Scenario for Lawyers

[Townhallsavoy]

Let's say there are three white men, all around the same socioeconomic status, walking down an empty city street. 

Two of them are on one side and walking towards each other.  The third is on the other side of the street walking slightly slower than one of the men. 

When the two men approach each other, one of them draws a gun and begins to instigate a robbery.  The other notices the gun being drawn and draws his own.  They are pointing their guns at each other. 

The robber shouts, "Drop the weapon and give me your money, or I'll fucking kill you!" 

The third man across the street sees this, draws his own gun and runs across the street.  He fires at the robber and because he has been trained in gun usage, he achieves a perfect headshot and kills the robber.

Will the third man receive any judicial punishment in the state of Alabama?  What about other states? 

[Saniflush]

Let's say there are three white men, all around the same socioeconomic status, walking down an empty city street. 

Two of them are on one side and walking towards each other.  The third is on the other side of the street walking slightly slower than one of the men. 

When the two men approach each other, one of them draws a gun and begins to instigate a robbery.  The other notices the gun being drawn and draws his own.  They are pointing their guns at each other. 

The robber shouts, "Drop the weapon and give me your money, or I'll fucking kill you!" 

The third man across the street sees this, draws his own gun and runs across the street.  He fires at the robber and because he has been trained in gun usage, he achieves a perfect headshot and kills the robber.

Will the third man receive any judicial punishment in the state of Alabama?  What about other states?

I rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

[Snaggletiger]

I rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Your words have meaning.

[Townhallsavoy]

I rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

You're the third man.  You could have stayed on your side of the street and ran away.   

And how would the 12 judge based on the law?  Juries don't just get to decide whatever they want. 

[Saniflush]

You're the third man.  You could have stayed on your side of the street and ran away.   

And how would the 12 judge based on the law?  Juries don't just get to decide whatever they want.

The only thing evil needs is for good men to do nothing. 
A person has to live with their actions or inactions.  I'm going in guns a blazing.

[bottomfeeder]

According to Alabama State law he should even see the inside of a courtroom. This is referenced to the "Stand Your Ground Law" or "Castle Law"passed in Alabama.

Section 13A-3-23
Use of force in defense of a person.
(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:
(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.
(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.
(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.
(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:
a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;
b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;
c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.
(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:
(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.
(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.
(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.
(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.
(Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §610; Acts 1979, No. 79-599, p. 1060, §1; Act 2006-303, p. 638, §1.)

I'm not an attorney, however, I can read.

[bottomfeeder]

The only questionable part would be this.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground

How are they interpreting this?

[Token]

Did any of the gunmen have a hoodie or a pack of skittles?

[Vandy Vol]

According to Alabama State law he should even see the inside of a courtroom. This is referenced to the "Stand Your Ground Law" or "Castle Law"passed in Alabama.

I'm not an attorney, however, I can read.

Your interpretation is a little off.  The first section that you highlighted (section (a)(4)) refers only to scenarios where there is an unlawful and forceful entering of a building.  That wouldn't be the case here if you've got a robbery on a sidewalk.

The section that you should have cited to is (a)(1).  Section (a) suggests that deadly force can be used in defense of self, as well as defense of others, if one of the subsections apply.  Subsection (1) states that if you reasonably believe someone is going to use deadly force, then you can legally respond with deadly force.

So if you see someone pointing a gun at someone else (threat of deadly force), then you can use deadly force to defend that person...unless one of the exceptions apply, such as being in a place that you don't have the right to be.

The only questionable part would be this.
How are they interpreting this?

My guess would be that a person has the right to be on a public sidewalk.  I don't see any way that they could claim that a person does not have the right to be on a sidewalk.  This section is in place mostly to prevent someone from breaking into a building or trespassing on property, then using deadly force as "self defense."

[Townhallsavoy]

Did any of the gunmen have a hoodie or a pack of skittles?

That's why I said white guys with equal socioeconomic status, which probamability laws state that means the white guys are at least upper middle class with Mercedez and mansions. 

So no hoodies or skittles. 

[Snaggletiger]

I'm pretty fly for a white guy

[Buzz Killington]

If #3 had just shot them both, then taken them to a pig farm...this would not even be discussed.

[bottomfeeder]

If #3 had just shot them both, then taken them to a pig farm...this would not even be discussed.

Are you saying Arkies are omnivorous?

[Snaggletiger]

If #3 had just shot them both, then taken them to a pig farm...this would not even be discussed.

Wood chippers work better.

[bottomfeeder]

Subsection (1) states that if you reasonably believe someone is going to use deadly force, then you can legally respond with deadly force.

So if you see someone pointing a gun at someone else (threat of deadly force), then you can use deadly force to defend that person...unless one of the exceptions apply, such as being in a place that you don't have the right to be.


My guess would be that a person has the right to be on a public sidewalk.  I don't see any way that they could claim that a person does not have the right to be on a sidewalk.  This section is in place mostly to prevent someone from breaking into a building or trespassing on property, then using deadly force as "self defense."

Thank you.

[WiregrassTiger]

I do not know the answer to this question, however, legalzoom.com should be able to answer this. It could make lawyers obsolete very soon. If I were the 3rd guy that shot the robber, that's def who I would call (After arranging for payment and extorting the 2 other guys at gunpoint.)

[Snaggletiger]

I do not know the answer to this question, however, legalzoom.com should be able to answer this. It could make lawyers obsolete very soon. If I were the 3rd guy that shot the robber, that's def who I would call (After arranging for payment and extorting the 2 other guys at gunpoint.)

All I wanna do is legal zoom zoom zoom in a boom boom

[WiregrassTiger]

All I wanna do is legal zoom zoom zoom in a boom boom

You can get this treatment at the boom boom room at Teasers in Wicksburg, so I've been told.

[Snaggletiger]

You can get this treatment at the boom boom room at Teasers in Wicksburg, so I've been told.

You can also get shot shot shot over twat twat twat.

[Godfather]

It's ok because it's your dog.