New Yorker gets in trouble for defending family

[Q9]

Quote:
If this is the case, it seems to be at least partly a case of a runaway ego (or a bunch of egos) and stubbornness. Honestly, if I had several thugs on my lawn my reaction would be to apologize for any perceived insult, back inside and hide, with my gun, while awaiting the arrival of the police. I wouldn't care who is right or who is wrong when the safety of my family is at stake. What do I care if some thugs thought they won an argument with me and that I am a coward? I'm alive and my family is safe. My self confidence is not so delicate that I care what other people think of me, especially thugs. Also, the thought of a stray bullet hitting an innocent bystander (could even be that cute little kid down the street on his bike...) would haunt me. Is my ego worth their life? This is real life, not the movies, the likelihood of someone being hurt or killed unintentionally is very very high. That's why we have laws about shooting guns in residential areas, it's due to some very sad past events.

Call the cops, it's why we have them.

The thing is, cops are a purely RESPONSIVE force. If the thugs decided to attack the guy and he didn't use that gun, the police wouldn't arrive in time. It's rare that the police manage to break up an attempted homicide. That's what we have guns for.

The fact that it was likely that they were MS-13 only further justifies his actions in my book. You don't back down and try to appease gangsters; they'll kill you anyway. You stand up to them and show them that you have the power and the will to KILL them. Gangsters only speak two languages: Force and money. Frankly, using force is much simpler, since they won't be back to demand more.

 

[Q9]

Quote:
They were IN HIS YARD. Besides, they continued to threaten him even after he brought out the gun.

What this is basically saying is that, if I see a group of likely gang members on my lawn THREATENING ME, it's not self defense for me to walk away and grab the shotgun, and come back with force. Did I get that right?

 

[mom'sfolly]

Yep, that's right. And that is the way the law is written. If you can leave the situation, you are not in immediate danger.

 

[Q9]

mom'sfolly :

Yep, that's right. And that is the way the law is written. If you can leave the situation, you are not in immediate danger.

I don't think it counts as "leaving the situation" when they're RIGHT OUTSIDE YOUR DOOR, yelling threats at you and your family. By that logic, if there's a guy in one room and I dash across the house to grab the gun, I've "left the situation." I'm CLEARLY not in immediate danger, because I'm not DEAD OR MAIMED. Basically, what you're saying is that, unless you have the gun ON you or right next to you, it's not self defense. Again, these guys were probably MS-13, and a good number were likely armed.​

 

[mom'sfolly]

Excuse me, but how do you know there were people right outside the door?

Just curious?

 

[nonseq]

No report says anyone was right outside the door.

The unruly ones were in the front yard. Probably milling about on and around the sidewalk. Far enough away that the homeowner felt comfortable shooting into the ground in front of them.

 

[PineappleMama]

And his 'dash' wasn't just inside the door... he went inside, through at least one area, up the stairs, down the hall, into a room, grabbed a weapon (I hope he had it put up/locked for family's safety but it wasn't mentioned so maybe it was just lying loose so it was a fast stop) then back to the hall, back down the stairs, back through the living/etc and out the door... oh and he took time to yell at his wife to call the cops... but chose not to wait for them to arrive before escalating the situation by bringing a deadly weapon into the fray.

So, yeah if I was on a jury, I would consider that leaving the scene... and then purposely returning to it.

I suppose one of the goobs might have had a molotov cocktail ready to throw (think he would have mentioned that if they had, but let's assume) then he could have easily shot the person from the window, from the door, etc. I donno why in the world he'd walk back out there if he really was afraid these 25 guys were going to rush him... y'all said this fires singles... how many is he really going to be able to take down before they reach him if they did charge?? One more reason I think hasty... that just does NOT seem the logical choice at all.

*shrug*

edited because he didn't seek out his wife but only hollared for her... my bad. *blush*

 

[welsummerchicks]

You would get away with it in Kentucky, MAYBE, depending on the circumstances, but definitely not New York.

And yes, he left the scene. It doesn't matter if you leave the scene for one second or thirty. If you left, the law says you could have just kept on the way you were going and not shot your gun, and that you made a choice to go get your gun, go back and shoot your gun in someone's general direction. Which is not self defense.

Self defense is when you stay there, and the person is coming at you, and you match the amount and type of force the person coming at you is showing. If he has fists, and you have a gun, it don't match. If he has a knife and you have a gun, it don't match. If he's irritable and disagreeable and using Anglo-Saxon terminology freely, and you have a gun, that don't match either.

If that gun was an unregistered gun, for any purpose, in New York, you'd be in very deep doo doo. They take that very seriously there. The dialogue would go, 'He came at me screaming and I was in fear for my life so I got my gun and...' 'Was it a registered, or an unregistered gun?' 'Unregistered, like I said, the guy came at me and I was...' 'Please do come this way sir, we have a lovely olive drab suite for you with grill work in the front right nearby in a little neighbor called Rikers Island'.

That's how it works. If one feels the law currently works otherwise, one needs to do a little research.

Should it work otherwise? Probably not. Unless you want people to feel they should shoot at YOU more often, as well as get away with it. As I recall, in the 'good old days' when men were men and cigarettes were hand rolled and everything looked like a John Wayne movie, not many people lived past 30.

 

[Q9]

Quote:
You need to do a little more research into that era.

Believe it or not, violent crime was EXTEREMELY uncommon in the West, murder was strikingly rare, and rape was almost unheard of. In the actual Dodge city, there were only 5 killings in 1878, the most homicidal year in its history. Fewer than a dozen bank robberies occurred in the ENTIRE "Wild" West from 1859-1900. That means there are more bank robberies in one year in Dayton, Ohio than there were in several decades on the Frontier. There were only 45 homicides in the 5 major cattle towns - Abilene, Caldwell, Dodge City, Ellsworth, and Wichita - COMBINED, between 1870 and 1885. Compare this to gun-ban Chicago.

As historian Watson Parker writes, "When everybody has a gun on his hip, they tend to avoid confrontation."

 

[Q9]

Quote:

I consider being on a lawn in New York being right outside the door.