Fireworks, Kids, and the Angry Driver

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:00:34 GMT, DYM > wrote:

(Brent P) wrote in
:
>
>> In article >, DYM wrote:
>>
>>> You are very wrong in your assumptions about me. Where did I ever
>>> indicate fleeing. I do feel that you are entitled to defend yourself.
>>
>> Which is all those persons did, defend themselves instead of running
>> away.
>Self defense is limited to when you (or someone else) are in immediate
>danger. Once the kids started to run, what immediate danger were the car
>guys in?

No, it is not. Take for example the guy who holds a knife to your
wife's throat. You believe it is OK to defend your wife until he
takes it away from her throat, at which point you must stop defending
her. That is not what the law says.

In Illinois I have the right to defend myself from danger, and once I
start that defense, there is nothing that says I have to stop.
Reasonableness means that I should stop when I have the person under
control, not when I can no longer catch him.

On 22 Jul 2005 18:52:56 -0700, "Harry K" >
wrote:

>> So where do you draw the line between self-defense and vigilantism?
>
>Self defense ends when the threat to ones person (or someone else's)
>ends. The threat in the scenario ended the second the kids ran.

I disagree. If those kids had been allowed to escape, there would have
been nothing to stop them from firing more explosives at the victims.

The best way to end the threat would have been to apprehend the
youngsters and turn them over to the authorities. Which is, according
to the report, what the victims were attempting to do.

>Chasing to catch and hold em for the cops is
>legal, beating them isn't.

According to the second report posted, no beating took place.

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> On 22 Jul 2005 18:52:56 -0700, "Harry K" >
> wrote:
>
> >> So where do you draw the line between self-defense and vigilantism?
> >
> >Self defense ends when the threat to ones person (or someone else's)
> >ends. The threat in the scenario ended the second the kids ran.
>
> I disagree. If those kids had been allowed to escape, there would have
> been nothing to stop them from firing more explosives at the victims.
>

Disagree all you want. You aren't going to find any support on the
self-defense question in any court in the land.


> The best way to end the threat would have been to apprehend the
> youngsters and turn them over to the authorities. Which is, according
> to the report, what the victims were attempting to do.
>

Which is why there will be a problem charging the adults with anything.
I just hope the one survivor is charged with something serious.

> >Chasing to catch and hold em for the cops is
> >legal, beating them isn't.
>
> According to the second report posted, no beating took place.

Harry K

"Scott en Aztlán" >
> On 22 Jul 2005 18:52:56 -0700, "Harry K" >
> wrote:
>
>>> So where do you draw the line between self-defense and vigilantism?
>>
>>Self defense ends when the threat to ones person (or someone else's)
>>ends. The threat in the scenario ended the second the kids ran.
>
> I disagree. If those kids had been allowed to escape, there would have
> been nothing to stop them from firing more explosives at the victims.
>
> The best way to end the threat would have been to apprehend the
> youngsters and turn them over to the authorities. Which is, according
> to the report, what the victims were attempting to do.
>
>>Chasing to catch and hold em for the cops is
>>legal, beating them isn't.
>
> According to the second report posted, no beating took place.

I think you'd better re-read it:
"The passenger left the car and chased the boys, who ran in separate
directions. The man tackled Winterhawk and beat him up. He has swelling and
bruises on his face and cuts on his arm, Alexander said. "

Floyd

Arif Khokar > wrote in
:

> DYM wrote:
>
>> John David Galt > wrote in
>> news:dbrp07$s0h$2 @blue.rahul.net:
>
>>>It's not vigilantism when the VICTIM HIMSELF fights attackers, only
>>>when a third party does it.
>
>> It can be by committee or a self-appointed doer of justice. This key
>> is that the doer (?) is acting as cop, judge and jury.
>
> Tell that to the next woman who manages to fight off a would be
> rapist.
> She should just let him do it, from what you're advocating.
>

But, once she's fought him off and his is running away, she does not have
the right to shoot him in the back and kill him.

Doug

Scott en Aztlán > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:21:36 GMT, DYM > wrote:
>
>>John David Galt > wrote in
>>news:dbrp07$s0h$2 @blue.rahul.net:
>>
>>> DYM wrote:
>>>> That would be vigilantism.
>>>
>>> It's not vigilantism when the VICTIM HIMSELF fights attackers, only
>>> when a third party does it.
>>
>>It can be by committee or a self-appointed doer of justice. This key
>>is that the doer (?) is acting as cop, judge and jury.
>
> So where do you draw the line between self-defense and vigilantism?
>
>

Self-defense is, as I said before, when you or someone else is in
imminent danger of life or limb.

Doug

Scott en Aztlán > wrote in
:

> On 22 Jul 2005 18:52:56 -0700, "Harry K" >
> wrote:
>
>>> So where do you draw the line between self-defense and vigilantism?
>>
>>Self defense ends when the threat to ones person (or someone else's)
>>ends. The threat in the scenario ended the second the kids ran.
>
> I disagree. If those kids had been allowed to escape, there would have
> been nothing to stop them from firing more explosives at the victims.
>
> The best way to end the threat would have been to apprehend the
> youngsters and turn them over to the authorities. Which is, according
> to the report, what the victims were attempting to do.
>
>>Chasing to catch and hold em for the cops is
>>legal, beating them isn't.
>
> According to the second report posted, no beating took place.
>
And this whole debate started before that. When the second article what
published reporting no beating taking place, I said that the car guys
were probably right then. The point of crossing the line was the beating.

Doug

On 23 Jul 2005 06:55:23 -0700, "Harry K" >
wrote:

>> The best way to end the threat would have been to apprehend the
>> youngsters and turn them over to the authorities. Which is, according
>> to the report, what the victims were attempting to do.
>
>Which is why there will be a problem charging the adults with anything.
> I just hope the one survivor is charged with something serious.

On that point we agree.

I guess we're both "trolls" now.

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:44:49 GMT, DYM > wrote:

>> The best way to end the threat would have been to apprehend the
>> youngsters and turn them over to the authorities. Which is, according
>> to the report, what the victims were attempting to do.
>>
>>>Chasing to catch and hold em for the cops is
>>>legal, beating them isn't.
>>
>> According to the second report posted, no beating took place.
>>
>And this whole debate started before that. When the second article what
>published reporting no beating taking place, I said that the car guys
>were probably right then. The point of crossing the line was the beating.

And my point was simply that, even if a beating took place, and even
though one of the perps died, this does not erase the fact that the
two punks committed a dangerous crime. Whether or not the victims are
charged with any crimes, the surviving perp DEFINITELY should be.

Scott en Aztlán > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:44:49 GMT, DYM > wrote:
>
>>> The best way to end the threat would have been to apprehend the
>>> youngsters and turn them over to the authorities. Which is, according
>>> to the report, what the victims were attempting to do.
>>>
>>>>Chasing to catch and hold em for the cops is
>>>>legal, beating them isn't.
>>>
>>> According to the second report posted, no beating took place.
>>>
>>And this whole debate started before that. When the second article what
>>published reporting no beating taking place, I said that the car guys
>>were probably right then. The point of crossing the line was the
beating.
>
> And my point was simply that, even if a beating took place, and even
> though one of the perps died, this does not erase the fact that the
> two punks committed a dangerous crime. Whether or not the victims are
> charged with any crimes, the surviving perp DEFINITELY should be.
>
Absolutely!

Doug