Again, he went to the place, with a weapon, intending to provoke people so he could claim self defense, and then shot someone. It hits the 3 step provocation test.
He was not intending to provoke people by any sane standard. He was intending to perform actions that in normal circumstances among normal, reasonable people would get no reaction at all.
If you go somewhere wanting to kill people and planning out a way to cause that, then yes, its not self defense. This isn't difficult.
So if "wants to kill people", as in he wrote some ITG fantasies on the internet, for some unspecified period of time after it, he is expected by law to let criminals rob, cripple or kill him?
First, your example doesn't work at all. Your example applies to the fighting words stuff, not criminal activity. Understand that her behavior (dressing provocatively) would be the provocation. Dressing provocatively is legal. I honestly don't even know how you got there.
My point exactly. Driving through a public road not blocked by any appropriate authority is not a provocation either. If some criminals think otherwise, it's their problem, and it's not court's job to share their delusions.
Second, you are mixing up the provoker (who also shoots) and the provokee (who gets shot). Caring whether the provokee is doing a crime, and not whether the provoker is purposely setting up a premeditated plan in order to kill them, shows that what you want is legal vigilantism. You think an action should be legal if the victim is a criminal. That's the basis for vigilantism.
The provoker took no action to convince or trick the provokee to perform criminal actions that would justify a self-defense shooting. That's hardly a set-up. If everything in the city was working as intended and everyone was acting legally, this supposed vigilante could drive around the city all day and get no opportunity to do a self-defense shooting at all, in most cities in the world that would be the case.
Secondly, the moral case against vigilantism is that vigilantes act as judge, jury and executioner, which easily leads to wrongful and biased investigations and unjust sentences.
Just being there (perfectly legally) for the criminals to attack is not vigilantism.
They aren't. Again, taking something out of a store by accident is not a crime. Because you did not intend to deprive the owner of it. It only becomes illegal once you notice that you took the item and plan on keeping it. It's entirely state of mind dependent.
And still it's not a crime because it's an accident. Taking something out of a store for reasons unknown is going to be considered a crime until proven otherwise.
Your lawyering is just bad.
Every state's penal code includes provisions that apply to shoplifting (usually under the umbrella of theft or larceny statutes), and penalties can be harsh.
www.criminaldefenselawyer.com
It is a crime once you do leave the store.
Many clerks and security personnel will not, however, apprehend a suspected thief until that person has actually left the store. The reason is not that they lack justification to detain the person before that moment. Instead, they simply want an open-and-shut case. It will be difficult to argue that one intended to pay for the goods when one has walked out without doing so; on the other hand, defendants who are apprehended pre-exit might convince the jury that their actions were consistent with an intent to eventually pay for the merchandise before leaving the store.
According to this, leaving the store in itself can be considered evidence of intending to keep it.
Most crimes are like this. It's why sleepwalking is an actual defense to crimes: you had no mens rea.
Again, it's a defense against accusation of doing something wrong. What you are creating in the self-defense situation however is the opposite - proof of wrong kinds of intent makes a perfectly normal and legal course of action illegal to take.
As for posting online, the 'dangerously blurry line' (which really isn't dangerous or blurry) is why it would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Perry, here, was pretty clear about his willingness to do this on purpose and his desire to do so, though I don't think clear enough to get beyond a reasonable doubt. That's evidence of premeditation. For the theft example, if someone talked endlessly about how they could exploit the accidental clause of theft online, then 'accidently' stole something? Yeah, I could see it maybe hitting beyond a reasonable doubt, especially if the mentioned the particular store.
Again, accidental theft is accidental and it is generally something to be widely accepted as an action to be avoided, and yeah, in such potentially accidental wrongdoings intent matters a lot. Driving through a public road legally is not such an action. It's no one's business why and when you do it, you are allowed to.
Not just aggravating. Theft is not a crime if there is no intent and its an accident. Literally, it's a case of bad intentions turning an otherwise legal action into an illegal one. Bad intentions are core to both morality and justice, and you pretending they aren't shows how little you know about this.
Regardless of technical legal classification, it is still an affirmative defense, a wrongdoing, and returning the item or its value is expected. Driving through a public road legally, even if it offends some criminal loons, is not a similar kind of action.
The examples you use are illustrative of the place where crimes and accidents touch, which have plenty of history of legal consideration, like here:
Timothy Stansbury Jr, unarmed teenager with no criminal record, was recently shot and killed on roof of Brooklyn housing project by Police Officer Richard S Neri, 11-year veteran who had never fired his gun and has no history of civilian complaints; rank-and-file officers, angered that Police...
www.nytimes.com
In the law, there is a place where accident and crime touch: criminally negligent homicide, in which the guilty party need not have been aware of the potential danger of his actions. Manslaughter, too, is accidental in a sense: it indicates that harm, but not death, was intended. ''The gradations all turn on one question and that is, what was the state of mind of the actor?'' said Stephen Gillers, a professor of legal ethics at New York University School of Law.
But what do you call situation where perfectly boring normal action can be turned into a crime by mere intent? Certainly something else.
You forgot that he did it on purpose, to provoke a 'self defense scenario', in order to get to kill them. That's what makes it vigilantism.
So self defense is inherently a crime unless you wish to avoid it, and if you have the wrong attitude about the matter, you lose the right? This is clown world law and i would vote against it.
The "it" in question being not a questionable, accidental wrongdoing, but an outright boring action millions of people do every work day.
Also, note that a proper self defense strategy would be pretty harmed by provocation being legal. The local hot head who brags about how much he wants to kill people, especially a group you belong to, can now basically go around nearly threatening you, to the point that you are in reasonable fear of your life, but you know he's trying to get you to draw because either him or a friend will shoot you and get away with provocation. With a stand your ground law, this becomes especially likely given both sides can have self defense claims.
And yet you feel the need to bring in the classic, commonly recognized examples of provocative activities, like threats and outright criminal intents.
Where does driving through a public road come into it? By any sane standard that cannot be considered provocation.
If he was actually provoking them by what he did in front of them, you would have had a point. But whatever was going on in his head, or in communication with his friends, was unknown to them, and fantasies in themselves are not the same thing as provocation, which has to be known to the provokees and also something commonly recognized as such by a reasonable person - you can't one day decide that you had a dream that everyone who wears a woolen hat wants to kill you, and so from now on you consider everyone wearing one to be provoking you. If you do that, you aren't being provoked, you are being mentally ill.
In this case, the point of contention was the supposed provocator's exercise of his right to legally pass through a public road, disrupted by the supposed provokee's illegal blockade of it. Is that by common sense can be called a provocation?
Can someone be considered to be reasonably provoked because people refuse to recognize his illegal roadblock and follow his illegal traffic control orders under threat (and to a degree also action, see the hitting on car) of illegal violence against person and property?
Of course i'd say no, if i decide to drive to work, school, or a shop, i'm not
accidentally using the public road, with honest conviction that if this action of mine offends some crazies or criminals who happen to delusionaly think the road is theirs to control, i'm expected to cease immediately and follow their orders, as i would be expected in the mentioned example of accidental theft and the store owner.
thepostmillennial.com
