Here's a relevant top news story - "Walmart gunman released after shooting: MT's 'Castle Law'"

[kid a]

edit:
two guys get in fight at work - one shoots the other. not sure of all the facts yet.
I can see both sides of this.
Workplace safety - do I want bullets flying around the break room every time two guys get in a fight?
But we do have the right to protect ourselves.

from Billings Gazette:

‘Castle doctrine’ law forces shooter’s release, prosecutor says.

(cut)
A man who police said shot his Wal-Mart co-worker in a dispute over the length of a work break has been released from custody because his actions may be protected by Montana's recently enacted "castle doctrine" law.

The shooting, which took place Monday evening, is under investigation by the Billings Police Department and could still result in charges. But Yellowstone County Attorney Dennis Paxinos said language in the "castle doctrine" bill passed during the last session of the Montana Legislature required him to release the shooter until more information becomes available.

The law asserts, among other things, that a person has a "natural right" to use firearms for self-defense and is not required to summon law enforcement assistance before using "justifiable" force to ward off an attack.

"The play of (House Bill) 228 with the current law causes us some pause to do a much more thorough investigation to determine if we can charge anyone," Paxinos said.

more here: http://www.billingsgazette.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_704011c8-86ff-11de-b9f8-001cc4c03286.html

[xchrom]

1. "castle doctrine"

:rofl:

[slackmaster]

2. Nice job of leaving important details out of the part you quoted

...Billings Police Sgt. Jay Berry said that Lira hit co-worker Craig Schmidt, 49, in the face....

With that piece of information, this sounds like it may be a legitimate defensive shooting to me.

K&U

:kick:

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

3. I assume Craig Schmit is the shooter and Lira was shot? (n/t)

[slackmaster]

6. It does say that Lira was found with a gunshot wound

The writing is pretty weak.

[kid a]

4. i quoted the top four prargraphs (copyright limit) = & the hothead got shot

This is for discussion. I left nothing out purposefully.

Thanks.

[slackmaster]

9. The standard is four paragraphs, but does not specify which four

:hi:

[Lasher]

5. So maybe it's more like, 'You might want to avoid hitting co-workers in the face.'

Obviously there was a little more than sharing of tables going on.

[slackmaster]

8. Yes, and knowing what provoked Lira to escalate it to that level might be useful too

We don't have much information here.

[Lasher]

10. Yes, I just now read the article.

From what I read it looks like self defense but there might be more to it as you say.

[cherokeeprogressive]

7. Leaving out the relevent facts is the only way stories like this grow legs at all. n/t

[kid a]

11. edit to share the "self defense" aspect of story

i quoted the first four sentences of the article.
You can read the rest and form your opinion.

[slackmaster]

12. Good job, and thank you!

A lot of people on this forum will read only the subject line and a sentence or two, then post a knee-jerk reaction one way or the other. The reply by xchrom is a good example.

[TreasonousBastard]

13. Aside from all the unknowns here, and the usual...

2nd Amendment arguments, is it now appropriate to bring a gun to work "just in case"?

"Aside from potential legal charges, it was unclear if Schmidt or Lira will face disciplinary action from Wal-Mart. Schmidt has a permit to carry the concealed weapon, but a spokesman for the company said it would be inappropriate to discuss whether Wal-Mart has a policy about employees carrying guns."

Wal-Mart, and presuambly a lot of other employers, has no public policy on employees being armed? So If I'm returning something, or disputing a bill at the gas company, I could be shot?

[WeDidIt]

14. The argument of prosecutors is using a gun was not 'justifiable force'

in response to a smack in the face.

[slackmaster]

16. A 300-pound, 32-year-old man smacked a 49-year-old, 150-pound man in the face

Just to be clear on what allegedly happened.

[L0oniX]

15. The rule is ...you must be in fear for your life if you use a gun to defend yourself.

[slackmaster]

17. If a man twice my size and 17 years younger than I smacked me in the face

I think I might be in fear for my life.

[Statistical]

20. or at the very minimum fear "great bodily harm" which is usually the minimum standard.

Of course state laws vary.

[silverback]

18. Yes, and you never know what preexisting conditions...

someone may have or how much it's going to take to convince them their life is in danger...so it's wise to refrain from punching people in the face.

There was a 'roid rage case not too long ago, huge dude loses it over some slight, pissed off, violent, says "I'm gonna kick your ass" to a guy with a recent double fusion in his neck, who dumps a mag into him as he advanced, shot to slide lock, DRT.

No charges.

Behave yourselves in a shall-issue state folks.

[Statistical]

19. Well it depends on the state however most have broader condition.

Usually something along the line of "reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another".

[meow2u3]

21. The "castle doctrine" is little more than legalized murder

All it does is give white supremacists a license to murder those who look different from them or disagree with their views. And these right-wing nut jobs have the gall to accuse Democrats of embracing the "culture of death" while they run around "defending themselves" against phantom threats that exist only in their own minds.

[slackmaster]

23. That is nonsense and shows your prejudice, meow2u3

I wish I could Unrec a reply.

[L0oniX]

24. It must be nice for you to live such a sheltered life in safety.

[Statistical]

22. Here is the statute in Montana

45-3-102 A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


Does an old small man have a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm to himself if attacked unlawfully by a younger larger man?