Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
The GOP has lost its effing mind!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Arizona GOP Advance Bill Legalizing Killing Illegal Immigrants for Trespassing
- Thread starter Wandering Monk
- Start date
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
What rules are the police governed by for using deadly force? Why should the rules be looser for people who aren't law enforcement.
This bill does not limit deadly force by citizens against trespassers.
That didn't answer my question.
The law doesn't say what your thread title claims.
Part B further limits Part A to a rather normal
self defense scenario.
Killing people merely for trespassing would be
a recipe for wrongful carnage. This ain't that.
Last edited:
It sounds well designed to be liberally interpreted. Look at the phrase "... a reasonable person would believe it ...." So all a person would have to assert is that they are reasonable and believed their action was justified.
But a tresspasser who was believed to "pose a threat"? We see how liberal the stand your own grounds laws can be. One of the people arrested for the shooting that happened at the Cheifs Superbowl is claiming self defense. It won't stick, but this is how people are interpreting laws that allow shoot to kill.
To my mind this bill is a warning to migrants who dare trespass. A few deaths and the word will get out.
One can't simply claim a reasonable belief,
& have it automatically accepted. And the
law already approaches self defense that way.
If you shoot someone claiming self defense,
but circumstances differ, you'll likely be
convicted of manslaughter/murder.
Part A allows one to "threaten" using deadly force.
Look next at Part B to address actually carrying out
the threat.
Read it carefully....the exact wording differs from
commonly inferred impressions.
Perhaps it is merely a warning, ie, re-stating
existing law in a manner designed to frighten.
Pogo
Active Member
Wow you can legally threaten trespassers but that's it unless the prior two paragraphs not shown come into effect.
I agree, I don't understand the point of the OP.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
13-403. Justification; use of physical force
The use of physical force upon another person which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances:
1. A parent or guardian and a teacher or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor or incompetent person may use reasonable and appropriate physical force upon the minor or incompetent person when and to the extent reasonably necessary and appropriate to maintain discipline.
2. A superintendent or other entrusted official of a jail, prison or correctional institution may use physical force for the preservation of peace, to maintain order or discipline, or to prevent the commission of any felony or misdemeanor.
3. A person responsible for the maintenance of order in a place where others are assembled or on a common motor carrier of passengers, or a person acting under his direction, may use physical force if and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it necessary to maintain order, but such person may use deadly physical force only if reasonably necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury.
4. A person acting under a reasonable belief that another person is about to commit suicide or to inflict serious physical injury upon himself may use physical force upon that person to the extent reasonably necessary to thwart the result.
5. A duly licensed physician or a registered nurse or a person acting under his direction, or any other person who renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency occurrence, may use reasonable physical force for the purpose of administering a recognized and lawful form of treatment which is reasonably adapted to promoting the physical or mental health of the patient if:
(a) The treatment is administered with the consent of the patient or, if the patient is a minor or an incompetent person, with the consent of his parent, guardian or other person entrusted with his care and supervision except as otherwise provided by law; or
(b) The treatment is administered in an emergency when the person administering such treatment reasonably believes that no one competent to consent can be consulted and that a reasonable person, wishing to safeguard the welfare of the patient, would consent.
6. A person may otherwise use physical force upon another person as further provided in this chapter.
13-404. Justification; self-defense
A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.
B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:
1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or
2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or
3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:
(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and
(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.
13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force
A. A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:
1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and
2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.
B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force pursuant to this section if the person is in a place where the person may legally be and is not engaged in an unlawful act.
13-406. Justification; defense of a third person
A person is justified in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force against another to protect a third person if, under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, such person would be justified under section 13-404 or 13-405 in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force to protect himself against the unlawful physical force or deadly physical force a reasonable person would believe is threatening the third person he seeks to protect.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I suspect it's a tribal thing, ie, a tendency
to see something from another tribe in the
worst possible light.
Thinking about it some more, to threaten
someone is by legal definition "assault".
Perhaps this bill's intent is to allow threatening
trespassers to get them to leave without being
prosecuted for it (Part A) . The actual use of
force aspect (Part B) looks conventional.
I recall, not every state allows defending 3rd
parties with deadly force...which seems to be
really bad law.
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
Insane. Imagine being allowed to defend
self and family from attack.
It should proceed as follows....
Someone threatens to attack you.
Say "Wait until the police arrive."
This ends the attack.
I see a shortcoming with that scenario.
Audie
Veteran Member
I should have tried it. Maybe hed have left me alone.
Actually theres nothing funny about that.
Audie
Veteran Member
Specifying " immigrants" is an outstandingly odious
and dishonest bit of editorial cant. You should be ashamed.
Indeed.
The leftish bias against self defense
has real world consequences that
they're loath to address.
Audie
Veteran Member
Who knows if a real life
( life and death real) experience
would make a difference.
Life's vicissitudes can be edifying.
But not everyone learns.
Audie
Veteran Member
Being dead only educates some of the living.
A near death experience ( NOT an "NDE")
taught me all sorts of things.