Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was dumb. I don’t know if he had a permit or not, but everyone who’s been to any training knows not to fire “warning shots”. In NY, he could have legally shot the guy to stop a violent felony. Should have gotten closer, shot him, then stayed on scene for the cops. Of course in anti-good citizen NY you’d still have to fight an arrest, but Article 35 is insurmountable if you do everything else correctly.
Something tells me he was itching for an excuse to be a good guy, defend and use the gun a bit.
No normal person should want to be in his shoes now dealing with the law.
Something tells me he was itching for an excuse to be a good guy, defend and use the gun a bit.
No normal person should want to be in his shoes now dealing with the law.
that was pretty irresponsible on his part.
if one can take the time to fire a warning shot then deadly force isn’t necessary.
so forget warning shots . no such thing allowed .
article 35 can be very confusing….many definitions like REASONABLE PERSON are not even defined .
IS A REASONABLE PERSON,THE JUDGE IN HIS QUARTERS LOOKING AT A VIDEO OF WHAT HAPPENED WITH NO FEAR OR STRESS ? OR IS IT THE GUY ON THE STREET IN THE SITUATION NOT KNOWING WHATS COMING NEXT ?
Article 35 repeatedly uses the term reasonably, which is not defined anywhere in the New York Penal Law
TILEM and associates are pretty well known defense attorneys here in nyc in self defense cases
they would be my choice in defense attorneys.
here is what they say about article 35
The New York self defense law found in Article 35 of the New York State Penal Law, gives a person the authority to use physical force and even in some cases deadly physical force to protect themselves and also to protect others from a physical assault. The defense of self defense, or justification as it is called in New York, is a defense that must be disproven by the prosecutor beyond a reasonable doubt. Self defense can be a very important defense against charges such as assault, attempted assault, murder, manslaughter or attempted murder.
New York Penal Law §35.15, authorizes the use of physical force when and to the extent the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to defend either herself, himself or another person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of physical force or the actual use of physical force. The term ‘reasonably’ is used twice in Penal Law §35.15 (1). This is because whether and to the extent the force is used must be reasonable but also the belief that the force is necessary because force is about to be used against a person must be reasonable. For example, if someone is about to hit you on the arm with a fly swatter you cannot stop that attack by hitting them on the head with a baseball bat and claim that your use of a baseball bat was reasonably necessary to prevent the attach with a fly swatter.
There are several exceptions to this general rule found in Penal Law §35.15. Firstly, in most cases if the person seeking to use the defense was the initial aggressor or provoked the person with the intent to physically injure another, that person would not be able to successfully claim self-defense. If the physical force was used during a fight by agreement, a person cannot successfully claim self defense. Lastly, the use of deadly physical force is a different category in New York and has different rules as we discuss below. Deadly physical force is force is force which is readily capable of causing death, long term impairment of health, or long term impairment of the use of any bodily organ.
Generally, deadly physical force is not authorized unless the person believes that deadly physical force is about to be used against them or another person. Again, the belief that deadly physical force is being used or is about to be used against them must be reasonable. The law imposes the duty to retreat on a person before that person can resort to the use of deadly physical force in defense of themselves or another.
The duty to retreat is only imposed upon a person who has the ability to retreat with complete safety to themselves and others. In addition, there is no duty to retreat for a person who is in their own dwelling and not the initial aggressor or for a police officer, peace officer or a person assisting a law enforcement officer at the officer’s direction. In addition, there is no duty to retreat if the person seeking to use the defense of self-defense reasonably believes that the other person is attempting to commit or is committing forcible rape, kidnapping, robbery, forcible criminal sexual act, or under some circumstances burglary.
Last edited by mathjak107; 11-12-2023 at 08:08 AM..
Something tells me he was itching for an excuse to be a good guy, defend and use the gun a bit.
No normal person should want to be in his shoes now dealing with the law.
some more on this from TILEM
The New York Defense of Justification usually known as self-defense, is a very important legal defense that is often used by experienced New York Criminal Defense Lawyers. Self-Defense can be a complete defense to charges as serious as Murder and Attempted Murder, Assault and Manslaughter.
New York Self-Defense is defined in the New York Penal Law under Article 35. Article 35 repeatedly uses the term reasonably, which is not defined anywhere in the New York Penal Law.
The question in self-defense cases is very often what does it mean to act reasonably? In other words, reasonable according to whom? Does the law refer to the reasonable belief of a person being chased by another person wielding a machete? Or a Judge, safely in his or her chambers watching a video of the incident? These questions were answered in the landmark case of People v. Goetz.
Bernard Goetz, a passenger on a New York City Subway Car was approached by 2 of a group of 4 men who were riding together on the same subway car. Although, two of the men were armed with screwdrivers, none of the men displayed the screwdrivers nor was there evidence that Goetz was aware the men had screwdrivers, according to the facts that were cited in the Decision of the New York Court of Appeals. One of the men that approached Goetz said “give me five dollars.” Mr. Goetz believed that the men were trying to rob him and drew an illegal handgun and fired at all four men. Mr. Goetz was indicted for 10 counts including 4 counts of attempted murder.
In a lengthy decision, the New York Court of Appeals, New York’s highest Court thoroughly analyzed the history of New York’s self defense law and specifically the meaning of the term “reasonably believes” found in Article 35 of the New York State Penal Law. Specifically, is it what the person subjectively believes or is it an objective standard based upon what a reasonable person would believe.
The Court of Appeals adopted a hybrid standard. The Court of Appeals articulated that it is in fact what a reasonable person would believe. However, the Court of Appeals specified that the standard is objectively what a reasonable person would believe given all of the circumstances that the accused person was in. All of the circumstances that the accused person was in is defined very broadly under New York law, including that person’s prior life experiences which could provide a reasonable basis for believing that another person’s intentions were to harm or rob the accused person. In addition, all of the facts and circumstances that the accused person was aware of including how close they were, the relative size of the attackers, their position, how many bystanders were around, and any other factors that could demonstrate to a finder of fact whether or not the accused persons action were objectively reasonable.
In essence, this hybrid standard is both objective and subjective in that it asks a finder of fact to get into the accused person’s mind, analyze the person’s life experiences which could have a bearing on how the accused perceived the situation that the accused person was in and put themselves in the accused person’s shoes before they determine whether the person’s belief that they were being attacked was reasonable.
so there is a lot involved in determining REASONABLY believed.
which is why we have lawyers and courts , because nothing is black and white as written.
whether one acted as a reasonable man is specifically determined differently in each case as it is a hybrid of all facts and specifics in each case
Last edited by mathjak107; 11-12-2023 at 08:28 AM..
best advice in nyc is avoid confrontation wherever possible .
even if you are found innocent criminally you can lose everything you own in a civil suit as well as to legal fees
first thing we were taught in training was take a matchbook and roll a bunch of singles around it so it looks like a wad of bills held by a rubber band
you can throw it pretty far .
in a confrontation you can say i don’t want any trouble , here go buy the guy some beer and flip it as far as you can .
hopefully they will run for the wad of money and let you run .
if not it looks good in court you even tried to buy them off before confronting them
A person like that just shooting people calmly and willy nilly in one of the largest, most crowded cities in the world, is a definite danger to society and a public nuisance.
I'd also say his ability to react appropriately to situations is highly flawed. Either a possible psychopath or mentally ill.
It was dumb. I don’t know if he had a permit or not, but everyone who’s been to any training knows not to fire “warning shots”. In NY, he could have legally shot the guy to stop a violent felony. Should have gotten closer, shot him, then stayed on scene for the cops. Of course in anti-good citizen NY you’d still have to fight an arrest, but Article 35 is insurmountable if you do everything else correctly.
As You and I know, Warning shots are not permissible, But if You have an accidental discharge when drawing your weapon, and nobody gets hit, your good to go. Its how You articulate the scenario.Shame on Him if he said he fired a warning shot.
As You and I know, Warning shots are not permissible, But if You have an accidental discharge when drawing your weapon, and nobody gets hit, your good to go. Its how You articulate the scenario.Shame on Him if he said he fired a warning shot.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
