Nicholas Sandmann is someone who reacted perfectly. He could have reasonably shoved or grabbed the guy banging a drum inches from his face, but he knew what would happen to him. And even simply standing there and smiling STILL got him attached in the media.
There was a recent article on self-defence in Canada and I was struck by the closing comment by a defence lawyer. Basically, some police and prosecutors are offended by the idea of self-defence and will prosecute anything. At that point, beyond the impact of simply being charged, you are in a crapshoot.
Thanks for sharing that. A disturbing pattern that emerges from studying these cases both in the U.S. and Canada is that citizens are being held to an unreasonably high standard governing the use of force. The human being, in a violent encounter, instinctively uses the force necessary to not only to stop the threat, but sufficient to make them believe they've stopped the threat. Otherwise, how do they know if their defensive actions have actually worked? Even though citizens ought to have fewer scenarios where the use of force is justifiable, they should be given wider latitude in terms of how much violence they employ, since they're not violence professionals and often have no frame of reference nor experience to draw upon when assessing if a threat has been stopped.
Having only watched the first video, I don’t think the victim did anything wrong. His greatest mistake was walking away from the cop and allowing the would-be thief the chance to accuse him of whatever he wanted.
My thoughts are that you want to demonstrate that you tried to de-escalate the situation by attempting to leave, keeping your cool, trying to avoid touching the other person as much as possible, and attempting to call for help. To a certain extent, it’s a show.
Looking at the Oregon case you linked to, the shooter was recently convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 10 years. Sadly he would have been better off taking a beating. Besides the racial aspect, the prosecutors made show of the fact the shooter brought a gun to a bar (not illegal) and smoked a cigarette right after the event (also not illegal). It does show that unfortunately you have to think about how things will be perceived and used against you, and this is not strictly about logic.
Thank you for the update. Agree that narratives are critical. I would note that the law requires your actions to be reasonable. Theoretically it would just look at the threat and your response, but practically speaking they look at your surrounding actions to see if you were acting reasonably. So if you act angrily, show indifference to any injury you inflict, or don’t submit to authority, that will be used against you. And if the prosecutor or juror starts with a grudge against you because you are a white male gun owner, for example, even that may not help you because there is so much wiggle room for the decision maker.
Nicholas Sandmann is someone who reacted perfectly. He could have reasonably shoved or grabbed the guy banging a drum inches from his face, but he knew what would happen to him. And even simply standing there and smiling STILL got him attached in the media.
There was a recent article on self-defence in Canada and I was struck by the closing comment by a defence lawyer. Basically, some police and prosecutors are offended by the idea of self-defence and will prosecute anything. At that point, beyond the impact of simply being charged, you are in a crapshoot.
https://nationalpost.com/news/no-charges-for-home-invasion-stabbing-death-in-latest-test-of-self-defence-law
Thanks for sharing that. A disturbing pattern that emerges from studying these cases both in the U.S. and Canada is that citizens are being held to an unreasonably high standard governing the use of force. The human being, in a violent encounter, instinctively uses the force necessary to not only to stop the threat, but sufficient to make them believe they've stopped the threat. Otherwise, how do they know if their defensive actions have actually worked? Even though citizens ought to have fewer scenarios where the use of force is justifiable, they should be given wider latitude in terms of how much violence they employ, since they're not violence professionals and often have no frame of reference nor experience to draw upon when assessing if a threat has been stopped.
Having only watched the first video, I don’t think the victim did anything wrong. His greatest mistake was walking away from the cop and allowing the would-be thief the chance to accuse him of whatever he wanted.
My thoughts are that you want to demonstrate that you tried to de-escalate the situation by attempting to leave, keeping your cool, trying to avoid touching the other person as much as possible, and attempting to call for help. To a certain extent, it’s a show.
Looking at the Oregon case you linked to, the shooter was recently convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 10 years. Sadly he would have been better off taking a beating. Besides the racial aspect, the prosecutors made show of the fact the shooter brought a gun to a bar (not illegal) and smoked a cigarette right after the event (also not illegal). It does show that unfortunately you have to think about how things will be perceived and used against you, and this is not strictly about logic.
Thanks for chiming in. I posted your remarks and my reactions to it as an update to the post.
Thank you for the update. Agree that narratives are critical. I would note that the law requires your actions to be reasonable. Theoretically it would just look at the threat and your response, but practically speaking they look at your surrounding actions to see if you were acting reasonably. So if you act angrily, show indifference to any injury you inflict, or don’t submit to authority, that will be used against you. And if the prosecutor or juror starts with a grudge against you because you are a white male gun owner, for example, even that may not help you because there is so much wiggle room for the decision maker.