China & Chinese Shenanigans

[Lord Ratner]

19 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Yes if there is anything Lawyers use in their arguments it’s public statements in media you can google and not legal briefs or scholarly articles.

Again, the fact you are trying to use this singular example to defend the idea of warning shot, which still lacks any form of definition in the courts majority opinion, and the original discussion that took us down this rabbit hole was a guy firing a firearm in the air to stop people on his property engaged in no form of assault, they were cutting down trees.

Try finding somebody reputable in any self defense legal circles recommending warning shots… please I dare you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You're kind of missing the boat here. By allowing for a claim of self-defense, based specifically on warning shots, the Ohio court has taken the first step towards changing the precedent.

 

A whole lot of people recommend a whole lot of things, and many of those things are based on what will and won't be easier to defend in court. That doesn't make anything that goes against that recommendation illegal.

 

There's a very big difference between arguing what is legally allowable (or what is becoming legally allowable, in the case of Ohio) and what is the best response. The ladder is also an opinion.

[HeloDude]

The court said that warning shots can be considered part of self defense if the self defense claim is warranted.  If you see it differently then we’ll just have to disagree. 

[Lawman]

You're kind of missing the boat here. By allowing for a claim of self-defense, based specifically on warning shots, the Ohio court has taken the first step towards changing the precedent.
 
A whole lot of people recommend a whole lot of things, and many of those things are based on what will and won't be easier to defend in court. That doesn't make anything that goes against that recommendation illegal.
 
There's a very big difference between arguing what is legally allowable (or what is becoming legally allowable, in the case of Ohio) and what is the best response. The ladder is also an opinion.

Again, do you want to be the first person to attempt to cross that threshold or for that matter know whoever gets to be that test dummy? Until someone successfully does that there is no codified standard for every single other court Ohio or otherwise to use in consideration of bringing charges against somebody for firing a warning shot. Even when there is, it will be case by case to classify what is a legal warning and what is reckless mishandling of a firearm, and civil penalty will still apply state to state which is its own nightmare.

Ohio didn’t do anything of substance to actually allow somebody to be so stupid as to use a warning shot and expect anything but an extremely painful and taxing outcome. The people applauding this or the “legal experts” in places like Glocktalk or SAF circles are giving terribly short sighted advice based largely off a poor understanding of how the prosecutorial process is evaluated and executed. You’ll notice the actual charges are mentioned, that’s because that charges would allow for the affirmative defense of “acting in self defense” and it helped widen that potential umbrella but in this case the judge denied that incorrectly and the lawyer didn’t do his job. And an affirmative defense is not the same as guilty until proven innocent, you now place the obligation for preponderance of evidence on the defendant.

Had the prosecutor gone after this guy for say reckless endangerment and he had been the first person to cross the threat threshold from say strong words to an active posture, an affirmative defense wouldn’t have been allowed in the courtroom and the judges instructions to deny such consideration by the jury would have been proper. You can read in the amicus brief on the actual case one of the reasons the court wanted a an affirmative self defense to be allowed (again one of the reasons for overturn but not nearly as much as ineffective council) was that it didn’t allow the jury consider whether Wilson had legal standing to fear for his safety and then be allowed to use the force continuum at all in his defense. Had he not warning shot or lethal aimed kill shot wouldn’t have mattered because the initial top charge wasn’t felonious assault.

This case is not the sudden “warning shots are ok now” that some barracks lawyers are trying to argue it as. And until it’s successfully used to overturn a conviction when there are states with case law going the other way leading to an eventual federal appeals process no, you’re not suddenly covered under self defense with this ruling or any of the previous ones that exist on the books. For the love of god don’t use that term ever when discussing a post firearm related incident in a statement. It will go nowhere good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Boomer6]

Man how bout those chicoms...

Or should I post this in the gun talk thread so as not to interrupt this legalese circle-jerk 🤔

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2024/03/20/china-will-be-ready-to-invade-taiwan-by-2027-us-admiral-says/?sh=3465b32612c4

[mp5g]

 

Me: “Hello.”

All posts since 17 hrs ago: “Yeah?!?”

Me: “Umm..I’m here to read about China & Chinese Shenanigans.”