"Bringing About the Difficulty" -- Self Defense Legal Doctrine

[RicInOR]

Another Case About "Bringing About the Difficulty"

I've been reading up recently on whether someone can be stripped of self-defense rights on the grounds that he "brought…

reason.com

"I've been reading up recently on whether someone can be stripped of self-defense rights on the grounds that he "brought about the difficulty" by going some place where he knew or should have known he would likely need to use deadly force to defend himself. I blogged about the 1938 Wyoming State v. Bristol case, which generally says that, no, one doesn't forfeit self-defense rights this way; that, I think, is the majority view, but some jurisdictions take the opposite view."


1938 Wyoming State v. Bristol
D.C. 1923 Laney v. U.S.
1998 D.C. case
.

Read More

 

[No_Regerts]

Step in front of a car, car doesn't stop, you shoot. You put yourself in peril in this example.

 

[Longwalkhome]

In the final verdict you are judged by 12 or carried by six. Hopefully the 12 give a just verdict.

 

[Stomper]

I was born, therefore I am a threat to safety, and wherever I go I "bring about the difficulty"…. merely because I exist.



Hence the logic for mask and vaccine mandates.

 

[Koda]

Nowadays it depends on your political motivation. Gaige wasn't charged with anything for inserting himself armed into what was clearly a volatile situation, and his gun was actually illegal. I guess he had a right to be there....

 

[P7M13]

Case #1, the valid question presented in the article was "how long do you alter your behavior in reponse to a threat" - i.e. if threatened with physical harm, at what timeline is it reasonable to stop avoiding said threat? Seems the defendant did not prove that he was a regular at said cafe and that this was his normal activity.
I can forsee the left trying to use this, as the DA did in KR's trial, that bringing a gun to a "peaceful protest" is inciting conflict and removes the right to self defense.
Case #2, didna read.
Case #3, what happens when the law of the land conflicts with street justice.

 

[revjen45]

"I was born, therefore I am a threat to safety, and wherever I go I "bring about the difficulty"…. merely because I exist."
And because I regularly go armed in public I must be intending to provoke a violent confrontation.
Hmmm - I have had my CCW since '92, and I'm pretty sure that I could have precipitated a deadly force encounter if that were my intent.
Whether SYG applied or not I would avoid a DGU if at all possible, short of allowing injury to myself.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Some folks would not "bring about the difficulty" if they showed up at bon fire with a few gallons of gasoline and keg of black powder....
All due to their temperament , outlook / perceptions , experience , personality , etc....

Other people due to the list mentioned above , would be enough to give St. Teresa murderous thoughts....

It all boils down to....

The situation and the people involved...
And....
Just what a jury believes....
Andy

 

[mkwerx]

Step in front of a car, car doesn't stop, you shoot. You put yourself in peril in this example.

Except if you're LE and attempting to stop a fleeing felon. Lots of shootings by the po-po during exactly that scenario. Different situation though - they're actively engaging in an arrest of a felony suspect (or sometimes even a misdemeanor suspect) and put themselves in harms way in an attempt to stop them, then wind up shooting said person when that person hits the gas with the officer in the way. Ya'll do get away with stuff sometimes that a non-badge wearing member of the public would get pilloried for. I wouldn't be surprised though, if more prosecutors started taking a different tack with LE folks in those situations and start charging for assault/manslaughter/murder given the political climate (not saying that's right & proper, don't take it that way!) -- I think even a citizen attempting a citizens' arrest of a felony suspect wouldn't get the same benefit of the doubt if they step in front of a car and then shoot the driver.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Lets take a second here to think and ponder on a certain inalienable right, NO PERSON MAY BE RESTRICTED IN THEIR TRAVLES, in, out, or through any area of these States United, so, intent, or "Bring about the difficulty" has ZERO meaning, it's a made up term by shifty lawyers in black robes who created this as a stall tactic toward an infringement!
@Stomper in 100% correct, our very existence is an affirmation of our rights, and there fore, a threat to those who would infringe upon them!
My Travels are protected, both by LAW and by FORCE I am fully authorized at the time of my birth to exercise, up to and including the use of lethal force!

The argument of "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should" also has no bearing ( See BOLD above) so, there is no meaningful argument as it goes against a RIGHT. It may not be smart, or a wise choice, BUT we each have the absolute right to make that choice and not have to explain it to any authority or to show travel "papers" authorizing those travels!

 

[BulletsNButts]

Lets take a second here to think and ponder on a certain inalienable right, NO PERSON MAY BE RESTRICTED IN THEIR TRAVLES, in, out, or through any area of these States United, so, intent, or "Bring about the difficulty" has ZERO meaning, it's a made up term by shifty lawyers in black robes who created this as a stall tactic toward an infringement!
@Stomper in 100% correct, our very existence is an affirmation of our rights, and there fore, a threat to those who would infringe upon them!
My Travels are protected, both by LAW and by FORCE I am fully authorized at the time of my birth to exercise, up to and including the use of lethal force!

The argument of "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should" also has no bearing ( See BOLD above) so, there is no meaningful argument as it goes against a RIGHT. It may not be smart, or a wise choice, BUT we each have the absolute right to make that choice and not have to explain it to any authority or to show travel "papers" authorizing those travels!

Do you have one of those sovereign citizen license plates?

 

[Koda]

Im guessing that if enough people keep "bringing about the difficulty" then "bringing about the difficulty" will become prohibited.

 

[RicInOR]

Another installment

Husband, Wife, Brothel, Knife: Another Case on Carrying a Gun When "Expecting Trouble"

"I've been researching the cases dealing with self-defense rights of people who go to a place armed, knowing that it's likely to be dangerous; hence my posts about the Wyoming Buddha/Christ/Hercules case and about the D.C. Laney race riot case. Here's another such case (which I think expresses what today would be the minority view), from 1913 Arkansas, Moore v. State:"

 

[Koda]

Im not certain I understand the subject of this thread?

Are we saying that people should have the right to go to a place armed when they know its likely it could turn violent and need to defend themselves?

 

[BulletsNButts]

Im not certain I understand the subject of this thread?

Are we saying that people should have the right to go to a place armed when they know its likely it could turn violent and need to defend themselves?

It feels like ironic word play. "Bringing the difficulty" meaning in realistic terms going into a conflict armed and ready with the intent to use your weapon to kill, not just defend. What I think it wants to be is, going into a conflict armed for the sake of self defense and being forced to use self defense. It's a line that's clear to me, but often gets messy w semantics and the idea that putting yourself into trouble is ones right and shouldn't stop someone from killing another.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Another Case About "Bringing About the Difficulty"

I've been reading up recently on whether someone can be stripped of self-defense rights on the grounds that he "brought…

reason.com

"I've been reading up recently on whether someone can be stripped of self-defense rights on the grounds that he "brought about the difficulty" by going some place where he knew or should have known he would likely need to use deadly force to defend himself. I blogged about the 1938 Wyoming State v. Bristol case, which generally says that, no, one doesn't forfeit self-defense rights this way; that, I think, is the majority view, but some jurisdictions take the opposite view."


1938 Wyoming State v. Bristol
D.C. 1923 Laney v. U.S.
1998 D.C. case
.

Oregon law says u can't prime the pump.

ORS 161.215 – Limitations on use of physical force in defense of a person

Notwithstanding ORS 161.209 (Use of physical force in defense of a person), a person is not justified in using physical force upon…

oregon.public.law

 

[Koda]

It feels like ironic word play. "Bringing the difficulty" meaning in realistic terms going into a conflict armed and ready with the intent to use your weapon to kill, not just defend. What I think it wants to be is, going into a conflict armed for the sake of self defense and being forced to use self defense. It's a line that's clear to me, but often gets messy w semantics and the idea that putting yourself into trouble is ones right and shouldn't stop someone from killing another.

I think there is a difference between arming yourself in case of conflict vs. arming yourself to choose to go into conflict.

 

[BulletsNButts]

I think there is a difference between arming yourself in case of conflict vs. arming yourself to choose to go into conflict.

I totally agree with you.

 

[No_Regerts]

Except if you're LE and attempting to stop a fleeing felon. Lots of shootings by the po-po during exactly that scenario. Different situation though - they're actively engaging in an arrest of a felony suspect (or sometimes even a misdemeanor suspect) and put themselves in harms way in an attempt to stop them, then wind up shooting said person when that person hits the gas with the officer in the way. Ya'll do get away with stuff sometimes that a non-badge wearing member of the public would get pilloried for. I wouldn't be surprised though, if more prosecutors started taking a different tack with LE folks in those situations and start charging for assault/manslaughter/murder given the political climate (not saying that's right & proper, don't take it that way!) -- I think even a citizen attempting a citizens' arrest of a felony suspect wouldn't get the same benefit of the doubt if they step in front of a car and then shoot the driver.

I brought up that scenario because we were told if it happens, the officer is screwed.

 

[mkwerx]

I brought up that scenario because we were told if it happens, the officer is screwed.

Interesting, but not surprising given Washington's restrictions they're placing on LE, and the ever-shifting political sands that cause administrators and prosecutors to side with the terrorists...

I just saw a thing about a Gresham cop that was cleared after stepping in front of a car and shooting the suspect. Surprising for Multnomah County.