Maybe some gun nut can help me with this. If the teen had, say an AR15 because he was concerned about running into some wild hogs. If he ducked down and started firing back in a clearly self defense situation, would he fine in doing this?
Your scenario actually highlights a good point, what kind of society do we want to live in? Some western everyone for them selves, shoot first talk later, or do we want to live in a civilized society?
My belief is that guns in general make us less safe. Both of the individuals in this story would be safer if neither had any guns. As well as the entire neighborhood, would also be safer without guns.
I’ll take the civilized society please. Unfortunately I seem to be surrounded by people who think they’re the badass, and they advocate for their ideal Wild West shoot first world from the comfort of their suburban home.
I’m sure you have a ready list to support a bold statement like that, and that they are all desirable places to live. I remind you that you said NO crime.
There theoretically could be a situation where two people shoot at each other and both can claim self-defense, but it would be convoluted.
Self defense does not apply if a person legally provokes the attacker. Now legal provocation means committing a crime, not telling a yo mama joke. As an example, if I try to rob a bank and someone starts shooting at me, I can’t claim self defense because I provoked them by robbing a bank.
So in this case, depends on if the trespassing is a crime that would count as legal provocation. If not, delivery guy is allowed to return fire. And I hope every sane person agrees it is not a provocation or a crime.
Edit: So in this case, the only provocation could be trespassing, if parking in some ones driveway counted. Which it almost certainly does not as explained in replies to this comment. In addition, I am not sure trespassing would qualify as provocation, this may depend on state laws and the details of the trespass.
Edit 2: Just to make it even clearer, the answer is yes. I believe the delivery driver could legally return fire, but I am not a lawyer.
Pulling into someone’s driveway isn’t trespassing as a general rule, unless you know they don’t want you there.
Trespass at its heart is legally something you need to have had intent to do. “No trespassing” signs or verbal warnings to leave inform someone that this is land they aren’t wanted on, so are pretty important in proving trespassing.
This is also why door-to-door salesman and missionaries aren’t sued out of existence. Both use the land in an attempt to offer something to the owner, its a legitimate use, as long as they leave when told.
But since the delivery man believed he had explicit permission, since he thought this was the house that ordered a pizza, it’s perfectly legal. He just would’ve had to leave when he was told to go.
But the pizza man did nothing to provoke shooting, so I expect the owner gets no self-defense argument here. Just the pizza guy.
This would not be criminal trespassing though. They would have to have been told to leave then, given an appropriate amount of time to leave, they refuse to do so, you now have a criminal trespass. Just pulling into someone’s driveway isn’t gonna cut it. Everyone has the legal right to enter your open property for the purpose of contacting you.
If that asshole didn’t wanted anyone in his driveway he should have a good fence with a door, not an open one. As it has it (and with his trigger happy response) it’s not s driveway but a honeypot.
Yeah people like him, even if they somehow haven’t really broke the law, need to be labeled as dangerous to society. Like, shooting someone for pulling in your driveway? That is insanity. This person is definitely not stable enough to just be loose in society.
It’s not just theoretical. Kyle Rittenhouse shot Gaige Grosskreutz and successfully claimed self-defense because Grosskreutz incidentally pointed his gun at Rittenhouse because he was moving his hands around while he was attempting to deescalate the situation. If that’s true, then on the other side, Grosskreutz could’ve shot Rittenhouse and also met the standard for self-defense. After all, Rittenhouse pointed his gun at him after he’d already greased two other dudes. In that case, “self-defense” was just a matter of who shot first.
Absolutely no. Gaige Grosskreutz would not be able to claim self defense exactly for the reason I explained. You don’t get to claim self defense immediately after assaulting and battering someone. That counts as provocation.
That would be true even if Rittenhouse no longer had a claim of self defense (for example because Grosskreutz visibly stopped attacking), since as I wrote, those are two different things.
That being said, I don’t think he would have a valid self defense claim against Rittenhouse after running up to him with a gun and pointing it at him. But I am not sure on this one.
Obviously, neither of us is a court of law, but to me, the law around self-defense is based around an individual’s subjective perception of danger. Grosskreutz perceived an active shooter situation, and thus it would have been eminently reasonable for him to shoot RIttenhouse on sight. Instead, he approached with the intent to de-escalate, but it would also have been reasonable to shoot when Rittenhouse pointed the weapon at him. But, as you say, Rittenhouse perceived another threat charging at him with a gun, and a court of law did find reasonable grounds for self-defense. Each man perceived a threat for which the law allows a deadly response, and that’s why I say the law is messed up.
Yes, as I wrote earlier it is theoretically possible.
That being said, the subjective here is subjective perception (what you see, hear, …), not subjective evaluation of that perception. So IMO perceiving that someone shot someone else without seeing what preceded that absolutely does not give you the right to shoot immediately. Objectively evaluating that perception, it could be a murderer, or self defense, or an undercover cop. You do not have the justification to fire unless you see them threatening you, or someone who you actually perceived to not be a threat.
The way I see it, appearing threatening goes with carrying a gun. If you choose to carry, you need to be responsible for your appearance to the surrounding. As an example, aim a gun at a cop and it does not matter whether it is intentional, unintentional or even outside your control due to a medical condition. You will likely be turned into swiss cheese. It is your duty not to point your gun at people. The duty comes with the right to carry a gun. If you are unable to do so, maybe consider not carrying.
Also, I personally like how many European nations only allow concealed carry. This way, you don’t create tense and possibly dangerous situations unnecessarily. You only reveal your weapon when you intend to use it.
Finally, what is the alternative to subjective perception? Oh, the terrorists gun was not loaded. You had no way to know but you go to jail, because objectively he was not a threat? That does not make sense.
Both subjective and objective evaluation of your subjective perception is the current requirement and IMO the reasonable one.
Of course, there are always details that could be improved.
On the presumption that robbing a bank is always an armed robbery, yeah, the law is likely going to tolerate parties using violence to stop the robbery if they think they are preventing harm.
Trespassing with intent to deliver a pizza is not going to cut it as justification since nobody was in physical danger. Probably not even in Texas since no property was in danger. He wasn’t even warned to exit the property, and he wasn’t fired on until he was leaving.
IANAL but there is absolutely no chance of a self-defense claim here. His best move will be to take whatever plea bargain his lawyer can get.
You are confusing two different questions here. Whether someone is justified to shoot the robber in the bank and whether the robber is justified to defend themselves if they are attacked (fired upon).
Yes, it would have to be armed robbery to justify shooting at the robber, and even then that alone may not be enough. (IANAL, depends on state, it’s complicated)
On the other hand, even in an unarmed robbery, the robber does not have a claim of self-defense if they injure/kill a guard trying to stop them.
I was talking about whether the delivery driver was allowed to return fire, not if the homeowner was allowed to shoot them, which is somewhat unexpectedly not the same thing.
By the way, another interesting and unintuitive law is felony murder. Lets say you rob a bank with a permanent marker, pretending it is a gun. You obviously do not intend to harm anyone. However, lets say a cop shoots at you thinking it is a gun, misses you and kills a bystander behind you. You can go to jail for felony murder, because you created the dangerous situation by committing a felony (the bank robbery) and the bystander died as a result of that dangerous situation.
I don’t know about the law, but morally he would have been fully justified in returning fire. Getting your attacker to take cover forces them to stop firing at you. That’s the utility of “covering fire”.
However, his best move overall was driving away. Returning fire while driving away would have been fine, but delaying his leaving to stop and return fire would have had no benefit.
Maybe some gun nut can help me with this. If the teen had, say an AR15 because he was concerned about running into some wild hogs. If he ducked down and started firing back in a clearly self defense situation, would he fine in doing this?
Or does it depend on the color of his skin?
Nevermind the racial part.
Your scenario actually highlights a good point, what kind of society do we want to live in? Some western everyone for them selves, shoot first talk later, or do we want to live in a civilized society?
My belief is that guns in general make us less safe. Both of the individuals in this story would be safer if neither had any guns. As well as the entire neighborhood, would also be safer without guns.
I’ll take the civilized society please. Unfortunately I seem to be surrounded by people who think they’re the badass, and they advocate for their ideal Wild West shoot first world from the comfort of their suburban home.
They always live in the dullest suburb.
Yes I’m sure this rant is based on reality and not just matching the pattern of “classic anti freedom rant sequence #63”
“They’re stupid people”
“And they’re dumb!”
“And I bet they eat their boogers”
“They totally do”
Deep thoughts indeed
Yeah I don’t think I will… This isn’t happening in a vacuum.
It’s not but he was making the point that you don’t even need to have that aspect included and it’s still coming off terribly
guns don’t kill people… stupid does.
there are countries with guns AND no crime.
Yes. That’s why you need to make sure there’s no stupid involved when you sell a gun, and the US seem to fail pretty hard at that.
I’m sure you have a ready list to support a bold statement like that, and that they are all desirable places to live. I remind you that you said NO crime.
Not a valid support for this statement, among other things.
That’s funny I view “everyone for themselves” as the definition of a civilized society.
There theoretically could be a situation where two people shoot at each other and both can claim self-defense, but it would be convoluted.
Self defense does not apply if a person legally provokes the attacker. Now legal provocation means committing a crime, not telling a yo mama joke. As an example, if I try to rob a bank and someone starts shooting at me, I can’t claim self defense because I provoked them by robbing a bank.
So in this case, depends on if the trespassing is a crime that would count as legal provocation. If not, delivery guy is allowed to return fire. And I hope every sane person agrees it is not a provocation or a crime.Edit: So in this case, the only provocation could be trespassing, if parking in some ones driveway counted. Which it almost certainly does not as explained in replies to this comment. In addition, I am not sure trespassing would qualify as provocation, this may depend on state laws and the details of the trespass.
Edit 2: Just to make it even clearer, the answer is yes. I believe the delivery driver could legally return fire, but I am not a lawyer.
Pulling into someone’s driveway isn’t trespassing as a general rule, unless you know they don’t want you there.
Trespass at its heart is legally something you need to have had intent to do. “No trespassing” signs or verbal warnings to leave inform someone that this is land they aren’t wanted on, so are pretty important in proving trespassing.
This is also why door-to-door salesman and missionaries aren’t sued out of existence. Both use the land in an attempt to offer something to the owner, its a legitimate use, as long as they leave when told.
But since the delivery man believed he had explicit permission, since he thought this was the house that ordered a pizza, it’s perfectly legal. He just would’ve had to leave when he was told to go.
But the pizza man did nothing to provoke shooting, so I expect the owner gets no self-defense argument here. Just the pizza guy.
This is where the part about skin color comes into play… E.g. Trayvon Martin
This would not be criminal trespassing though. They would have to have been told to leave then, given an appropriate amount of time to leave, they refuse to do so, you now have a criminal trespass. Just pulling into someone’s driveway isn’t gonna cut it. Everyone has the legal right to enter your open property for the purpose of contacting you.
I don’t disagree. Sorry if it sounded I did. I just did not want to state it with certainty as I am not read up on trespassing laws.
oh sorry if i came off rude, or snippy, I was just trying to put in some more info on the subject.
No, it was my fault for wording it misleadingly :) I will edit it to clear it up
You guys are nice. It’s nice.
If that asshole didn’t wanted anyone in his driveway he should have a good fence with a door, not an open one. As it has it (and with his trigger happy response) it’s not s driveway but a honeypot.
Yeah people like him, even if they somehow haven’t really broke the law, need to be labeled as dangerous to society. Like, shooting someone for pulling in your driveway? That is insanity. This person is definitely not stable enough to just be loose in society.
Also what kind of idiot starts shit from his own front door?
It’s not just theoretical. Kyle Rittenhouse shot Gaige Grosskreutz and successfully claimed self-defense because Grosskreutz incidentally pointed his gun at Rittenhouse because he was moving his hands around while he was attempting to deescalate the situation. If that’s true, then on the other side, Grosskreutz could’ve shot Rittenhouse and also met the standard for self-defense. After all, Rittenhouse pointed his gun at him after he’d already greased two other dudes. In that case, “self-defense” was just a matter of who shot first.
American law be all sorts of fucked.
Absolutely no. Gaige Grosskreutz would not be able to claim self defense exactly for the reason I explained. You don’t get to claim self defense immediately after assaulting and battering someone. That counts as provocation.That would be true even if Rittenhouse no longer had a claim of self defense (for example because Grosskreutz visibly stopped attacking), since as I wrote, those are two different things.Grosskreutz did not touch, attack, or batter Rittenhouse. You must be thinking about Anthony Huber, who hit Rittenhouse with a skateboard.
You seem to be correct, I misremembered.
That being said, I don’t think he would have a valid self defense claim against Rittenhouse after running up to him with a gun and pointing it at him. But I am not sure on this one.
Obviously, neither of us is a court of law, but to me, the law around self-defense is based around an individual’s subjective perception of danger. Grosskreutz perceived an active shooter situation, and thus it would have been eminently reasonable for him to shoot RIttenhouse on sight. Instead, he approached with the intent to de-escalate, but it would also have been reasonable to shoot when Rittenhouse pointed the weapon at him. But, as you say, Rittenhouse perceived another threat charging at him with a gun, and a court of law did find reasonable grounds for self-defense. Each man perceived a threat for which the law allows a deadly response, and that’s why I say the law is messed up.
Yes, as I wrote earlier it is theoretically possible.
That being said, the subjective here is subjective perception (what you see, hear, …), not subjective evaluation of that perception. So IMO perceiving that someone shot someone else without seeing what preceded that absolutely does not give you the right to shoot immediately. Objectively evaluating that perception, it could be a murderer, or self defense, or an undercover cop. You do not have the justification to fire unless you see them threatening you, or someone who you actually perceived to not be a threat.
The way I see it, appearing threatening goes with carrying a gun. If you choose to carry, you need to be responsible for your appearance to the surrounding. As an example, aim a gun at a cop and it does not matter whether it is intentional, unintentional or even outside your control due to a medical condition. You will likely be turned into swiss cheese. It is your duty not to point your gun at people. The duty comes with the right to carry a gun. If you are unable to do so, maybe consider not carrying.
Also, I personally like how many European nations only allow concealed carry. This way, you don’t create tense and possibly dangerous situations unnecessarily. You only reveal your weapon when you intend to use it.
Finally, what is the alternative to subjective perception? Oh, the terrorists gun was not loaded. You had no way to know but you go to jail, because objectively he was not a threat? That does not make sense.
Both subjective and objective evaluation of your subjective perception is the current requirement and IMO the reasonable one.
Of course, there are always details that could be improved.
On the presumption that robbing a bank is always an armed robbery, yeah, the law is likely going to tolerate parties using violence to stop the robbery if they think they are preventing harm.
Trespassing with intent to deliver a pizza is not going to cut it as justification since nobody was in physical danger. Probably not even in Texas since no property was in danger. He wasn’t even warned to exit the property, and he wasn’t fired on until he was leaving.
IANAL but there is absolutely no chance of a self-defense claim here. His best move will be to take whatever plea bargain his lawyer can get.
You are confusing two different questions here. Whether someone is justified to shoot the robber in the bank and whether the robber is justified to defend themselves if they are attacked (fired upon).
Yes, it would have to be armed robbery to justify shooting at the robber, and even then that alone may not be enough. (IANAL, depends on state, it’s complicated)
On the other hand, even in an unarmed robbery, the robber does not have a claim of self-defense if they injure/kill a guard trying to stop them.
I was talking about whether the delivery driver was allowed to return fire, not if the homeowner was allowed to shoot them, which is somewhat unexpectedly not the same thing.
By the way, another interesting and unintuitive law is felony murder. Lets say you rob a bank with a permanent marker, pretending it is a gun. You obviously do not intend to harm anyone. However, lets say a cop shoots at you thinking it is a gun, misses you and kills a bystander behind you. You can go to jail for felony murder, because you created the dangerous situation by committing a felony (the bank robbery) and the bystander died as a result of that dangerous situation.
I don’t know about the law, but morally he would have been fully justified in returning fire. Getting your attacker to take cover forces them to stop firing at you. That’s the utility of “covering fire”.
However, his best move overall was driving away. Returning fire while driving away would have been fine, but delaying his leaving to stop and return fire would have had no benefit.
Again, not sure what the laws says here.