Would you respond with deadly force to an attack like this?

[Remek]

Vice: immoral/wicked behavior

Versus: in comparison to/against/contrast with.

Now, when we get beyond the attacks on everything, and get to the core, i still need your case law. And i should also remind you that being a military comtractor, you are under federal laws, not VA law, and thus, although they may be similar, they are not the same.

Help me please and show me why its fine to shoot them in the back? Case law i can confirm? If not, your assertions just do not have any weight, and it is your vitriol which is incriminating of your knowledge.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[gunderwood]

My search has been relatively quick and dirty, as you apparently know differently and will bring case law to bear that outweighs this, but the following case:

COMMONWEALTH of Virginia, v. Victoria Shelton SANDS. Record No. 010071.-- November 02, 2001

Is not the same as there was sufficient time elapsed to take other actions. In the hypothetical, we were discussing that the original attack created AOI/fear and it would be reasonable to respond to that attack with deadly force. At some point that attack is obviously over with and the victim could not go hunt down the attackers and claim SD as this woman wanted to do. The claim was that the original attack is not necessarily over with immediately after the punch was delivered. It is reasonable for the victim to respond with deadly force until it's clear the attack has stopped. What's not clear is exactly when that occurs. In this case it was clear because the shooter had time to go get the gun, etc. In the hypothetical, I'm shooting within a second or two of the first punch. I made up numbers for illustration (up to 5 seconds I believe), but it's not a strict time limit. When the victim has reason to believe the attack has stopped, they must stop. Generally, that is summarized in AOI.

Clearly then, from this case, however badly decided, there is a point where cessation of attack indicates that there is no longer an "imminent threat". Obviously, the point is not a fixed time or distance as Mr. Gunderwood believes so firmly. I bet the guy was within 21 feet of the woman the whole time they were in that house. 21 feet has naught to do with it. (If it does, show me the case law, because I am sure the attorneys would have brought this up in the arguments here.)

Please re-read what I said about the 21ft rule. I never said it was hard and fast, but rather it was an example of a commonly held requirement by LE for the limit of non-range based weapons to be considered Opportunity. It's entirely possible to unlawfully shoot someone under 21ft, just as it is possible to kill someone in SD over 21ft. The attack in question had the attackers using non-range based weapons, so I pointed out that the general LE rule of 21ft was still met for several seconds. That alone doesn't justify anything, but it's a piece to the puzzle since that guy was attacked. It's hard to say, but likely Intent goes away before Opportunity does, but we're pushing really hard on a lot of unknowns. Not worth staking a case on details which didn't occur. Merely illustration.

However, even this case does not solve the present situation. The question to be resolved is, under the circumstance of a sucker-punch, followed immediate retreat, at what point is it no longer reasonable for the victim to determine that the assailant is a threat of great bodily injury or death?

You're reading far too much into what the victim knew at the time of attack. The law isn't suppose to do that. It's not clear to the victim at the time of attack that it was just a sucker punch, nor that the threat was immediately retreating, etc.

As I was explaining, if you know that the attacker is retreating and you shoot, it's not justified SD. It's not because the attackers Intent is now known and it's not to cause death or grave bodily harm. You must put yourself in the victims place and only use what they know for a fact at the time of attack. You're unfairly using information you know and was gathered after the attack from a third party (the camera). The victim doesn't know this when their chance to react occurs.

Odds are that if you didn't get knocked out by the punch, you started reacting before it landed and thus were able to block or dodge some or all of the blow. During which time it is reasonable to fear for your life so you are starting to draw a firearm, or knife, or even just your hands/feet if you're trained in martial arts. The attacker doesn't immediately just go away, they're right there in front/on top of you. Their momentum can't stop instantaneously, even if the low frame rate of the video makes it appear nearly like that. There is some time whereby the victim is reacting to the attack and is fighting back until it is clear the attack has stopped. That's not a zero time and the number of rounds a person can get off is highly variable. I stated the best case numbers for me personally, but under stress who knows (FYI, been there done that…had real guns shot at me but with blanks, although I didn't really know that at the time).

I do not know, and that is why I again argue that its not right to shoot this guy in the back.

It may or may not. What it's not is proof that the victim murdered the attacker or committed assault with a deadly weapon based solely on the fact that in the hypothetical, rounds may have entered through the attackers back. I could see it happening based on the situation before the Intent of the attacker became obvious to the victim. Real gunfights are not clean events. Seen enough real gunfights on film in training and their aftermath in person (e.g. armored vehicles) to know crazy stuff happens in real life.

The statement you made that I objected to was that rounds in the back are "prima facie" evidence of murder or assault with a deadly weapon. My point was to provide counter examples, which are wholly incomplete in the possible ways this may legally happen, whereby rounds in the back are not "prima facie" evidence, aka on the face of it, evidence that the victim committed murder or assault. That's it. The investigation will look into and try and determine when the attacked stopped, based on any of the three, Ability, Opportunity, and Intent becoming void. A shot in the back at the end of the ally is likely murder, but a shot in the back at 3ft is likely the attacker getting spun around from the missed/blocked blow. Remember that the original premise changed the actual situation because you can't fight back if you're out cold before you realized the attack was occurring.

[gunderwood]

Vice: immoral/wicked behavior
Versus: in comparison to/against/contrast with.

vice also is latin for "in place of" and used correctly when substituting vice comparing. You are correct about the latin versus, which is also where we get vice versa, which is basically the substitution of comparisons of judgements. E.g. I don't like person X, but they feel the same about me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(V)

vice in place of "one who acts in place of another"; can be used as a separate word, or as a hyphenated prefix: "Vice President" and "Vice-Chancellor".

No worries, it's not the first time I've been asked about it tonight.
If someone can show otherwise though, please let me know as I'm always trying to improve myself.

Now, when we get beyond the attacks on everything, and get to the core, i still need your case law.

Usually I do, as the K-man alluded too. However, I can not prove a non-negatable statement/event. It's logically impossible. I provided this to the book writer already.

You do realize it's impossible to prove a non-negatable statement/event, right? This is logic 101.

Consider the following…

1. To prove that shot placement is prima facie evidence that the shooter committed murder or assault with a deadly weapon solely because a shot entered the back of the attacker, even though AOI and fear of death or grave bodily harm were present (if they aren't it's a crime regardless of where the shot enters), you need a case where this happened and a guilty verdict based on that premise. That's what you must present as it would prove your case. I'm not doing your leg work for you. Besides, you've read every SD/HD case that's ever occurred in our wonderful states history, so surely you have that information available.

2. On the other hand, I can not negate that and provide a case whereby, to the best of my knowledge, the specific event in question has never actually occurred. Even if such a case was brought forth (again, I know of none in VA), a non-guilt verdict would also prove my point. A corollary example would be that OC is legal in VA because no statue prohibits it. I can not negate that and prove that OC is legal by statue, although you could prove it's illegal by providing a statue (non-exists, but you get the point).

Put simply, if I'm right there won't be any case to provide and since juries don't typically write long justifications for their verdicts, it would be nearly impossible to prove they acquitted based on those facts alone.

You're slick, but you're making that claim, not I. You owe the proof.

And i should also remind you that being a military comtractor, you are under federal laws, not VA law, and thus, although they may be similar, they are not the same.

Yes, which vary depending on the authorities under which the are arming you. I carry their gun for SD only. Their lawyers own words are that they modeled the rules to mimic state laws. Upon comparison they are virtually identical to VA (not surprised). I never said they were the same, but that they were nearly the same for my circumstances. Also, that was a side point and only brought up as backfilled for the more important claims regarding tactical training for war zones. It should be obvious that things are different in a war zone, but as a non-combatant civilian, I only get to act in SD. That SD must be justifiable and the powers that be decided the most defensible case was to virtually copy state laws.

Help me please and show me why its fine to shoot them in the back?

Read above and re-read what I said. I was only ever explaining why shots in the back were not "prima facie" evidence of murder or assault with a deadly weapon, which was your claim. It may or may not depending on the circumstances. I've provided many such circumstances whereby the victim is acting in lawful SD, but shots may enter in via the attackers back. Certainly they are low probability and the responding LEA's will look closely at that evidence.

If not, your assertions just do not have any weight, and it is your vitriol which is incriminating of your knowledge.

I believe I've argued firmly, very much so, but I don't believe I have resorted to ad hominem attacks or other fallacies to bully the reader into accepting an unproven point. No vitriol implied. If I'm wrong, please quote me.

[Remek]

Holy cow, there is just so much to write about i cannot go further.

Please, third party reader, dont shoot someone in the back so willy nilly. Make sure the person is still an imminent threat.

G: i dont think you understand what prima facie evidence is. If you did you would not be arguing that other things could be going on. I now realize that you know nothing of case law but what a federal attorney said about it. Trust me, your federal attorney didnt give you enough to assess this. I always tell people to read the case law statutes the attorney is relying upon, because you are the one with your money and intrests on the line, not the attorney. I think you should do the same.

Thanks for the heads up on vice. i suggest you italicize it in the future because it is a real word in English, and has the English meaning when differentiated by italics.

Also, you'd be much more persuasive if you didnt try to fight every word said. All you do is annoy when you try to attack any comparison made.

Last, case law need not be on point, because you can analogize it, as I did in my previous post.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Remek]

^^^correction ..... when not differentiated by italics.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[j1mmyd]

I'm steering clear of the legal debate on this, but I have a couple thoughts:

1. I'd like to see these cowardly little savages charged with attempted murder and whatever hate crimes can be lumped in. (Yes, the game is called "knockout" but we all know if I were walking up punching out random Sons of Barack, thats how I'd be charged.)

2. This is how a race war begins. Needs to be squashed and FAST. (One of the victims was a woman...)

3. Free redneck high School football team bus tours to these cities. "Vendetta Tours, Ltd." (<<-- OK, this one is silly.)

[gunderwood]

Please, third party reader, dont shoot someone in the back so willy nilly. Make sure the person is still an imminent threat.

Who has argued anything but this in the entire thread? If you think anyone has, please re-read the thread.

G: i dont think you understand what prima facie evidence is. If you did you would not be arguing that other things could be going on. I now realize that you know nothing of case law but what a federal attorney said about it. Trust me, your federal attorney didnt give you enough to assess this. I always tell people to read the case law statutes the attorney is relying upon, because you are the one with your money and intrests on the line, not the attorney. I think you should do the same.

I have at various times in my life for various reasons. Currently tracking a few cases, this is one such that some here may find interesting as it pertains to OC: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/di ... 2/53/0.pdf

As in this case, anyone can claim it as prima facie evidence, but as the court appears to have correctly done in this case (haven't finished reading it yet), rejected that claim as false. So far the OCer should win IMHO, but not based on that fact.

Like everyone but our book writer, I don't even remotely have enough time to have read all the cases of interest.

Thanks for the heads up on vice. i suggest you italicize it in the future because it is a real word in English, and has the English meaning when differentiated by italics.

Fair. Based on the number of people who asked about it, perhaps it shouldn't be used solely to avoid confusion.

Also, you'd be much more persuasive if you didnt try to fight every word said. All you do is annoy when you try to attack any comparison made.quote="Remek"]
That may be true, but it's far easier to make allegations than disprove them.

Last, case law need not be on point, because you can analogize it, as I did in my previous post.

Absolutely. If we were to amend the situation to say they hit the victim, then walked away, the victim then drew his gun and went after them, sure it fits. The original attack ended.

I think that may be why you two keep asserting that I'm saying it's ok to "shoot someone in the back so willy nilly." My argument was always the AOI/fear must be satisfied, which by definition is "Make[ing] sure the person is still an imminent threat." AOI/fear is really just the short hand for more complex legal standard (it's a cliff notes version), but if you thought this thread was already long.

The problem with all hypothetical situations is that people see two different events. If you really think I'm arguing to shoot someone in the back out of malice, we're arguing about two different situations. I've posted at length, the situation as I see it potentially playing out in a case where the victim is lawfully able to use deadly force. Exactly because the threat is still imminent. As soon as the victim is able to respond or act against the threat, the situation changes. We don't know for sure what the threat/victim may or may not have done or how quickly they could do it.

If by the time the victim can adequately respond with their firearm (or any other deadly force such as martial arts, etc.) the threat has indeed walked away, I nor anyone else on this thread would be shooting. No one has claimed that, so don't read malice into their words. We'd call the police. However, the original attack IMHO, did satisfy the response of deadly force from the victim, per AOI/fear, for as long as necessary to stop the threat. At that point we've changed the situation and it will no longer play out as it did on video. All the events that occurred on the video will no longer occur in that way and we must hypothesize what happens next (see my other posts).

If the victim is quick, they will in all likelihood be able to fightback before the threat has made it clear they are retreating. Strictly speaking, we don't know that they would have since failure to knockout the victim is a dishonor just as knocking them out is "honorable" in this game (the victim doesn't even know it's a game, they just know they're under attack). Upon failing they may have felt compelled to continue the attack. We don't know. Regardless of what the attacker did next, the victim is already committed to acting in SD and "several seconds" will likely go by until they are able to accurately re-assess the situation. During those several seconds they may engage with deadly force and IMHO, would not be wrong to do so. In the case of a firearm, those rounds may or may not hit their target. Those that hit may enter the side, the back, the top, the bottom, etc. of the threat. What matters was that AOI/fear were met and the victim accurately responded with deadly force.

Please describe how that hypothetical is "shoot[ing] someone in the back so willy nilly."

[arlington22201]

I am about halfway down page 3 of this thread. I just want to say that it is this type of debate and all that I learn from reading it, that I really value from this forum. I am off to church now, but can't wait to get back to read the rest.

Thank you Remek, Gunderwood, and Lawofselfdefense for the high level of discussion.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[gunderwood]

I am about halfway down page 3 of this thread. I just want to say that it is this type of debate and all that I learn from reading it, that I really value from this forum. I am off to church now, but can't wait to get back to read the rest.

Thank you Remek, Gunderwood, and Lawofselfdefense for the high level of discussion.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Glad someone other than me is getting thought provoking enjoyment out of it. It serves it's purpose if people think longer and harder about the situation and the why's of their response. Hopefully, none of us ever have to actually face the situation.

[allingeneral]

My search has been relatively quick and dirty, as you apparently know differently and will bring case law to bear that outweighs this, but the following case:

COMMONWEALTH of Virginia, v. Victoria Shelton SANDS. Record No. 010071.-- November 02, 2001

indicates that cessation of attack/attempted attack may not be imminent, even when it is clear that the next attack is going to come, and likely very soon, and with deadly force.

Here, we see that a woman, repeatedly attacked by her husband, and clearly threatened with death, and literally shot next to while on the ground, may be no longer imminent when the husband has gone about doing something else:

I don't want to steal this thread from the "shooting in the back" avenue, but feel the need to comment on the case of COM v. SANDS that was referenced.

What a truly unfortunate case/set of circumstances. Seems to me that in the eyes of the law, this woman would have had a defensible case (i.e., the SD jury instructions would have been allowed) if she had armed herself and waited for the next assault before killing her husband. Even then, the case could possibly made by the prosecution that it was premeditated murder.

Having personal (third-party) understanding of a situation like this, I genuinely feel very sorry for everything that this woman endured. From what I read, her husband deserved what he had coming to him. Maybe a Temporary Insanity defense would have been a better choice than SD, but I don't know the ins and outs of the legal ramifications between the two.

[allingeneral]

If by the time the victim can adequately respond with their firearm (or any other deadly force such as martial arts, etc.) the threat has indeed walked away, I nor anyone else on this thread would be shooting. No one has claimed that, so don't read malice into their words. We'd call the police. However, the original attack IMHO, did satisfy the response of deadly force from the victim, per AOI/fear, for as long as necessary to stop the threat. At that point we've changed the situation and it will no longer play out as it did on video. All the events that occurred on the video will no longer occur in that way and we must hypothesize what happens next (see my other posts).

If the victim is quick, they will in all likelihood be able to fightback before the threat has made it clear they are retreating. Strictly speaking, we don't know that they would have since failure to knockout the victim is a dishonor just as knocking them out is "honorable" in this game (the victim doesn't even know it's a game, they just know they're under attack). Upon failing they may have felt compelled to continue the attack. We don't know. Regardless of what the attacker did next, the victim is already committed to acting in SD and "several seconds" will likely go by until they are able to accurately re-assess the situation. During those several seconds they may engage with deadly force and IMHO, would not be wrong to do so. In the case of a firearm, those rounds may or may not hit their target. Those that hit may enter the side, the back, the top, the bottom, etc. of the threat. What matters was that AOI/fear were met and the victim accurately responded with deadly force.

So basically, "Gunderwood of Virginia" (*snicker* I like that ) argues that the "window of opportunity" (for lack of a better term) is very narrow in the specific scenario identified in this thread, but is wide enough to assume that use of self-defense is plausible.

The main question is - how long is the window of self-defense in a case such as this? You get sucker-punched, or an attempt is made to attack you as is outlined in the video. Within 5 seconds, the attacker has begun to withdraw, but the victim is still in "I'm being attacked" mode. Victim pulls firearm, and begins pulling the trigger as the attacker is turning to walk away. Attacker ends up with no frontal entry wounds and three entry wounds in the back.

Is this a defensible position in a court of law? I personally believe so, but I wouldn't want to have to go through it. That said - 5 seconds is a very brief moment in time within which I would have to make this decision - and I can't say how it would go down, as there are way too many variables.

[Remek]

This is the problem. You are in agreement with me from the start, but two mistakes: I stated "is not harming anyone any more.", while the spirit of what I wanted to state was that it was reasonably assessed from the perspective of the defender.

At that point, you asserted a the agreed to "it may be regaining footing ...", etc., and asserted that 3-5 seconds was reasonable. And further "The law in VA is quite clear on these points and you should have nothing to fear."

I hate to say it to you, but the point of this is that 3-5 seconds is not necessarily reasonable, and that shooting a person in the back may be evidence that appears to point to an absence of imminent danger.

You followed up the above quote with "That fear must be judged valid in what it typically rolled up into Ability (yes, the group as well as the individual have the ability), Opportunity (as long as they are within ~21ft, I know general rule, but it's what it discussed), Intent (they just attacked you). In this case, that's very easy to assertion, deadly force would be reasonable for about 3-5sec after the punch."

Again 21 feet has naught to do with crap, but the distance an average person can cover while the policeman is drawing, aiming, and then shooting. I saw no connection here whatsoever to the case at hand. And then, you end with "hat's very easy to assertion, deadly force would be reasonable for about 3-5sec after the punch.". That's clear advice to something you don't know crap about. EVERY case is decided on its own merits. There is no rule about 3-5 seconds after a punch, much as there is no rule about the proving a negative, as you have you repeatedly argued. But all this means that THERE IS NO RULE here that should make you safe under any particular circumstance, and it is also clear that the administration will jump on you and fight like the dickens today, even doing nefarious things to win public opinion and win. Are you sure you were so certain about being able to shoot within 3-5 seconds?

I no longer think you believe this, but it came across as direct advice to the third party reader. You came across as certain and are on the attack big time, leading the third party dummy to think you know what you are talking about. That lead me to continue the fight regardless of winning.

Next, just because its hard to let go: I forgot, you were also completely confused as to what I was saying with respect to an uninvolved third party. Of course the law is not adjudged from the perspective of a third party viewer, but it is a third party viewer who is adjudging what the victim is able to know, and trust me, from experience i can tell you this alone is very distinct from the actual perspective and being reasonable from his/her point of view. There is something different in being omniscient and deciding what one player is aware of, and actually understanding what a reasonable person may not be aware of and actually is there.

Anyway, as asked, all these quotes are provided in the chain of quotes provided below:

Gunderwood wrote (I cannot embed 4 layers of quotes, so I have this here):

^^^ This. But, I do not think you can shoot if he/she is not harming anyone any more. If it happened in VA, you could arrest them however.

You don't know that at the time of the attack. If a group of people (age, size, and skin color agnostic) takes a swing at you and don't succeed in knocking you out, it won't be obvious they have stopped the attack for at least several seconds. After the punch they take a step back, but that doesn't mean the attack is over, it may merely be them regaining their footing to launch a second attack. It's also not clear what the others in the group are doing. I'd wager to guess that there is a reasonable use of deadly force for 3-5secs after the first punch is completed.

As always, NEVER draw unless you've already made the decision to use it and believe you are justified in doing so. AOI BEFORE you even grab it. After AOI is legally met, front sight press until you're 100% certain the threat has stopped.

You may judge it that way, but the video I see, the guys gets in there, throws the punch and is quickly walking away and laughing before the 3-5 seconds you are stating. At that point, you are shooting them in the back. While in my utopia, that'd be okay, as a lesson to others needs to be taught, there's no way in hell the government who wants to persecute us as much as possible, will let you get away with that.

The law in VA is quite clear on these points and you should have nothing to fear.

The victim (i.e. you) has to believe they are in fear of death or grave bodily harm. That fear must be judged valid in what it typically rolled up into Ability (yes, the group as well as the individual have the ability), Opportunity (as long as they are within ~21ft, I know general rule, but it's what it discussed), Intent (they just attacked you). In this case, that's very easy to assertion, deadly force would be reasonable for about 3-5sec after the punch.

You are judging based on what happens after the attack from an uninvolved third party view, also the victim could not respond. The law in VA does not, and rightfully so, take the stand of an uninvolved third party. The law in VA considers what I wrote above and what the victim at the time of attack is aware of. Deadly force has been justified in cases where uninvolved third parties, technology or not, could reasonably determine that there was no fear of death or grave bodily harm, but to the victim it was reasonable to fear.

If the victim has reasonable fear, AOI are met, then deadly force is justified until AOI are not met. Ability never changed in that video. Opportunity was met for at least 3-5sec after the attack based purely on proximity (not until the teens left the ally did they exceed the general rule of ~21ft). Intent is very difficult to judge in the seconds after getting punched or nearly punched (or stabbed or whatever). Merely because the teen is now 5ft away vice right on top of you does not mean that the threat is "walking away."

The biggest risk you would face in this instance is there being public outcry from the thug community to charge you with something because most prosecutors won't touch that with a 10ft pole; it's almost a guaranteed loss. E.g. Zimmerman trial.

That being said, using deadly force should not be taking lightly. However, if AOI are met and I'm fearful for my life, I'm already committed to using deadly force before my gun ever clears the holster. It will take several seconds to verify that the threat has stopped and in that time I will get half-a-dozen shots off, probably with some good hits. Killing the threat is not my intent, saving my life is and until I'm certain it's safe, remember after being attacked 100%, I'm going to keep fighting back.

That's not just legal, it's ethical as well.

[gunderwood]

G: i dont think you understand what prima facie evidence is. If you did you would not be arguing that other things could be going on. I now realize that you know nothing of case law but what a federal attorney said about it. Trust me, your federal attorney didnt give you enough to assess this. I always tell people to read the case law statutes the attorney is relying upon, because you are the one with your money and intrests on the line, not the attorney. I think you should do the same.

A discussion about prima facie evidence may be of value to others and us as well.

Prima facie is latin for roughly "on the face of it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1598

Latin for "at first look," or "on its face," referring to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution in which the evidence before trial is sufficient to prove the case unless there is substantial contradictory evidence presented at trial. A prima facie case presented to a Grand Jury by the prosecution will result in an indictment. Example: in a charge of bad check writing, evidence of a half dozen checks written on a non-existent bank account makes it a prima facie case. However, proof that the bank had misprinted the account number on the checks might disprove the prosecution's apparent "open and shut" case.

Strictly speaking, the prosecution can claim nearly anything as prima facie evidence for their case. That doesn't make it a valid claim though. In theory the Grand Jury is suppose to evaluate those claims and reject those that fail to present a compelling case on their face. In practice, the government has perverted it so much with "specialized instructions" that the GJ is basically a rubber stamp in all but the most absurd cases. I'm sorry if I gave anyone the impression that a shot in the back couldn't be use as such instead of my intention in that it should not be a valid claim.

For example, I've served on a GJ and we did reject an attempted murder case. Roughly, the prima facie evidence was that the defendant got into an altercation with his GF and her new BF (basically returning soldier case). While the evidence showed that things where heated, the only evidence presented to justify the attempted murder charge was that the defendant had a handgun which was left in the car and in his bag during the entire altercation. At no point was there any evidence that he attempted to retrieve it, etc. In short, the prosecution was trying to make the case (in VA mind you) that merely possession of a handgun, not even on your person, while an altercation occurs is attempted murder. I.e. the handgun proximity was prima facie evidence of attempted murder.

While that was the claim, the GJ rejected it because on the face of it, it's absurd.


In SD/HD discussions, there are a lot of fear mongers (typically out of ignorance, IMHO). Just look at the various things that have been claimed to be prima facie evidence of malice or ill-intent! This is hardly a complete list either.

1. Hollow points. It's still going around today, even though practically everyone but the military uses them. The fact that the attacker was shot with a HP is not prima facie evidence of malice or ill-will, but many people will try. Could some prosecutor try and claim that? Sure! Is it absurd? Absolutely. It's simply not a valid claim and there are whole threads devoted to the subject.

2. Hi-cap or even standard capacity mags. Why would anyone need 15 rounds! Again, you can make the claim, but doing so doesn't make it valid. Just like the HP though, there are localities where the presence of HPs/hi-cap mags is prima facie evidence of other crimes such as possession of a prohibited item; just not ill-intent or malice for murder.

3. Number of shots fired. What matters is AOI/fear. If you are justified in using deadly force, you're justified as long as the threat remains. Despite the vast number of police shootings taking many, many rounds (7-10 for one suspect depending on your data source), this myth persists. Where people get confused or in trouble, is when AOI/fear are no longer reasonable. E.g. that guy who shot the teens in his home, but then stood over the girl and shot her in the head. That's not SD. Regardless of what occurred before, she no longer had the Ability or the Intent to cause death or grave bodily harm (this is complicated by the home aspect, but it's for illustration…Opportunity still existed since she was there, but it's all three or none).

4. Caliber chosen for SD. You can't possibly use a .44Mag! (the most powerful handgun in the world! ) for SD! The prosecutor will nail you for wanting to kill the attacker!

5. You can't use a rifle for HD!

Etc.

The list of possible things someone could claim as prima facie evidence for malice is endless. The usual things discussed are a product of myth more than reality; the claims are not valid. Might some prosecutor try to corrupt the law and get you on such emotional claims? Might some office try and arrest you for OC or any other "offense?" Sure, but that's a miscarriage of justice.

[Trotter]

Let's add a twist to it. Suppose you were not the victim, but you were a close bystander and saw it happen from the start. Would you draw?

" saw it happen from the start "
Dam right I would draw/follow through.

[Remek]

I am glad you did your research on prima facie evidence, and now, I hope you understand that prima facie evidence can be a shot to the back. And, i hope you understand now that your accusation was incorrect.

What i will say, you are tenacious, and you seem a great advocate. You should drop your line of work and go into law.

On the flip side, I will also say, this is getting tedious for me now, as I do have actual work to do before tuesday, as well as birthday party with the kids today, and so I must let go of the constant reassessing and arguing. I think our third friend just flat out gave up, being more versed in this than either of us, he likely recognized we weren't too smart to begin with.

Thanks for the spirited debate!

[Kreutz]

Guess we'll see. So far I've seen nothing from "gunderwood of VA" but bad legal analysis, false suggestions about my claimed expertise, and childish inquiries into IQ numbers.

You're telling me he's going to suddenly turn things around and produce actual VA statutes, jury instructions, or case law to support his claim that it makes no difference in VA law whether an "attacker" is shot in front or back?

After picking up steam his posts will approach doctoral thesis length; give it time.

You realize, of course, that now that you've vouched for him, his ability to meet his claim reflects on BOTH of you?

The opinion a Masshole has of me is as consequential to my self-esteem as the opinion of dog sht about to be scraped from my shoe.

It factors into my life not a whit.

Just being blunt but honest.

[arlington22201]

"Gunderwood wrote:

user on here had a huge list of court cases (I have a copy somewhere) about the common law and SD, HD, castle law, etc

Does anyone:

1. Have a copy of this list mentioned by Gunderwood above?
2. Have a similar list for VA?
3. Know how to get one?
4. Know a good book to recommend on the subject of SD caselaw / precedent in VA?

[gunderwood]

I am glad you did your research on prima facie evidence, and now, I hope you understand that prima facie evidence can be a shot to the back. And, i hope you understand now that your accusation was incorrect.

A claim and valid claim are two different things. Did you not read the other examples?

I could claim that by posting on a gun forum such as this, it is prima facie evidence that you are a terrorist. It's laughable, but the kinds of people who claim NRA members should be killed would likely believe it. While if I were a prosecutor I could claim that, it can and should be laughed out of even the GJ. I could also claim that the victim had malice because they wore a red shirt or double knotted their shoes, all laughable claims.

Stating that an otherwise justified shooting is now murder based solely on the fact that one or more rounds entered via the attackers back is not a valid claim. Someone could claim that just as they could claim that using HP is murder, but FMJ is ok or a 9mm is ok, but .45 is not. That doesn't make it valid.

If it is valid, there should be a case for such a claim.

[Taggure]

I'm steering clear of the legal debate on this, but I have a couple thoughts:

1. I'd like to see these cowardly little savages charged with attempted murder and whatever hate crimes can be lumped in. (Yes, the game is called "knockout" but we all know if I were walking up punching out random Sons of Barack, thats how I'd be charged.)

2. This is how a race war begins. Needs to be squashed and FAST. (One of the victims was a woman...)

3. Free redneck high School football team bus tours to these cities. "Vendetta Tours, Ltd." (<<-- OK, this one is silly.)

I agree with you all except #3 and have a couple of other things to ask
Maybe one of the legal folks here could explain what the charges would be here with the video to be used as evidence in all of these occasions. Can someone please explain why the cops and the legal system is not slamming this hard.
To me this is clearly pre-meditated as they are playing a game in which they are intentionally setting out to knock someone out. I am no lawyer but I would think that these individuals at the minimum should be charged with the following:
1. Assault or aggravated assault along with the pre-meditated added.
2. As most of the attacks have been Blacks on Whites then Hate crimes should be added to the list of charges
3. Since all in the group were involved in the Knockout game then conspiracy to commit the crime should be added as well to all members.


On another note
Now after watching the initial video and hearing the girl laughing and saying that they were just having fun; I would have liked to see someone knock her out right then and there after she said it. I don't think she would find it to funny then do you.

[UnderwaterMike]

Now after watching the initial video and hearing the girl laughing and saying that they were just having fun; I would have liked to see someone knock her out right then and there after she said it. I don't think she would find it to funny then do you.

THIS.

I didn't realize that my question would spark such a spirited discussion. I'm really (1) trying to figure out a practical way to deal with attacks like this, and (2) get a feel for whether my expected reaction is misaligned with that of other people who carry.

Tell you what, I don't know what I'd do if one of my family was injured or killed over something so senseless. And I, too, would like to know why those abominable "hate crime" laws have not been pressed into service, given the overwhelmingly race-biased nature of the attacks.