www.ditl.org

Third party defense still has to go before a Judge or Jury (depending on state) to decide if it falls under the Good Samaritan Act or if its just a vigilante in action.

Deepcrush wrote:Third party defense still has to go before a Judge or Jury (depending on state) to decide if it falls under the Good Samaritan Act or if its just a vigilante in action.

In general, yes - that's why I think it's a problem. Apparently, in Texas defense of a family member is treated the same as self-defense. One of the things they got right.

Which is why I felt justice was well served in this case. They went before a judge and presented the case and the judge ruled it lawful.

Deepcrush wrote:Which is why I felt justice was well served in this case. They went before a judge and presented the case and the judge ruled it lawful.

Exactly. This is sure as hell a lot better regulation for defense than these "stand your ground" laws.

In a number of states, the laws are similar to that of the UK where they want you to politely ask the attacker to stop but its illegal to act in your own defense. Maryland has a law, in which is just as stupid as the UK's laws, that you can't injure the attacker, but if you kill them it may be legal since they can't sue you in return. So in MD, if you're attacked you should kill your attacker and their whole family and that counts as more legal an option then defending yourself without killing your attacker and handing them over to the law.

Deepcrush wrote:In a number of states, the laws are similar to that of the UK where they want you to politely ask the attacker to stop but its illegal to act in your own defense. Maryland has a law, in which is just as stupid as the UK's laws, that you can't injure the attacker, but if you kill them it may be legal since they can't sue you in return. So in MD, if you're attacked you should kill your attacker and their whole family and that counts as more legal an option then defending yourself without killing your attacker and handing them over to the law.

How do you kill someone without injuring them?

Seriously, some of the state laws regarding self-defense are so bass-ackwards that it's disgusting. In the aforementioned Texas, you can shoot someone in self-defense (and use a legal CCW to do so) but you can be (and people have been) cited for carrying a tire-knocker in a truck without dual rear wheels, as it's a tool that can be used as a weapon without a readily apparent use as a tool. In my own state, you can use the ideal type of self-defense bullet - JHP - for hunting or shooting paper, but NOT for self-defense... for self-defense, you have to use a FMJ, which of course doesn't come close to JHP as far as non-lethal incapacitation and which endangers bystanders far more readily. Then there are the states that go to the other extreme, saying that you don't even have to try to avoid a bad situation and can just start shooting people even when other courses of action are present.

Yeah, the laws are just... moronic at best in some cases. The victim goes to jail or gets fined, on top of emotional/physical scars. What the fuck?!

We should just go back to duals, its so much easier and cheaper.

Deepcrush wrote:We should just go back to duals, its so much easier and cheaper.

I agree. Or at least bare knuckle beat downs...

Good God no, firearms provide a much leveler playing field.

As long as they get a week to practice.

Duels sound nice, but I can honestly say that I don't trust my sense of self-restraint to wait to challenge a guy like this molester if I found him with my daughter. I could probably only trust my sense of self-restraint long enough to find something suitably 2x4-ish.

Fair enough.