The death of Mr Floyd

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by n david

I doubt they'll be found guilty. The MN AG overcharged them with 2nd-degree murder. 3rd-degree is a stretch, but 2nd-degree is even more.

The stage is set for more unrest and rioting after the officers walk.

I don’t believe the officers will walk, there is too much riding on their conviction. I still don’t believe just because he was white and the victim was black it was a racist act of violence. Time will tell...

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Let's say a group of looter show up with one rock and unarmed, and you are present with an AR. You aim at them and they ignore you and they break a window with a rock, storm inside and start looting, without touching you.
Something similar to this actually happened, and the owner decided to leave with his gun, as the looter literally ignored the fact that he was there armed.

Can you shoot at them without being charge of murder?

Can you shoot at them without being charge of murder?

Why would someone want to?

A Pastor from California at the time was also a State Patrol officer. One night while he was on duty, he made a traffic stop, the license plate info stated this gentleman was a convicted felon multiple times over, and has a current warrant for arrest. He got out of his patrol car with his gun drawn asking the man to get out of his vehicle, the man didn’t reply, in fact he was in the vehicle moving around, the Pastor didn’t know if he was going for a gun, or what! The man was still for a second in that time the Pastor had a bead on the back of this mans head, and he said he thought about pulling the trigger, he said at that point, the Lord asked him a question, “do you want to be responsible for killing this man”? The Pastor put the gun down, and in fact left the State department after that.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

Can you shoot at them without being charge of murder?

Why would someone want to?

A Pastor from California at the time was also a State Patrol officer. One night while he was on duty, he made a traffic stop, the license plate info stated this gentleman was a convicted felon multiple times over, and has a current warrant for arrest. He got out of his patrol car with his gun drawn asking the man to get out of his vehicle, the man didn’t reply, in fact he was in the vehicle moving around, the Pastor didn’t know if he was going for a gun, or what! The man was still for a second in that time the Pastor had a bead on the back of this mans head, and he said he thought about pulling the trigger, he said at that point, the Lord asked him a question, “do you want to be responsible for killing this man”? The Pastor put the gun down, and in fact left the State department after that.

I am just asking because of the video. I was just wondering what all the people with guns in that video protecting stores can actually do according to the law.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Let's say a group of looter show up with one rock and unarmed, and you are present with an AR. You aim at them and they ignore you and they break a window with a rock, storm inside and start looting, without touching you.
Something similar to this actually happened, and the owner decided to leave with his gun, as the looter literally ignored the fact that he was there armed.

Can you shoot at them without being charge of murder?

If you are in a building and a violent mob storms the building a reasonable person would be in fear of their life.

Aiming a loaded rifle at someone CAN be construed as an assault, even if it is not fired, one is literally threatening someone with imminent death or gross physical harm with a deadly weapon.

One guy with a rock tossing it at a window is likely not going to justify using deadly force. A mob of people is a whole nother story, since a mob is literally itself a "deadly weapon".

The more important issue though is this:

If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double. If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man's field; of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution. If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution. If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man's house; if the thief be found, let him pay double. If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods. For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.
(Exo 22:1-9)

According to the Law of God (which all real Christians uphold and support), a thief is not to be killed upon being caught in the act of thieving or breaking and entering during the daylight. At night, the thief can be killed, but during the day, the thief is to be arrested, tried, and make restitution. IF the thief is killed and it is during the daytime, then the one who killed the thief is charged with murder.

The store owner then, assuming it is daytime, should make a citizen's arrest and hold the thief until law enforcement can arrive to process the perpetrator. Upon conviction, the thief is to pay restitution equivalent to 200% of the value of whatever was stolen. (Obviously, if the item or items were never successfully possessed by the thief then the restitution would not apply, except in regards to any damages incurred plus whatever punishment the court places on the thief as a punitive measure.) If the thief cannot or will not pay then he is to be sold into slavery/indentured servitude until the restitution is made (the sabbatical year and jubilee year may play a role in this, although I am not certain on that particular point).

If the defender shoots and kills someone breaking and entering during the daylight, then the defender would have to demonstrate that something OTHER than thievery was in progress. IF there is a MOB of looters then I would think we were dealing with something other than a mere thief breaking and entering, it would be more along the lines of an insurrection. Especially if the mob were violent, in which case deadly force to put down the insurrection would likely not only be allowable but prescribed.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

I am just asking because of the video. I was just wondering what all the people with guns in that video protecting stores can actually do according to the law.

Here is a link to a website regarding Idaho state law on use of deadly force to prevent felonies (no guarantee the information is accurate): https://level1firearms.com/education..._in_idaho.html

Here in Texas, the law is a bit different:



(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor;  or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-c...sect-9-41.html

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41 ;  and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;  or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;  and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means;  or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-c...sect-9-42.html

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double. If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man's field; of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution. If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution. If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man's house; if the thief be found, let him pay double. If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods. For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.
(Exo 22:1-9)

An alternative understanding of "if the sun be risen upon him" is that the thief successfully got away, and the victim hunted the thief down and killed him at a later time. In this case, the thief can be resisted with deadly force during the commission of the crime, but not afterwards.

Most commentators, both Christian and Jewish, have understood this to mean deadly force is not allowable against a thief during daylight hours, but during the night only. However, the verse does not actually say that. It simply says if the thief is caught in the act, and is killed, no guilt is attached to the slayer, "but if the sun be risen upon him" then guiltiness is attached to the slayer. This seems to strongly suggest the minority opinion (cf Bullinger, etc) is actually the more specifically correct: if the thief is FOUND in the process, deadly force can be used to resist him, but if he gets away and the day has proceeded, ie time has elapsed, then the victim is not authorised to pursue the thief and kill him. Rather, knowing who the thief is, he is to be apprehended and charged before the judge(s), tried, and sentenced (make restitution).

(For example, here is the Preacher's Homiletical Commentary by Exell:

II. Men must suffer, unavenged, the extreme consequences of criminal conduct. If the thief is killed while in the act of pursuing his criminal course, then no one is to be held responsible for the slaughter. “There shall no blood be shed for him.” If a man meets with evil while doing evil, then the human consciousness declares that it serves him right. And here truly the voice of all peoples is the voice of God. But danger might arise if men took the law into their own hands, so that they are not permitted to pursue the thief, and slay him in revenge. In the night, and in self-defence, the thief may be unwittingly slain, then he reaps as he has sown. But when the sun has risen, when the time of danger is over, extreme measures can only be regarded, as dictated by revenge. Even evil-doers have rights which must be respected. It is better to suffer evil than to give way to a revengeful spirit. “Avenge not yourselves.”)

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by consapente89

If I’m wrong, then I’m wrong.

I guess we’ll see when the evidence is presented to a jury. I’m just saying that based on what has been presented this far, it appears to me to be murder.

If a criminal is apprehended by police, and resists arrest, and a restraint is applied, and the criminal happens to die as a result of the restraint it is usually not considered murder. It might be a negligent homicide or manslaughter if the police officer is found to have been reckless or negligent in applying the restraint (ie improper use of force). However, for the crime to be MURDER there (usually?) has to be INTENT. It will have to be proven that the officer INTENDED TO KILL the suspect in the absence of justification.

Of course, all this implies any of this is even real to begin with.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by n david

It depends on the state so you need to make sure you know the local law regarding the use of force.

There was a bar owner in the midwest who confronted some thugs vandalizing and breaking windows of his bar. The owner's father was with him and the father was shoved to the ground. The owner was carrying but didn't pull his weapon until he was tackled to the ground by a couple of the thugs. He fired blindly around his back, missing. Another guy then rushed him and started beating him up, the next shot killed him.

The county DA didn't file charges because it was self-defense. However, had the owner used his weapon to deter the thugs from vandalizing his business, he would have been charged.

I believe it's the same in most states. Force is acceptable when in self-defense, but not in defending property or business. There has to be fear of bodily harm.

That was here in Nebraska, Omaha specifically. I was actually a little surprised, because Douglas county is not exactly 2A friendly.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

Can you shoot at them without being charge of murder?

Why would someone want to?

A Pastor from California at the time was also a State Patrol officer. One night while he was on duty, he made a traffic stop, the license plate info stated this gentleman was a convicted felon multiple times over, and has a current warrant for arrest. He got out of his patrol car with his gun drawn asking the man to get out of his vehicle, the man didn’t reply, in fact he was in the vehicle moving around, the Pastor didn’t know if he was going for a gun, or what! The man was still for a second in that time the Pastor had a bead on the back of this mans head, and he said he thought about pulling the trigger, he said at that point, the Lord asked him a question, “do you want to be responsible for killing this man”? The Pastor put the gun down, and in fact left the State department after that.

Did he arrest him, or just let him go?

[Esaias]