Question

Russell Springs, KY

#41 Apr 2, 2013
Gun Buff wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. A reasonable person would assume that, including juries. That's why shutting the door is not unlawful imprisonment as some want to think. You see, self-defense is a valid defense against an unlawful imprisonment charge.
Funny how you excluded the rest of everything I said!
A man may repel force by force in defense of his person, property or habitation.In these cases he is not required to retreat, but he may resist and even pursue his adversary, until he has secured himself from all danger. Who would that apply to?!?

Bradshaw had EVERY right to REPEL the force being exerted by brown who was now at his property!!!

Mutual Combat

Another important concept to the limits on defense of self-defense is something I would hope you would never be involved. But it is worth mentioning here, just for the sake of clarity.

Let's go back to the definition of Unlawful Force. It has already been described as murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary and the like. Notice the word 'argument' is not included!

"When there is mutual combat upon a sudden quarrel, both parties are the aggressors, and if in the fight one is killed it will be manslaughter at least."
Ninety percent of all "fights" are started over something stupid. If the court feels your actions were unwarranted or avoidable, your defense of self-defense will fail. Especially, if those actions result in deadly force.

When you are in pursuit you give up your "I'm afraid" defense!
Gun Buff

Bowling Green, KY

#42 Apr 2, 2013
Question wrote:
<quoted text>

If I approach your vehicle egging on an already precarious situation by refusing to let you get out and defend yourself, I have no "I'm afraid" defense. You picking up what I'm putting down?!?
You have to put me in fear of my life or bodily injury before I am justified to pull a gun on you. If I am not reasonably in fear, and I escalate to lethal force, you have every right to defend yourself and call it self defense.

Now, if you said something that put me in fear, didn't even show me a weapon, just a threat I felt you could carry out, then I could pull a gun, and you couldn't claim self defense. Problem is, I'm dead and nobody knows if you said something or not.
Question

Russell Springs, KY

#43 Apr 2, 2013
Pursuit! Pursuit! Pursuit! Remember that word. Just as intent can be framed in a second, aggressor to aggressee can be changed in an instance! Who was in pursuit when and where is critical to this case. It does not appear that Mr. Bradshaw was attempting to pursue any further after seeing brown get out of his truck. Mr. Bradshaw was buckled in with car in drive position. Had he got out of the truck at the moment that be saw Bradshaw walking back toward him I would say that we're both in mutual pursuit. Brown was in pursuit at the point he exited his vehicle. Again he turned from being pursued to being in pursuit!
Question

Russell Springs, KY

#44 Apr 2, 2013
Correction brown walking back toward him
Gun Buff

Bowling Green, KY

#45 Apr 2, 2013
Question wrote:
Pursuit! Pursuit! Pursuit! Remember that word. Just as intent can be framed in a second, aggressor to aggressee can be changed in an instance! Who was in pursuit when and where is critical to this case. It does not appear that Mr. Bradshaw was attempting to pursue any further after seeing brown get out of his truck. Mr. Bradshaw was buckled in with car in drive position. Had he got out of the truck at the moment that be saw Bradshaw walking back toward him I would say that we're both in mutual pursuit. Brown was in pursuit at the point he exited his vehicle. Again he turned from being pursued to being in pursuit!
Your question was compound, so I didn't conveniently leave stuff out, just answered it parts.

Pursuit has nothing to do with it. Aggression has nothing to do with it. Unless that pursuit or aggression put Bradshaw in fear of his life or bodily injury, he had no right to pull a gun. It's not the complicated.
Question

Russell Springs, KY

#46 Apr 2, 2013
Gun Buff wrote:
<quoted text>
Your question was compound, so I didn't conveniently leave stuff out, just answered it parts.
Pursuit has nothing to do with it. Aggression has nothing to do with it. Unless that pursuit or aggression put Bradshaw in fear of his life or bodily injury, he had no right to pull a gun. It's not the complicated.
Please if you are as your moniker says a gun buff please take some self defense classes from a certified instructor. Pursuit and aggression have EVERYTHING to do with it!
Gun Buff

Bowling Green, KY

#47 Apr 2, 2013
Question wrote:
<quoted text>
Please if you are as your moniker says a gun buff please take some self defense classes from a certified instructor. Pursuit and aggression have EVERYTHING to do with it!
You can argue all you want. Pretend you know everything. That's fine. You can put a trumpet in your rectum and toot yankee doodle down main street, and it won't change a thing. The law and a grand jury says I'm right, you are wrong.

You can't argue the fact that Bradshaw's actions were not of a man that was in fear for his life or great bodily injury. You have no right to pull a gun on a man just because he is using harsh words or foul language. Unless he says something that puts you in fear. You have to have a credible threat to use lethal force. The law is simple. Remember this paragraph when you try to argue some moot point. This is the law.

You want to talk about pursuit? Brandshaw pursued Brown onto Michelle's consignment, when the two had already seperated.
Question

Russell Springs, KY

#48 Apr 2, 2013
Gun Buff wrote:
<quoted text>
You can argue all you want. Pretend you know everything. That's fine. You can put a trumpet in your rectum and toot yankee doodle down main street, and it won't change a thing. The law and a grand jury says I'm right, you are wrong.
You can't argue the fact that Bradshaw's actions were not of a man that was in fear for his life or great bodily injury. You have no right to pull a gun on a man just because he is using harsh words or foul language. Unless he says something that puts you in fear. You have to have a credible threat to use lethal force. The law is simple. Remember this paragraph when you try to argue some moot point. This is the law.
You want to talk about pursuit? Brandshaw pursued Brown onto Michelle's consignment, when the two had already seperated.
And Brown made the split second decision to pull into Michelle's AFTER Bradshaw pulled into enterprise. Brown could have easily continued on down the road case closed. Yes Bradshaw pulled in behind Brown but it appears brown was in a position to exit the parking lot why did he park the car and exit to Bradshaws vehicle and toward his person?!? He's in PURSUIT!!! We can mince words and act like brown was going to play patty cake all we want but remember that he could have left his holster in the car if that was the case.
Again we have no idea what precipitated Bradshaw to "pull a weapon" because we can't hear from him. I still don't know if the weapon was tested for finger prints and don't know if any other than Bradshaws were on it. I do know that witnesses said that brown would not let anyone near the scene by flashing a badge which had as much power as flashing a drivers license.
I full well know the law. I know self defense is a very fine line!
To pretend like Brown used his weapon lawfully and Bradshaw did not is ludicrous!!!
Gun Buff

Bowling Green, KY

#49 Apr 2, 2013
Question wrote:
<quoted text>
To pretend like Brown used his weapon lawfully and Bradshaw did not is ludicrous!!!
I refer you back to the paragraph I mentioned earlier. I may not like it any more than you do, but it's the truth.
Question

Russell Springs, KY

#50 Apr 2, 2013
http://m.wlky.com/national-news/Justices-focu...
Here's a case I've been following previous to this case. Mr. Ordway sits on death row. His self defense claim was not accepted by officers on the scene regardless of the fact that weapons were found on the person of the two who killed... Read up on it!
Good Grief

Bowling Green, KY

#51 Apr 2, 2013
Question wrote:
http://m.wlky.com/national-new s/Justices-focus-on-self-defen se-claim-in-death-case/-/17432 580/16592624/-/sw1dd4/-/index. html
Here's a case I've been following previous to this case. Mr. Ordway sits on death row. His self defense claim was not accepted by officers on the scene regardless of the fact that weapons were found on the person of the two who killed... Read up on it!
Any particular reason why we should read it?
Question

Russell Springs, KY

#52 Apr 2, 2013
Good Grief wrote:
<quoted text>
Any particular reason why we should read it?
A very good reason! It goes to the heart of self defense cases.
The (Correct) Law

In Kentucky, the effect of provocation on the right to self defense is governed by statute KRS 503.060.“Improper use of physical force in self-protection”:

“[T]he use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is not justifiable when:

(2) The defendant, with the intention of causing death or serious physical injury to the other person, provokes the use of physical force by such other person ...”

The actual statute, like the trial judge’s instruction, has two elements. First, did the Defendant provoke the Victim’s response–the part is the same as the judge’s instruction. Second, did the defendant intend to cause death or serious bodily injury to the others–this part is the opposite of the judge’s instruction.

The trial judge’s instruction, you’ll remember, required the jurors to determine whether the victim, not the defendant, intended death or serious bodily injury. And there lay the error. As the state Supreme Court put it...
Another good legal brief!
Good Grief

Bowling Green, KY

#53 Apr 2, 2013
Drug dealers. Who really cares. Thugs killing thugs. The whole story here:

http://murderpedia.org/male.O/o/ordway-carlos...
Question

Russell Springs, KY

#54 Apr 2, 2013
Good Grief wrote:
Drug dealers. Who really cares. Thugs killing thugs. The whole story here:
http://murderpedia.org/male.O/o/ordway-carlos...
Your small mind alone should exclude you from any self defense conversations. The Supreme Court is going to hear the case to answer your "who really cares" question. Good grief as a moniker is entirely apropos...
Good Grief

Bowling Green, KY

#55 Apr 2, 2013
Question wrote:
<quoted text>
Your small mind alone should exclude you from any self defense conversations. The Supreme Court is going to hear the case to answer your "who really cares" question. Good grief as a moniker is entirely apropos...
Intelligent thoughts and ideas bounce off your brain as if it's covered in teflon. I could give a rat's ass about drug dealers and thugs blowing themselves away.

You've been pegging the cretin meter for days. Forget pegging. It spun around like a fan and fell of the wall. You're the winner of the number one loser. Congratulations.
Question

Russell Springs, KY

#56 Apr 2, 2013
Good Grief wrote:
<quoted text>
Intelligent thoughts and ideas bounce off your brain as if it's covered in teflon. I could give a rat's ass about drug dealers and thugs blowing themselves away.
You've been pegging the cretin meter for days. Forget pegging. It spun around like a fan and fell of the wall. You're the winner of the number one loser. Congratulations.
I won't waste a moments time responding to name calling and belittling. I'm not five.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#57 Apr 2, 2013
FACTS wrote:
Was the fact that when Brown slammed the door shut that constituted Unlawful Imprisonment put before the Grand Jurry? I would like to know. Best I can tell from the way this all happened they cant use the self defense law. I sat and studied the no retreat law and the last paragraph would exclude it by my interpratation.
Get a load of the Butler County retard on here attempting to make nuanced legal arguments, LOL!

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#58 Apr 2, 2013
Question wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how you excluded the rest of everything I said!
A man may repel force by force in defense of his person, property or habitation.In these cases he is not required to retreat, but he may resist and even pursue his adversary, until he has secured himself from all danger. Who would that apply to?!?
Bradshaw had EVERY right to REPEL the force being exerted by brown who was now at his property!!!
Mutual Combat
Another important concept to the limits on defense of self-defense is something I would hope you would never be involved. But it is worth mentioning here, just for the sake of clarity.
Let's go back to the definition of Unlawful Force. It has already been described as murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary and the like. Notice the word 'argument' is not included!
"When there is mutual combat upon a sudden quarrel, both parties are the aggressors, and if in the fight one is killed it will be manslaughter at least."
Ninety percent of all "fights" are started over something stupid. If the court feels your actions were unwarranted or avoidable, your defense of self-defense will fail. Especially, if those actions result in deadly force.
When you are in pursuit you give up your "I'm afraid" defense!
Wow, another person who isn't a lawyer trying to make technical legal arguments that real lawyers aren't making.

Yawn.
Good Grief

Bowling Green, KY

#59 Apr 2, 2013
They Call Me Bad News wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, another person who isn't a lawyer trying to make technical legal arguments that real lawyers aren't making.
Yawn.
I agree with you bad news. Did you know he claims to be a master debater?
Question

Russell Springs, KY

#60 Apr 2, 2013
Good Grief wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with you bad news. Did you know he claims to be a master debater?
First of all I am not a he. Second of all why the personal attacks simply because you do not agree with me?!? I am so thankful that I was raised as a lady to stand my ground but always be respectful of others. You men taking offense with me, name calling, belittling, subjecting my intellect to reproach. It is baffling. I'm a perfect and complete stranger to each of you. You would not know if my office is lined with post secondary degrees, if I am or am not an attorney, if I have or have not participated in debates, mock trials, etc. The downright mean spiritedness is juvenile and secondary to any point I am trying to make. I see this case one way which does not appease your senses so you attack me. I suppose the hope is that if you create enough smoke with diversionary name calling and belittling, that I will go away. As I tell children, say what you mean. Don't stonewall, use diversions, or otherwise attempt to coerce someone into a desired outcome. Just say what you wish. Doesn't mean the other person will comply but it is always better than the aforementioned tactics. Please grow up and be lead by human kindness, self respect and mutual respect. Those who value self value all others after all. The mere fact of being in disagreement does not require being mean.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bowling Green Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Virginia Miller 1 hr JMC 1
Dr. Kemp and the Medical Clinic 3 hr BG Citizen 7
could i be pregnant? please read!! 3 hr Northcreek1 35
Louisville Rd Idiots 3 hr defcon_one 4
Where do single people meet 5 hr yup 11
Nicole hines 5 hr Smluv 2
Gas Prices in Bowling Green 5 hr Independent1 4
Bowling Green Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Bowling Green People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 8:54 am PST

NBC Sports 8:54AM
Andy Dalton replaces Aaron Rodgers on Pro Bowl roster
Yahoo! Sports 9:39 AM
Dalton to replace Rodgers for Pro Bowl
NFL10:12 AM
Andy Dalton added to Pro Bowl roster
NBC Sports12:57 PM
Bengals quarterback Andy Dalton headed to his 2nd Pro Bowl
NBC Sports 3:15 AM
Marvin Lewis on Andy Dalton: We don't have time to waste on QB competition