute.

The shaming comment was unnecessary.


Once again you are confusing a general state of timidity run wildly amok with someone unable to tell for sure whether the guy who just pulled a knife out is serious when he says he is going to kill you. Same planet, different worlds.

Except both the people feeling threatened feel justified in their use of force and "If [they] truly believed that to remain idle would have resulted in death or grave injury, who is to authorized to say [they] acted wrongly?".

I agree with you that they are different worlds. The paranoid person might feel they're more similar than we do. That was also my point.


That is not the core notion to which I referred.

Ok.

[better-dead-than-fed]

words alone do not a language make-especially a spoken language. Context is everything in spoken language.

Is that a threat?

[Neil Desmond]

Jesus Neil, they do it every single day of every week of every year since at least 9/11.
Alright osan, if you want me to buy that, pick one week out of the many weeks between 9/11 and now & tell me what those 7 incidents were in that one week period.


They shoot people dead and then start nancy-whining about how they felt "threatened".
Maybe they're claiming "they felt 'threatened'" because their life actually was threatened. I've seen a video where a cop shoots and kills someone trying to charge after him with a knife, yet there are people out there who claim that this cop shot & killed this guy for no good reason. That person who got shot & killed by that cop probably could've still been alive today, but freely chose to get himself shot & killed. Should I fault that cop for killing him? Basically, no. However, from what I know about that situation, they knew the guy carried a knife & had a criminal record. I don't remember many details, but the guy had a rather long criminal record and I think he had violated his parole or was a suspect for some other crime. This cop is either sent or goes after him by himself. I don't know why they wouldn't always send at least two cops regardless of the situation (i.e., whether or not they knew the person was armed, violent, dangerous, etc.). I don't see why they couldn't have dealt with the situation in other ways; perhaps the guy would still be alive today if the cops had chosen to handle this guy and that situation in a better way.

Anyways, that's not the same as someone pouncing on a neighbor during a barbecue because he didn't approve of what he said. Regardless of whether or not this is just a sociopath with a sociopath lawyer who are just trying to make a mockery out of stand your ground laws, don't you think we ought to be focusing on the fact that at least appearance-wise that seems to be what they're doing? Or, is it better to be eccentric and inconsiderate about the situation & bash cops just for the sake of bashing cops? Cops have nothing to do with this story; stand your ground does.

[enhanced_deficit]

If Jury has pre-emptive Iraq invasion supporters, he could be acquitted.
Otherwise they will have to charg Bush and cabal too.

One noteable difference, 'intel' he used for his attack seems to be first hand and far more factual than that used by Bush to justify attack on Iraq.

[idiom]

Blake survived, even though he had been hit 11 times.

That sounds like a operation planned by Bush.

[Brian4Liberty]

The good old Bush doctrine...still alive and well.