warning or bullet?

[HMCS(FMF)Ret.]

But yet the sentence isn't constructed that way. If we were to accept your viewpoint as true, then the preceding predicate "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity" is also not a requirement for the protections of Section D, which isn't the case (they have upheld that predicate multiple times, see Dawkins vs State, 2011). It doesn't have to hold your hand and Wikipedia bullet-point with historical examples... the way it's written says everything there is.
And I never said a CC must stand by for anything. Now you are the one over-reading what is written. I just said it's not protected by Section D of the SYG Act... not that it wouldn't be justifiable homicide to shoot the robber.

The Oklahoma Jury instructions again iterate both items as a predicate for Section D:
http://www.oscn.net/applications/OCISWeb/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=454361

OK, lets put your theory to the test. Identify any Oklahoma case law that shows a CC case where CC holder (who was not engaged in unlawful activity and was in a place they had a right to be) protected someones life and was subsequently charged for protecting that individual. You find something like that, then I might buy your argument....otherwise, it doesn't hold water.

 

[LightningCrash]

OK, lets put your theory to the test. Identify any Oklahoma case law that shows a CC case where CC holder (who was not engaged in unlawful activity and was in a place they had a right to be) protected someones life and was subsequently charged for protecting that individual. You find something like that, then I might buy your argument....otherwise, it doesn't hold water.

Your own assertion doesn't hold up to that same test... try again.

 

[HMCS(FMF)Ret.]

Your own assertion doesn't hold up to that same test... try again.

I can't believe we've argued about this so long. Regardless of what you say about Title 21, the fact is you can defend someone who is under immediate threat of death:

OUJI-CR 8-8

DEFENSE OF ANOTHER - WHEN DEFENSE AVAILABLE

If the person on whose behalf the defendant intervened (was not the original aggressor)/(did not provoke another with the intent to cause the altercation)/(did not voluntarily enter into mutual combat), the defendant may act on his/her reasonable belief that the person is in imminent danger of (death or great bodily harm)/(bodily harm).

To say it's unlawful under Title 21 is nothing but an attempt to confuse readers of this thread into believing they don't have a right to protect others unless they themselves were attacked first. This is obviously not true.

 

[LightningCrash]

back to Dawkins v State

Dawkins and Bradley were hanging out.
Sanford pulls up, goes inside uninvited and starts beating Bradley.
Dawkins walks in with a shotgun. Sanford looks up, and Dawkins shoots him in the chest.

Jurors concluded that Dawkins committed manslaughter and that the Stand Your Ground Act didn't protect Dawkins.

 

[LightningCrash]

I can't believe we've argued about this so long. Regardless of what you say about Title 21, the fact is you can defend someone who is under immediate threat of death:

I never said you couldn't defend someone.

To say it's unlawful under Title 21 is nothing but an attempt to confuse readers of this thread into believing they don't have a right to protect others unless they themselves were attacked first. This is obviously not true.

I never said it was unlawful under Title 21 and you are just lying about that.

See my earlier post:
"I just said it's not protected by Section D of the SYG Act... not that it wouldn't be justifiable homicide to shoot the robber.

I can quote the whole post again if you missed it.

But now let's see your theory hold water... find a case where someone was CCing and defended someone without being attacked first. lol

 

[HMCS(FMF)Ret.]

I never said you couldn't defend someone.


I never said it was unlawful under Title 21 and you are just lying about that.

See my earlier post:
"I just said it's not protected by Section D of the SYG Act... not that it wouldn't be justifiable homicide to shoot the robber.

I can quote the whole post again if you missed it.

But now let's see your theory hold water... find a case where someone was CCing and defended someone without being attacked first. lol

So you agree with me....it IS justifiable to protect someone else from death, great bodily harm or a forcible felony under Title 21. Why was that so hard to admit. Whether you agree that it's justifiable under Section D is neither here nor there. Who cares.

 

[LightningCrash]

So you agree with me....it IS justifiable to protect someone else from death, great bodily harm or a forcible felony under Title 21. Why was that so hard to admit. Whether you agree that it's justifiable under Section D is neither here nor there. Who cares.

I didn't agree with you. I never said it was justifiable homicide either. You go shoot a convenience store robber in the back and there's a very significant chance you'll end up like Dawkins. Different set of criteria to meet for the Justifiable Homicide rules.
Meeting the clauses of SYG gives you a whole lot of legal presumptions in your favor. If you're just going in under Justifiable Homicide, you have to prove that you were justified. Not a lot of people have had success in that endeavor.

 

[beast1989]

back to Dawkins v State

Dawkins and Bradley were hanging out.
Sanford pulls up, goes inside uninvited and starts beating Bradley.
Dawkins walks in with a shotgun. Sanford looks up, and Dawkins shoots him in the chest.

Jurors concluded that Dawkins committed manslaughter and that the Stand Your Ground Act didn't protect Dawkins.

fail... thats a totally different scenario which originated from a civil dispute

 

[HMCS(FMF)Ret.]

To be justified all I have to do is show that the victim had the right to defend themselves against death or great bodily harm. You can act for a victim and be justified in doing so. As far as Dawkins v State....he was breaking the law by using an illegal gun, otherwise he would have been fine.

 

[LightningCrash]

To be justified all I have to do is show that the victim had the right to defend themselves against death or great bodily harm.

Where is that codified?