Posted: 3/12/2013 5:48:27 PM EDT
|
Marine with concealed carry permit stops man from beating woman
They're not astoundingly good at facts, so I'm still holding my breath. Didn't see any such report on any of the other Milwaukee news sites. I do think it's awkward that he told the assailant to get down. Did the assailant assume the Marine was an off-duty cop or something? You'd think he'd just run. Maybe he just had a commanding voice. If you're on here Mr. Blackmore, props to you sir. I hope you got your gun back. |
|
The West Allis police chief says these types of situations really are judgement calls for gun owners. While they don’t encourage this behavior, they appreciate citizens watching out for each other as long as they do it legally and are willing to accept the consequences.
This is the troubling part. Doesn't the law say if you or your family is in danger of being harmed or killed? What's to stop the woman who was being beaten for suing for him pulling a gun on them? A little far fetched, I know, but he doesn't know them... You have to excuse me, I've lost most of my faith in most of humanity. |
|
This is the troubling part. Doesn't the law say if you or your family is in danger of being harmed or killed? What's to stop the woman who was being beaten for suing for him pulling a gun on them? A little far fetched, I know, but he doesn't know them... According to the article, the Marine didn't draw till he was out of the vehicle, identified himself, and the assailant was approaching him. It's a pretty easy case to say the man was threatening, he just beat a woman. So, he wasn't drawing to protect the woman (which would be illegal) he was drawing to protect himself. The fact he was attempting to render aid to the woman is a side affair. EDIT: This is incorrect, corrected below |
|
Quoted:
This is the troubling part. Doesn't the law say if you or your family is in danger of being harmed or killed? What's to stop the woman who was being beaten for suing for him pulling a gun on them? A little far fetched, I know, but he doesn't know them... According to the article, the Marine didn't draw till he was out of the vehicle, identified himself, and the assailant was approaching him. It's a pretty easy case to say the man was threatening, he just beat a woman. So, he wasn't drawing to protect the woman (which would be illegal) he was drawing to protect himself. The fact he was attempting to render aid to the woman is a side affair. NOT ILLEGAL if justified. "939.48 (4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person." http://docs.legis.wi.gov/statutes/statutes/939/III/48/6/_14 "A person may employ deadly force against another, if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to protect a 3rd-person or one's self from imminent death or great bodily harm, without incurring civil liability for injury to the other. Clark v. Ziedonis, 513 F. 2d 79 (1975)." |
|
The key phrase is imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.
Jay Weber was drawing a district similarity between this case and the one involving mayor Barrett a couple years back. I tried to point out that the justifiable use of deadly force in the Barrett case would have been clear cut and dry. (The assailant was armed with a tire iron) Not so much in this recent case. (The assailant was unarmed.) Had the veteran shot the assailant, it could have turned out bad for the veteran. |
|
Quoted:
Not so much in this recent case. (The assailant was unarmed.) Had the veteran shot the assailant, it could have turned out bad for the veteran. Was the woman threatened with death or great bodily harm? I would say yes. A single punch can kill. It's rare, but it can happen. Not to mention, a larger man beating on a smaller woman would likely be seen as "great bodily harm" by most. Open handed slap? not so much. Beating the shit out of her? I'd say a threat of force would be justified. The kicker is.... had the attack ended when the veteran threatened to use force likely to create death or great bodily harm? If the attacker was walking away, I'd say yes, the veteran crossed a line. Now, if the attack was still in progress, and he drew to stop the threat against her, he's in the clear. YMMV, IANAL, etc. |
she was in imminent threat of death. he was not slapping her around having an arguement, she was on the ground get her face stomped in. prolly pissed the stalker off by peeing herself and vomiting on him after shooting a double barrel shotgun in the air.
anyway more people are kicked to death than shot by rifles so i would say the marine did exactly the right thing and would have been justified in shooting the stalker if he came at him as he already demonstrated will to use deadly force. |
|
The second the jerk stopped kicking her, (the Marine did not draw his pistol until the assailant approached him.), she was no longer in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.
The vet didn't pull his pistol to stop the man from kicking the woman. He pulled it when the man approached him. If he shot the oxygen thief, guaranteed the DA would have filed charges. To put it plainly, the Marine got lucky. |
|
Quoted:
The second the jerk stopped kicking her, (the Marine did not draw his pistol until the assailant approached him.), she was no longer in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Agreed The vet didn't pull his pistol to stop the man from kicking the woman. He pulled it when the man approached him. If he shot the oxygen thief, guaranteed the DA would have filed charges. To put it plainly, the Marine got lucky. The man had just threatened that woman with death and/or great bodily harm. I think most would agree that the gentleman who drew down had a legitimate fear for his safety. Don't get me wrong.....I'm not saying a DA would not file charges.... Buit if you just got done beating the shit out of someone, and start coming towards me, expect to be confronted with force. |
|
Quoted:
Buit if you just got done beating the shit out of someone, and start coming towards me, expect to be confronted with force. Yes, but at that point, under current WI law, non-lethal force would have been appropriate and justified. Lethal force at that point would not. And to be clear, for the record, I think the Marine did the right thing. |
|
Quoted:
Yes, but at that point, under current WI law, non-lethal force would have been appropriate and justified. Lethal force at that point would not. And to be clear, for the record, I think the Marine did the right thing. "Although intentionally pointing a firearm at another constitutes a violation of s. 941.20, under sub. (1) a person is privileged to point a gun at another person in self-defense if the person reasonably believes that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference. State v. Watkins" Naturally, if one has the ability to retreat without exposing themselves to harm, I highly recommend doing so. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: This is the troubling part. Doesn't the law say if you or your family is in danger of being harmed or killed? What's to stop the woman who was being beaten for suing for him pulling a gun on them? A little far fetched, I know, but he doesn't know them... According to the article, the Marine didn't draw till he was out of the vehicle, identified himself, and the assailant was approaching him. It's a pretty easy case to say the man was threatening, he just beat a woman. So, he wasn't drawing to protect the woman (which would be illegal) he was drawing to protect himself. The fact he was attempting to render aid to the woman is a side affair. NOT ILLEGAL if justified. "939.48 (4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person." http://docs.legis.wi.gov/statutes/statutes/939/III/48/6/_14 "A person may employ deadly force against another, if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to protect a 3rd-person or one's self from imminent death or great bodily harm, without incurring civil liability for injury to the other. Clark v. Ziedonis, 513 F. 2d 79 (1975)." I was not aware of the 3rd party aspect of the use of deadly force. Thanks for clarifying this. |
|
TMJ4 has a video with the Marine and the dashcam video of the incident. |