[S-99]

Well, what really happened was that mr. jackson needed the laptop he couldn't afford to keep himself alive. He use to be a very wealthy stock broker and company share holder. He was kidnapped one night on his way home to his loving family, but was captured, and became part of many clandestine and pointless experiments at yucca flats that changed him forever. He has an insatiable urge for ingesting certain brands of laptops to live. Such an insatiable urge, that he ran out of finances to afford to stay alive legally. So he was forced to steal. He was desperate to live another day. So he brought a knife with him to keep the booty that he designated his. About to die from lack of plastic, silicon, lithium ion battery. He was only thinking with his instincts since he was about to die right there. His only thought was getting out of there to save his own life. Which meant getting away from people trying to stop him at any odds.

A marine stopped him after he stabbed this marine that was in his way of flight. Now mr. jackson doesn't get to eat enough laptops to generate enough power to open a portal to middle earth and liberate the sword of gondor to hopefully prolong or end his life while trying. At least with the sword to slay the scientists that did this to him. A great desperate man got stopped.

[Polpolion]

Polpolion, you answered whether it would be appropriate after he had stabbed a (hypothetical) police officer.

But considering the context of Karajorma's question ("You miss the point." ... "until they intervened."), it seems more likely he was asking whether it would be appropriate prior to him stabbing the officer. Which is (probably) not how it would have happened, if the scenario in the article were true, but whatever; that's how I read it.

Karajorma can clarify.

If this were the case then it's Karajorma's post that would be irrelevant. This is a discussion on the limits of force used in self defense, not the limits of force used in apprehending a criminal.

[FireSpawn]

Somone should have just shot him in the knee with an arrow, I've heard it a really effective way of stopping people.

[karajorma]

If this were the case then it's Karajorma's post that would be irrelevant. This is a discussion on the limits of force used in self defense, not the limits of force used in apprehending a criminal.

No, that's where you keep being wrong. This was never initially about self defence. It was about making a citizen's arrest and the limits of force applicable there. People seem to keep forgetting that the suspect had ALREADY produced the knife. He did not surprise the marines with it. He did not pull it out and stab someone with it after he was stopped. The limits of force allowed when affecting a citizen's arrest are pretty much the same or lower than they are for a police officer.

Notice how the argument focuses on the marines, but after a brief discussion, steers clear of Chuck Norris, whose beatdown was a lot more vicious than the marines one.

Why is this?

Because the Chuck Norris case is self defence. He was attacked, outnumbered and there is no evidence he did anything beyond defending himself. In the case of the marines, they placed themselves in that situation.

[Polpolion]

No, that's where you keep being wrong. This was never initially about self defence. It was about making a citizen's arrest and the limits of force applicable there. People seem to keep forgetting that the suspect had ALREADY produced the knife. He did not surprise the marines with it. He did not pull it out and stab someone with it after he was stopped. The limits of force allowed when affecting a citizen's arrest are pretty much the same or lower than they are for a police officer.

This doesn't make a difference legally. The fact that the marines knew he had a knife before they stopped him doesn't magically make them any less privileged to defend themselves.

Alternatively, from a less legally strict standpoint, the marines were still at perfect liberty to disarm the thief without any intention of actually arresting him. Self-defense laws usually apply when you see that someone else could be in danger too. This point is going a bit beyond the scope of the story, though.

EDIT: and I still have yet to see any good precedent that would lead me to believe the marines did anything unlawful.

Another edit: Claiming that the thief stabbing the marines was self-defense is a poor argument, not that anyway was thinking about saying that. At best it's something the story can't tell you.

[karajorma]

Self defence doesn't apply when you are committing a felony so I don't know why you'd even bring it up.

As for a precident. Not quite the same thing, but a lot of the elements are in the same ballpark

http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/Citizens-Arrest-with-TASER-lands-man-in-jail-119518784.html

[Nuke]

in that situation use of a taser was not warranted. he could have just written down the license plate number, either the cops or more likely his insurance company would have found the guy.

[Polpolion]

Well it's better than the last link, but a lot of the elements that could make this a bad example weren't really addressed in the fictitious story. To be precise in knowing, we'd need to know the manner in which the marines stopped the thief, whether or not it was felony theft (depends on thief's criminal record), whether or not it was felony assault (probably not), felony battery (probably not, stabbing notwithstanding) details of the fight, etc. If the marines followed the thief as much as Wise did in your example there would be a stronger case against the marines. And a much stronger case if we suppose there were no knife and the thief only tried to "to take a swing at" them.

If there were no felony commit initially by the thief I'd still say there is a low chance of prosecution of the marines given the circumstances I stated somewhere else, though prosecution is very possible (as shown in your example). Still, in this case both parties would still be charges as stabbing is likely felony battery. For those of you that started this discussion, note that I doubt the charges on the marines would be for excessive violence in self-defense, but for whatever mistakenly citizens arresting someone is in Georgia. (there is no duty to retreat in Georgia IIRC)

With that, I can safely say we've exceeded what the story can do for us.  Let's hope I don't edit-storm this post, too.

[NGTM-1R]

Self defence doesn't apply when you are committing a felony so I don't know why you'd even bring it up.

Even that case is ambiguous at best, and also useless to the point in question. If somebody takes one swing at you, you can't taser him for it. The law is structured to react against escalation. The first person to reach for a weapon had better be in fear of their life or it's not considered justified.

We are discussing assault with a deadly weapon first. (Unless you think the Marines beat the guy up and then he stabbed them? Four Marines let him get a knife out and stab one of them while he was getting beaten up? These don't sound very plausible.) The response was made without weapons, no matter how devastating it might be.

What exactly is your objection now? I can't honestly tell anymore.

[FireSpawn]

All this is getting rather intense, so here's a picture of a sleeping fox cub to help ease the tension.

[NGTM-1R]

All this is getting rather intense, so here's a picture of a sleeping fox cub to help ease the tension.

Ubuntu self-defense: bombard someone with sleeping fox cubs.

[karajorma]

What exactly is your objection now? I can't honestly tell anymore.

Another edit: Claiming that the thief stabbing the marines was self-defense is a poor argument, not that anyway was thinking about saying that. At best it's something the story can't tell you.

Self defence doesn't apply when you are committing a felony so I don't know why you'd even bring it up.

I really can't see why you'd have trouble following that. No one made that argument or even one remotely close to it so I can't see why it was even brought up in the first place.

[S-99]

All this is getting rather intense, so here's a picture of a sleeping fox cub to help ease the tension.

The fox didn't help. What if we got something raunchier. Like horny barbara walter

[jr2]

I think it may perhaps shed some light that one fact seems to be overlooked:

The thief pulled the knife before he exited, meaning he was exiting the scene of his crime with a deadly weapon, after having caused a rather loud ruckus, which the Marines may or may not have witnesses.  If they did not witness it, then for all they knew, this criminal had just brutally stabbed several people and was now making his escape.

That puts a possible different light on it, no?

[FireSpawn]

The pictures aren't working!

It's time to bust out the big guns.....May your chosen gods have mercy on you all.........


What do you call a thief that got curb stomped?

[Mongoose]

Can I state for the record that holding a multi-page argument about a hypothetical scenario from an urban legend is pretty much a special kind of stupid?

[Polpolion]

Can I state for the record that holding a multi-page argument about a hypothetical scenario from an urban legend is pretty much a special kind of stupid?

Right, because the hypothetical scenario is what's important. To hell with the underlying commentary on our legal system. We're all a special kind of stupid.

[FireSpawn]

Can I state for the record that holding a multi-page argument about a hypothetical scenario from an urban legend is pretty much a special kind of stupid?

Right, because the hypothetical scenario is what's important. To hell with the underlying commentary on our legal system. We're all a special kind of stupid.

My previous post supports that fact for me, and I embrace it. 

[NGTM-1R]

I really can't see why you'd have trouble following that. No one made that argument or even one remotely close to it so I can't see why it was even brought up in the first place.

Because it's what the Marines are doing and why it's legal.

Which we've documented heavily.

So I have no idea what you're objecting to by this page. At all.

[Polpolion]

I really can't see why you'd have trouble following that. No one made that argument or even one remotely close to it so I can't see why it was even brought up in the first place.

Because it's what the Marines are doing and why it's legal.

Which we've documented heavily.

So I have no idea what you're objecting to by this page. At all.

Karajorma wasn't objecting to anything with that, he just said it was unnecessary for me to have said "Another edit: Claiming that the thief stabbing the marines was self-defense is a poor argument, not that anyway was thinking about saying that. At best it's something the story can't tell you."