Gunlogix 102
Cliff
http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2010/02/22/if-you-dont-shoot-your-attacker-in-kansas-then-waive-bye-bye-to-claiming-self-defense/
"If You Don�t Shoot Your Attacker In Kansas Then Waive Bye-Bye To Claiming
Self-Defense"
[
Kansas is a whacky place, what with its impossibly flat land and endless fields
of wheat and sorghum (which is apparently a type of sustainable livestock feed
and ethanol fuel source), not to mention the perpetual parade of impervious
aliens and supernatural portals.
Well, the crazy Kansans of the Sunflower State can now add a new claim to fame
by being the only state that requires you to shoot your attacker with your gun
as a prerequisite to claiming self-defense, or else the defense will be waived
and you�ll be charged with aggravated assault.
Hmm� That new one doesn�t quite roll off the tongue as easily as �The Barbed
Wire Capital of the World.�
In a recent case before the Kansas Court of Appeals, a majority of the court
held that under Kansas law, citizens who attempt to claim self-defense when
confronted by either the threat of harm which they reasonably believe will occur
or are under actual physical attack, can only claim the defense if they use
actual physical force against their attacker.
What constitutes actual physical force? Well in the case of State v. Flint
described in the previous paragraph, it meant that the defendant, Flint, had to
actually fire the gun he was holding at his attacker.
Sound weird? Well it sounds even stranger when you know the actual facts of the
case. Flint and his fianc�e were in a bar when his fianc�e got into an argument
with two male bar patrons. The argument eventually moved outside of the bar and
became more heated. Then somewhere along the line there was a �scuffle� and
Flint�s fianc�e end up on the floor. Flint then grabbed a gun from his car and
pointed it at the men who then backed off.
Now you�d think that this might sound like a clear-cut case for self-defense,
and a more preferable use of it as well since the situation was resolved with no
one getting hurt. And if anything, the question of whether Flint should be
allowed a self-defense claim should revolve around whether his belief that he or
his fianc�e were under the threat of harm was reasonable and whether his
pointing a gun was a reasonable response.
Well, not quite � in Kansas anyway. The court convicted Flint of aggravated
assault. .......
]
Lookout
He should have got in his car and left.
Yes, HE was in the wrong.
>
>Now you�d think that this might sound like a clear-cut case for self-defense,
>and a more preferable use of it as well since the situation was resolved with no
>one getting hurt. And if anything, the question of whether Flint should be
>allowed a self-defense claim should revolve around whether his belief that he or
>his fianc�e were under the threat of harm was reasonable and whether his
>pointing a gun was a reasonable response.
>
>Well, not quite � in Kansas anyway. The court convicted Flint of aggravated
>assault. .......
>]
>
And rightly so.
David R.Birch
>> Flint�s fianc�e end up on the floor. Flint then grabbed a gun from his car and
>> pointed it at the men who then backed off.
>
> He should have got in his car and left.
> Yes, HE was in the wrong.
And leave the fiancee on the floor?
I don't think so.
> And rightly so.
Nope, he was defending his fiancee. Ask your SO if he/she thought you
should abandon him/her and leave in your car in a similar situation.
David
Don Foreman
wrote:
Was Flint or his fiance forcibly and unwillingly dragged outside of
the bar by the combative bar patrons? If not, then he or his fiance
were willing participants, so much for self defense.
sparky
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 05:57:18 -0500, Cliff
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2010/02/22/if-you-dont-shoot-your-attac...
Your IQ is even less than your shoe size. What an absolutly ignorant
statement.
Scott
"Zombywoof" <fish...@live.com> wrote in message
news:j3elo517o5ohkqag2...@4ax.com...
> So you are out for a night on the town, two men assault your fianc�e
> and you'll just get in your car & leave her -- I guess that will save
> you a trip to the alter.
You surely must know that you are arguing with idiots.
Tim Miller
So are you, pinhead.
Don Foreman
wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 05:57:18 -0500, Cliff
><Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>>
>>http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2010/02/22/if-you-dont-shoot-your-attacker-in-kansas-then-waive-bye-bye-to-claiming-self-defense/
>> "If You Don�t Shoot Your Attacker In Kansas Then Waive Bye-Bye To Claiming
>>Self-Defense"
>>[
>>Kansas is a whacky place, what with its impossibly flat land and endless fields
>>of wheat and sorghum (which is apparently a type of sustainable livestock feed
>>and ethanol fuel source), not to mention the perpetual parade of impervious
>>aliens and supernatural portals.
>>
>>Well, the crazy Kansans of the Sunflower State can now add a new claim to fame
>>by being the only state that requires you to shoot your attacker with your gun
>>as a prerequisite to claiming self-defense, or else the defense will be waived
>>and you�ll be charged with aggravated assault.
>>
>>Hmm� That new one doesn�t quite roll off the tongue as easily as �The Barbed
>>Wire Capital of the World.�
>>
>>In a recent case before the Kansas Court of Appeals, a majority of the court
>>held that under Kansas law, citizens who attempt to claim self-defense when
>>confronted by either the threat of harm which they reasonably believe will occur
>>or are under actual physical attack, can only claim the defense if they use
>>actual physical force against their attacker.
Sounds like a technicality in Kansas law wherein a threat (brandishing
a deadly weapon) is regarded as aggressive (assault) while self
defense is only available if the actor inflicts actual harm.
I don't know anything about the culture in Kansas, but I can see how
this might seem sensible to some lawmakers. It preserves the notion
of self defense for those who act decisively because they believe
they're in immediate grave peril -- if later review by a jury of their
peers determines that such belief and action was reasonable under the
circumstances. It deprives the use of self defense as a pass to
brandish deadly weapons to win bar fights.
If he'd shot anyone then his claim of self defense would be against a
more serious charge, and if he did that merely because his fiancee
got decked because she continued the fight outside then I think he'd
be convicted.
RBnDFW
>>> with two male bar patrons. The argument eventually moved outside of the bar and
>>> became more heated. Then somewhere along the line there was a “scuffle” and
>>> pointed it at the men who then backed off.
>> He should have got in his car and left.
>> Yes, HE was in the wrong.
> and you'll just get in your car & leave her -- I guess that will save
> you a trip to the alter.
Lookout is a "progressive", so for him, leaving the fiancee would be the
correct thing to do.
Cliff
Which one is in jail?
--
Cliff