Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 1570687" data-attributes="member: 19675">Yes I did.  I pointed out that someone who is a trained fighter who gets in a fight outside of a controlled environment (read: a prizefight, wrestling match, etc.) and uses ANY of his skills could be charged with use of deadly force.  A Paladin is quite clearly a trained warrior.To clarify further- there are all kinds of less-than-lethal (note: not NON-lethal) subdual techniques out there ranging from rubber rounds to joint-lock grips.  And yet, any of those can be considered lethal force if used (properly or improperly) and serious injury or death results.Essentially, almost any amount of physical force required to subdue a human being, however minimal, can be considered lethal force if the circumstances warrant.  Its VERY fact sensitive.To reiterate, someone who is a trained fighter runs the risk of being charged with use of deadly force any time he gets into a fight.  Thus, if you ARE such a person-NEVER throw the first punch.The standard is ostensibly still reasonableness, but it isn't the objective standard of the average reasonable person you find in most other laws.  This area is much more subjective-what would be reasonable for someone like that person in an analogous situation.  For example, a kid's use of deadly force in the defense of another will be judged differently from an ex-marines' use who will be judged differently from use of deadly force by someone who was victimized by a rapist in the past, etc.As such, the objective reasonability standard collapses into subjectivity.  Does this mean that justification defenses always succeed?  No.  Juries are more critical than you might think about discerning whether someone used deadly force appropriately.1)  Rape is a violent crime.  This guy was comitting a violent crime, not in a back alley, not in the underbrush, but in the storage room of a tavern, apparently without concern about being discovered.  He was comfortable, even relaxed in his surroundings-implying that he may have acted similarly in this location at a previous time.  As stated, the kid had obviously been violated before- perhaps it was even her he had been violating in this room prior to discovery and execution.2)  The Paladin saw the kid and her assailant immediately upon entering the room, so the kid wasn't off in some hidden corner of the room-she and her assailant were in direct line of sight of the door.  If the tavern is in full swing (the original poster said his party was "carousing"), people are going to be going in and out of that storage room repeatedly.  How could the taverner or one of his employees not have known about the girl's plight?  How did this guy have free access to the tavern's storage room?  (I'm surprised the Paladin stopped with killing the assailant.)This does NOT sound like a tavern in a high-class neighborhood to me.If it was, it was also obviously a front for SOMEBODY's illegal activity.</blockquote>

Verification