If you outlaw shooting at an unarmed, partially restrained person in a hospital, only outlaws will shoot at unarmed, partially restrained people.
One of the weird things about US states' law is they are dystopian-level deferential to police violence - one of the reasons federal suits for violating civil rights came to the fore, but the latter may then have looped around and reduced pressure for state-level reforms.
This was the case in California up to 2019, where the original legislation (19th-century?) was "Any peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense may use reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape or to overcome resistance" and elsewhere clarified "Homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers... when necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to the execution of some legal process, or in the discharge of any other legal duty; or when necessarily committed in retaking felons who have been rescued or have escaped, or when necessarily committed in arresting persons charged with felony, and who are fleeing from justice or resisting such arrest." No reference to imminent threats. Something closer to modern morals was substituted in 2019.
I'm not a public relations guy by any means, but it seems to me that if you argue the police did nothing wrong in not using force to stop a gunman from killing school children and did nothing wrong by shooting a man incapable of eminent harm to others in a hospital, you'll start to shed public support.
No reference to imminent threats.
Presumably because other areas of the law cover homicide being justifiable when used in response to an imminent threat to life (and not just justifiable to police; justifiable to anyone).
Did I read correctly that the family felt that it was better to have them charged with nothing if they couldn't get murder or manslaughter charges through? Do you understand what they were thinking/feeling? Why would something be worse than nothing?
The founding fathers intended everyone to be able to shoot in hospitals, not just government officials.
4: True, but the 2019-revised version did add a reference to imminent threats, along with a lot of throat-clearing.
6: It sounds like the civil case is their best bet, and lack of criminal case moves civil forward.
I'm for shooting people who clear their throat a lot if they are in a public place. Especially a theater or something.
I'm opposed to shooting people in theatres as the noise makes it difficult to follow the dialogue.
The founders wanted silencers to be free, legal, and subsidized by taxes on people who work for a living.
If someone shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, you have to shoot. It's a direct order. But I'd advise shooting into the floor, or into some solid piece of scenery.
14: What if there is a fire in the crowded theatre? What if I'm Arthur Brown?
2: While that statute sounds awful, there have been tighter Constitutional limitations on what makes a justifiable police homicide since at least 1985. Tennessee v. Garner held that police can't kill an escaping suspect unless they have probable cause to believe he's likely to cause death or injury to others. Now in practice, that's really easy probable cause for the police to establish, because they'll just say whatever's necessary. But in principle there are limitations.
Texas should grant doctors the same kind of qualified immunity for wayward fetuses.
Does anyone make really tiny guns so "self-defense" can work?
16: How is that different from the violation of civil rights suits I mentioned?
Also doesn't it get whittled down by qualified immunity a lot?
Since I just mentioned a podcast in the Ganz thread, I'll recommend a podcast over here: On Our Watch, produced by KQED (the Bay Area PBS affiliate). They've done two seasons, both based on public records they've been able to obtain after California passed a new law mandating wider release of police records. The first season focuses on the police, the second on a prison.
18: It should be legal to shoot the world's tiniest gun at someone playing the world's tiniest violin if they're playing it to make fun of you. But only if the world's tiniest round is non-lethal.
Does anyone make really tiny guns so "self-defense" can work?
Yes! There's a whole category of compact handguns which are designed to prioritise small size, concealability, and portability over accuracy, range, and hitting power. Think about Cartier-Bresson's remark about "the best camera is the one you have with you" - that, for guns. If you have a gun and it's heavy and bulky and so you generally leave it at home, it's not much good. You want one you can just slip into your handbag or similar and forget about. So there are things like Bond's Beretta 418 .25, or the S&W Ladysmith revolvers.
The world's tiniest handgun round is the .167 Lilliput, which is so ineffective that it's apparently legal to own Lilliput handguns in the UK, and you don't even need a firearms certificate.
Wrong, there's also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2mm_Kolibri
Due to the weakness and inaccuracy of the firearm, the 2mm Kolibri was advertised as a ladies' self-defence weapon that was small enough to fit inside a handbag. While probably not effective against a mugger if shot at the chest or limbs, it could potentially inflict some damage if shot at the attacker's face.
The big handbags, like a Kate Spade, would just let women carry a Glock.
I used to work with a designer who carried one so capacious she was able to stash her design department issue 17" Mac PowerBook in it without it showing. She could have had an entire arsenal in there.
That's just a briefcase with a different name.
The story's a bit different if Jack Worthing is tooled up when he's found in the left luggage office.
-- He killed a man with a muffin. A fucking muffin!
-- And he didn't even get butter on his cuffs.
The guy was just sitting there eating his muffin and drinking his coffee..,
We have a Ladysmith in the house. It fires a regular. 38 round. It's not much different from what the toughs carried in movies from the 30s and 40s.
25: Yes, but in my experience it takes at least 5 minutes to find any particular thing in those behemoths.