[NGTM-1R]

Cases have been brought several times over similar sitations. The simple fact that the story is fake and that the marines managed to apprehend the culprit without having to inflict anywhere near that level of damage proves that it would be completely unnecessary to do so.

Please, cite examples. It's actually quite hard to get convicted if some guy stabs you and runs and you shoot him, much less he assaults you and doesn't actually do something that renders him a clear non-threat. The legal bar is lower already, juries lower it still further.

Simply because it's not necessary doesn't make it not legal or morally allowable. Assault with a deadly weapon doesn't always provoke lethal force, but it is legally and morally justifiable to use it when assaulted with a weapon.

[Aardwolf]

Really? So if this happened...

• Guy stabs my friend.
• I pull out a gun.
• Guy sees the gun, drops the knife, and runs.
• I shoot him in the back, fatally.

you don't see anything wrong with that?

...and suppose he only attempted to stab my friend. Then what?

[Nuke]

if they are coming at you head on it is completely different to kill in self defense than if they are fleeing. that would be an act of revenge as opposed to self defense. the legal system also frowns on non-leathal maiming shots, such as knee capping. from a legal standpoint you are better off doing a doubletap to the chest and killing the guy than just trying to stop him.

[Polpolion]

Really? So if this happened...

• Guy stabs my friend.
• I pull out a gun.
• Guy sees the gun, drops the knife, and runs.
• I shoot him in the back, fatally.

you don't see anything wrong with that?

...and suppose he only attempted to stab my friend. Then what?

Suppose my balls. You need to find legal precedent, not suppose it. Did I miss a link to the actual article or something?

edit: So IRL the marines really didn't seem to be out of line at all. Let's suppose that the fictitious account is true for a moment. How is that relevant to shooting someone in the back? Unless I'm mistaken I don't think NGTM-1R was trying to justify absurd unnecessary actions (eg following your rapist to his house, locking him in and burning it down just to make sure it doesn't happen again before the police arrive). There's a big difference between defending yourself from an armed assailant and shooting someone in cold blood. Your supposition is a little absurd since it's outside the confines of self defense and the fake article didn't say whether or not the man was still a threat.

tl;dr: Well what if the the guy that dropped the knife was running to go get his powered armor and tactical nukes?

[StarSlayer]

Really? So if this happened...

• Guy stabs my friend.
• I pull out a gun.
• Guy sees the gun, drops the knife, and runs.
• I shoot him in the back, fatally.

you don't see anything wrong with that?

...and suppose he only attempted to stab my friend. Then what?

Are we in Texas?

[Aardwolf]

You recognize that the behavior in my example is absurd! Good, have a cookie.

[Polpolion]

You recognize that the behavior in my example is absurd! Good, have a cookie.

I'll grant you that if you grant me it was irrelevant.

[NGTM-1R]

Really? So if this happened...

• Guy stabs my friend.
• I pull out a gun.
• Guy sees the gun, drops the knife, and runs.
• I shoot him in the back, fatally.

you don't see anything wrong with that?

...and suppose he only attempted to stab my friend. Then what?

Your example is stupid. Provide me one useful to the situation at hand and we may discuss it.

[karajorma]

In cases of self defence where the original perpetrator is badly harmed you're going to have to have a trial in order to determine if excessive force was used. You can argue that conviction might not be secured (I don't happen to agree with you cause at least in the UK I can think of a few cases which made the news) but first I want to know if you're seriously trying to claim that such a case wouldn't even reach trial.

[NGTM-1R]

In cases of self defence where the original perpetrator is badly harmed you're going to have to have a trial in order to determine if excessive force was used.

The state can (and often does) decline to prosecute. A truly scrupulous district attorney may pursue the case to the grand jury and ask for their opinion as to the justifiable nature of the force used, particularly if somebody got killed.

It's entirely in the hands of the prosecutor. If they judge that the possibility of conviction is remote (and in the case described, assault with a deadly weapon on a servicemember the odds aren't good, and less so once somebody takes the stand and explains the old LINE system they would probably have been trained to), they can and probably will opt not to go to trial. If new evidence offering better odds of conviction surfaces later they will then have not wasted their one shot.

On the page the law is a much purer thing.

[karajorma]

So there you go, at last you're now admitting that the state sometimes does prosecute. So now the issue is whether the state would prosecute in this case. That's something that by the very fact that each case is taken on merits, is impossible to prove in either direction. You could get a DA who feels there is a case or a DA who feels that there isn't. Since this is a hypothetical case there is no way to judge what the DA might have choosen to do no matter which way you want to assert it.


And that is assuming I belive your assertion that Marines can't hit someone without nearly killing them.

[jr2]

And that is assuming I belive your assertion that Marines can't hit someone without nearly killing them.

Of course they can and often do.  However, with:

1) Training in lethal combat (time taken to disable / destroy opponent before moving to the next is life or death in the field of combat)

2) Fight or flight instinct which is trained to normally default to fight, as well as the huge adrenaline spike when in a situation where yours or your buddy's life / health is in jeopardy.

3) Four such trained individuals backing each other up, as they are trained to do

4) The necessity to make sure that the target is no longer a threat when possible (sure, you broke his arm; but he can use the other quite well if he has a concealed sidarm / another knife, so break his other arm and he's no longer a threat, unless you can successfully pin him so that he is no longer a threat)

etc... all in a matter of seconds

[Polpolion]

So there you go, at last you're now admitting that the state sometimes does prosecute. So now the issue is whether the state would prosecute in this case. That's something that by the very fact that each case is taken on merits, is impossible to prove in either direction. You could get a DA who feels there is a case or a DA who feels that there isn't. Since this is a hypothetical case there is no way to judge what the DA might have choosen to do no matter which way you want to assert it.


And that is assuming I belive your assertion that Marines can't hit someone without nearly killing them.

It's a lot less likely than you think. There's a lot of red tape you need to go through to prosecute people in the military, and judging how the marines 1) weren't the aggressors and 2) were assaulted while doing charity work I couldn't imagine anyone actually being willing to take the effort to press charges.

[Aardwolf]

Unless it happened in Texas. 

[deathfun]

Really? So if this happened...

• Guy stabs my friend.
• I pull out a gun.
• Guy sees the gun, drops the knife, and runs.
• I shoot him in the back, fatally.

you don't see anything wrong with that?

...and suppose he only attempted to stab my friend. Then what?

Your example is stupid. Provide me one useful to the situation at hand and we may discuss it.

Real life situation number one. You're walking down an alleyway after work, you encounter a mugger. He wants crack. So he's going to put his arm over your shoulder in a typical mugger stance. So the first thing you want to do? Step one, get wrist control. So you grab his wrist, and you feel it back. So now you have wrist control, where you can feel that you have control over where his body goes. Now, step number two, you pull out your gun. It's very important, that you pull out your gun

[karajorma]

It's a lot less likely than you think. There's a lot of red tape you need to go through to prosecute people in the military, and judging how the marines 1) weren't the aggressors and 2) were assaulted while doing charity work I couldn't imagine anyone actually being willing to take the effort to press charges.

Actually if you reread the story, they were. They intervened to do the police's job, stopping a fleeing suspect in a shoplifting. Had they simply stepped aside and allowed the perp to run, no one would have been stabbed at all.

Now I'm not saying that people shouldn't interfere in situations like that but if you do, and someone is badly beaten up as a result, and you aren't batman, there is a reasonable chance that some DA is going to think there is an issue of vigilantism here that does need to be answered.

[MP-Ryan]

Actually if you reread the story, they were. They intervened to do the police's job, stopping a fleeing suspect in a shoplifting. Had they simply stepped aside and allowed the perp to run, no one would have been stabbed at all.

Now I'm not saying that people shouldn't interfere in situations like that but if you do, and someone is badly beaten up as a result, and you aren't batman, there is a reasonable chance that some DA is going to think there is an issue of vigilantism here that does need to be answered.

Your entire arguments thus far concerning this story are based on your knowledge of the law as it operates in the UK (and to a somewhat similar extent, other Commonwealth countries like Canada and Australia).

American laws, particularly "castle" and self defence laws, differ by state and can be widely different from what you and I view as the norm.  America ADA's and DA's also have much wider discretion in the decision to prosecute than your typical Crown counsel.  So NGTM-1R's argument that this hypothetical would not be prosecuted is not only possible, in some states it might even be plausible.

[Polpolion]

Actually if you reread the story, they were. They intervened to do the police's job, stopping a fleeing suspect in a shoplifting. Had they simply stepped aside and allowed the perp to run, no one would have been stabbed at all.

Now I'm not saying that people shouldn't interfere in situations like that but if you do, and someone is badly beaten up as a result, and you aren't batman, there is a reasonable chance that some DA is going to think there is an issue of vigilantism here that does need to be answered.

Not quite. I honestly don't know which, but in some states it would be perfectly legal for the marines to detain the thief. Of course, that doesn't permit them to savagely beat the criminal, but if the criminal then assaulted them (as in the story in question) they would be allowed to defend themselves.

edit: well sort of. Of course if they let the criminal go there would've been no stabbing (which is the gist of what you were going at), but that doesn't matter legally. Unless the marines decided to detain the thief by breaking his legs, this is a legal case of self-defense in states that allow citizen's arrest. I'd be able to be more specific on the intricacies, but its been a few years since my government class.

[karajorma]

I'm not arguing that it is illegal for them to stop the thief. What I'm arguing is that there was 4 of them and one thief. If their attempt to perform a citizens arrest has resulted in one of them having a fairly superficial wound while the perp has been badly beaten there is a reasonable chance that the DA might decide there is a case to answer here.

Your entire arguments thus far concerning this story are based on your knowledge of the law as it operates in the UK (and to a somewhat similar extent, other Commonwealth countries like Canada and Australia).

American laws, particularly "castle" and self defence laws, differ by state and can be widely different from what you and I view as the norm.  America ADA's and DA's also have much wider discretion in the decision to prosecute than your typical Crown counsel.  So NGTM-1R's argument that this hypothetical would not be prosecuted is not only possible, in some states it might even be plausible.

But I'm not arguing that they would definitely be prosecuted. I'm arguing against NGTM-1R's assertion that they wouldn't be. From your argument it seems you actually agree with me.

Unfortunately this guy doesn't quote his sources but he pretty much makes a similar argument and does mention cases of martial artists being prosecuted.

[Polpolion]

I'm not arguing that it is illegal for them to stop the thief. What I'm arguing is that there was 4 of them and one thief. If their attempt to perform a citizens arrest has resulted in one of them having a fairly superficial wound while the perp has been badly beaten there is a reasonable chance that the DA might decide there is a case to answer here.

I really don't think so. Find me precedent and I'll believe you.

EDIT:

One, you've already mentioned the quality of that article as a source. Two:

The general criminal law allows for the use of deadly force anytime a faultless victim reasonably believes that unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on him.

Generally speaking, knife attacks could cause death.

Three: Pointing out that a case could be made is a pretty boring argument considering if the defense wins, it was just as legal as if there were no case at all.