Is The Threat Of Lethal Force Justified In This Case

At 1:13 in this video we can see a rifle aimed directly at the cameraman. The general rule is you only point a gun at someone or something you are prepared to kill.




In your opinion is the threat of lethal force justified here?

a reply to: Kester

I don't know why they don't get off these people's land. Put the pipeline somewhere else.

What a bloody mess.

I had to look up the situation.

Pipeline

“Unlike in much of Canada – where relationships between First Nations and the state are governed by treaties – few aboriginal nations in British Columbia ever signed deals with colonial authorities, meaning the federal government still operates in a vacuum of authority on their lands.

In 1997, the Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan nations won a landmark case in which the supreme court ruled that their aboriginal title had not been extinguished when Canada became a country. But the case did not establish the boundaries of that title and the court suggested subsequent cases would be needed to settle the issue.

“Aboriginal title claims of the Wet’suwet’en people have yet to be resolved either by negotiation or litigation,” wrote the justice Marguerite Church in her decision to grant Coastal GasLink the injunction. “While Wet’suwet’en customary laws clearly exist on their own independent footing, they are not recognized as being an effectual part of Canadian law.”

I hate protesters. It started with the hippies destroying law and order in the US.

That being said, I don't know about Canadian law, but in the US, if the protesters are unarmed, no, lethal force is not justified.

a reply to: Kester
Yes it was justified
When you climb into a tower you appear as a sniper
He was lucky he didn't get shot
A lot of people have had weapons aimed at them
Most have the sense to raise their hands
Whining doesn't make him or his cause look good
Just go to court and do things legal
No need to look and sound like a wimp

We had a group of protesters living on the land in Northern Mi. The locals got tired of the mess and cleared things out while the protesters were on vacation from the cold. When they came back everything was cleaned up. It looked like they were living in a dump.

a reply to: mikell

Mikell, were those protesters on public land (either Federal or State)?

One year we had a family that was obviously homeless for a while and was camped out on federal land a few miles south of my place. A friend of mine and I went into their camp while they were away and looked it over. We saw the forest service guys drive down there, so we had to be nosy.

Anyway, they were following the rules by posting a calendar with their stay marked off, moving their camp every two weeks and keeping the area clean. They didn't trash the place and left when they had to, but the federal land around here gets dumped on with construction and household trash, abandoned stripped down vehicles, and the occasional dead body. I've even found mysterious swollen drums of unknown contents, likely hazardous waste. It seems that dumping trash on public lands is a tradition that goes all the way back to the beginning of the federal forest lands around here judging by the age of bottles I've found in dump piles.

Still, it makes me feel like the spirit of Detroit is out here lurking in the woods, waiting for the area to become a crap hole like the one I left. In a way I could understand the disrespect for Detroit when people dumped trash and didn't keep a clean neighborhood, but I can't understand trashing the federal forest, esp. the wetlands and natural areas with sensitive ecosystems.

a reply to: TheAlleghenyGentleman

Thanks for your post, I didn't know that there were any First Nation tribes that never signed off their right to self rule. Puts them in a position to have to protect their fully sovereign nation. Therefore I can understand the potential for an exchange of gun fire, but pointing a weapon is always a deadly threat and asking for the same treatment from the victims of the threat.

No it is not justification for the use of lethal force...lethal force can only be used in a defensive manner meaning tuff titty said the Kitty the Bag Guys have to shoot first...and no refusing to listen to a verbal command is not reasonable cause to us lethal force either......proactive shooting by Law Enforcement is non-sanctioned Public Execution committed by a Persona Authoritus ...vis a vis Murder#1.

No one knows where a gun is pointed except the person holding it...its impossible to know where someone else is pointing their gun...the deviation between pointing it at your head and 6 inches away is not discernable by human eyes.

originally posted by: one4all
No it is not justification for the use of lethal force...lethal force can only be used in a defensive manner meaning tuff titty said the Kitty the Bag Guys have to shoot first...and no refusing to listen to a verbal command is not reasonable cause to us lethal force either......proactive shooting by Law Enforcement is non-sanctioned Public Execution committed by a Persona Authoritus ...vis a vis Murder#1.

No one knows where a gun is pointed except the person holding it...its impossible to know where someone else is pointing their gun...the deviation between pointing it at your head and 6 inches away is not discernable by human eyes.

Wow I don't recall the last time I read a post that was this wrong on literally everything

Here is some interesting information about "aboriginal title" in Canada.

Apparently because the First Nations existed long before the British Crown claimed the territory by right of conquest, the Native land use rights are recognized as Aboriginal Title. However, this is conditional on any agreement between the tribe and the government.

From Wikipedia . . .

Extinguishment Aboriginal title can be extinguished by the general government, but again, the requirement to do this varies by country. Some require the legislature to be explicit when it does this, others hold that extinguishment can be inferred from the government's treatment of the land. In Canada, the Crown cannot extinguish aboriginal title without the explicit prior informed consent of the proper aboriginal title holders . . . the payment of compensation include the right to property, as protected by constitutional or common law . . .

Part of the aboriginal title is that the customary tribal use of their territory has to be established and in this case it never was. Things like hunting and fishing rights and traditional uses of natural resources are the rights the tribe has retained since long before the crown claimed the area that later became Canada. These tribes are Canadians and not entirely separate from the Canadian government but I'm not really sure if they are an independent country within a country sort of deal.

Here is a quote from a good website on aboriginal title in Canada.

Some Aboriginal people do not agree with these definitions, as they consider them to limit the scope of Aboriginal title, making it easier to extinguish. The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) claims that “there remains a significant difference between what Indigenous Peoples see as being our ‘Original Title’ to the land and its resources, and the Canadian legal notion of ‘Aboriginal Title.’”1

Aboriginal Title

ETA: I'm not trying to imply that the dispute between First Nations tribes and the Canadian government could justify one side or the other pointing guns at each other, but it does indicate the friction is getting hotter and why some jerk-wad would be such a dick.

Removed to make a thread because it wasn't really following OP

originally posted by: one4all
No it is not justification for the use of lethal force...lethal force can only be used in a defensive manner meaning tuff titty said the Kitty the Bag Guys have to shoot first...and no refusing to listen to a verbal command is not reasonable cause to us lethal force either......proactive shooting by Law Enforcement is non-sanctioned Public Execution committed by a Persona Authoritus ...vis a vis Murder#1.

No one knows where a gun is pointed except the person holding it...its impossible to know where someone else is pointing their gun...the deviation between pointing it at your head and 6 inches away is not discernable by human eyes.

I don’t even know where to start on this!

Generally you can't use lethal force to defend property in the United States.

To use deadly force, in any scenario, three things have to be objectively true (to a "reasonable person")

The shooter must be in fear for their life/the life of another or fear grievous bodily harm, and the attacker must have the
1) Ability
2) Opportunity
and
3) Intent
to cause the death/grievous bodily harm which the shooter fears

Lets go through each one:

1) Ability - the attacker must have the ability to inflict lethal/grievous bodily harm. This means having a weapon, multiple attackers or possessing some special skill (such as boxing training or martial arts)

2) Opportunity - the attacker must have the opportunity to immediately inflict lethal or severe bodily harm with said weapons/mob/skills/etc

and

3) Intent - the attacker must have the intent to utilize their weapon/skill/other to cause severe harm or death

Some examples:

-An unarmed regular Joe standing next to you on the street threatening to set you on fire. In this instance, you don't see a weapon (or matches/gasoline) and although the opportunity (they're close enough to do it) and intent (they're verbalizing their intent) exists, Deadly force is not justified here

-An man carrying a rifle on his back is in line behind you at the grocery store. In this instance, you do see a weapon and the person is close enough to use that weapon to inflict deadly force but where's the intent? They've made no overt threatening gesture nor have they taken any steps to make you reasonably fear for your life or the life of another person. Using deadly force against this person will get you a murder charge.

-A woman is on television holding a knife threatening to kill you (by name). In this case, the ability is satisfied (she has a knife) and her intent is verbalized. But because it isn't an imminent threat and the person is on TV, there is no opportunity. You could not deploy deadly force.

-A man approaches you in an alleyway holding a baseball bat. He demands your wallet and threatens to "bash your skull" in if you don't comply. In this case, you draw your conceal carry weapon and stop the attacker. You are not charged with a crime because your actions are justified.

-A person at a restaurant follows you to your vehicle and is harassing you. They didn't like the sports team your hat was representing. They threaten to kill you and stand inches from your face shouting. You exercise the better portion of valor and scram. You made the right choice. Opportunity and intent are both met in this scenario, but they had no ability to carry it out. Killing this person would result in murder charges. Using OC spray on them would be justified, however, that's another story all together.

-Your neighbor calls you on the phone and tells you to look out your window. You see him standing on his porch holding a rifle. He says "Next time I see you, I'm going to kill you for letting your dog use the bathroom on my lawn!" Later, while heading to the grocery store, your neighbor approaches you shouting obscenities. Because you're a smart gun owner, you do not shoot your neighbor because he is unarmed. Despite the threats earlier, the triad no longer exists (A/O/I)

-A man threatens you with a knife and mugs you. You didn't have your firearm on you, so you had no choice but to give up the property and pray to God he let you live. Two weeks later, you encounter the same man walking on the street and he flashes you a smug smile. In this case, using deadly force *now* could constitute murder. Although the triad (A/O/I) did exist during the mugging, it collapsed the minute the encounter was over. When you use deadly force, it has to be right then and there.

I hope this made it clear