11-05-2021, 08:51 PM
(11-05-2021, 07:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Negative, ghost rider. I'm not dodging anything. But since you insist I will answer your completely unrelated to the thread topic question. The people in the above video, the ones intent on robbing the store, not the Marine, enter the store wearing masks and then pull and brandish previously concealed handguns. As there was no imminent threat of danger in the gas station (until they entered it) a "reasonable person" would absolutely assume they are intent on robbing the store by entering as they did. Hence, by definition, they have initiated an encounter via their attempt to commit a crime, in this case robbery. Please note that open carrying in a state that allows open carry, even if you are, unbeknownst to bystanders doing so illegally, would not trigger the same conclusion in a "reasonable person". Also, and this is obviously speculation, but this video has no audio, so it's definitely possible that one of the two armed robbers made a statement that would further lead a "reasonable person" to conclude they are there to rob the business. But we don't know either way so let's move on.
The above being established, i.e. the two assailants have demonstrated their intent to commit armed robbery, they no longer have the luxury of claiming self defense if they are attacked by a person responding to their actions. They initiated an encounter by brandishing previously concealed handguns (additionally, please read up on why the term "brandishing" is an important one and why the distinction exists). The concealed part is especially important, as one does not reveal a previously concealed weapon without a "reasonable person" coming to the conclusion that you are about to use it. This is important as an open carry weapon is clearly visible, hence the term open carry. As it is already visible, brandishing it would then become necessary for a "reasonable person" to come to the conclusion that it is about to be used. It being strapped across your chest would not be sufficient to come to this conclusion by the "reasonable person" standard, again in a state in which open carry is legal.
Due to all of the above the two suspects in the video have forfeited any immediate claim to self defense by initiating an armed encounter with the reasonably perceivable intent to commit armed robbery. That being said, if both suspects ran and the Marine in question pursued them, subsequently shooting them or attacking them while they fled, he has now forfeited any claim to self defense, as he was no longer in danger when they fled and he chose to initiate a second encounter by pursuing them. Again, as stated earlier in this thread, these distinctions do not often apply to law enforcement. I make this distinction as there are some on this board who will dishonestly use this point against me in the future if such a distinction is not made.
So, in summation, I don't think I can make the obvious distinction between these two incidents more clear. If you are still unsure of this difference or persist in equating these two instances as equal then I really have nothing more to say. Your position could not be more incorrect, as I have taken pains to illustrate, and if you are still of your original opinion then I have no interest in attempting to illuminate the differences further, as I don't know if that's even possible. If that is the case then please accept my apologies for not indulging your line of reasoning any further than I already have.
What does a reasonable person conclude when they see a person with gloves on and a rifle in their hands running away from a dead body shortly after shots were fired?
And thanks for the killer response
