Self Defense
March 1, 2017

Huffington Post Is Claiming That Shooting In Self-Defense Is Illegal, Since It Denies The Criminal A Fair Trial

Too many people are more than willing to hurt others for personal gain. There are too many violent criminals, maniacs even, who find pleasure in other people’s suffering. And, at times, the only thing that is standing between us, our love ones and those violent offenders is a gun. Indeed, in certain situations, only a gun will be effective enough to stop a tragedy from occurring, to stop a genuine massacre.

Now, granted, the 2nd Amendment and the right to own guns has always been pretty controversial. And while there are some viable arguments, which are demonstrating that having guns freely available on every corner is wrong, some of the things that people are coming up with in order to justify getting rid of the right to bare guns are pretty ridiculous indeed.

Well, Huffington Post just prove that there are some people out there, who have genuinely crazy ideas and whose notion of justice is not only misguided – it can even be considered perverted, since it does not take the real facts into consideration. Well, the author of the latest article on the matter – Justim Curmi is a dyslexic with a degree in philosophy. And even though philosophy is an invaluable thing and really helps people understand the world better, at times, it can be interpreted in weird and disturbing ways. Well, one way or the other, the article is beginning in a pretty harmless way. It even seems that the author may understand how it works and why the 2nd Amendment is important, no matter how you see it:

The Second Amendment is highly contested. There is no doubt that people do have the right to carry and have a stockpile of guns (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms”) and a state has the right to organize a well-regulated Militia. But, the main issue is on the right to self-defend with a firearm.

Even though there is sarcasm all over the place, it still appears that the author may be agreeing that people need to have the right to have guns. Now, further on, it gets more interesting and confusing at the same time:

The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights.

Now, not to be rude, but is it not the dumbest and most idiotic thing you have ever read in your entire life? It is hard even to begin to describe how wrong the author really is and it is obvious that he was on LSD or mushrooms even when writing the article.

First of all, what kind of fair trial are we talking about? In order for it to happen the criminal will need to be arrested and formally charged. Furthermore, there is the most basic right that every single human being has – the right to protect himself or herself from any attempts to end his or her life. Howe does the author imagine it really? So if a maniac, who killed dozens of people, is rushing towards you with a bloody axe, you should stand still and not make any attempts on getting your gun in order to protect our life? Well, this is just absurd to say the least. But wait, there is even more:

Therefore, if we ponder and meditate on the recent events in news about guns, it would be obvious that the current state is incorrect. A gun for civilians is a weapon for a revolution and not for ordinary use. The belief that a gun is a useful tool to protect one is counter intuitive because guns get into the hands of people who use them for horrible reasons.

Where do we start? It seems that our writer friend here is having some serious mental health issues. He basically states that guns can only be used in order to overthrow the government. Furthermore, seeing how the violent criminals are constantly using guns, it is only fair that the goo and law abiding citizens must not use those weapons for protection. The logical chain is pretty strong or at least it would be if the article was written by a five year old.

Even while simply analyzing those words you are getting a headache. Once more, there are some valid arguments and points, which could actually be taken into consideration from people who are against the gun use. Nevertheless, never had those arguments been so ignorant, so downright stupid and misguided.

In the end, it is obvious that Huffington Post needs to do something about the people, who are hiring such incredible writers to begin with. At the very least, they must not pay them with drugs that cause severe hallucinations or something. It is absolutely certain that it is not even an argument – it is some sick person’s imagination and if Huffington Post is ready to post such things online, well, it says a lot about them, does it not?

Dmitry Gorin, ESQ
Law Offices of Dmitry Gorin

October 8, 2015

Self Defense: Legal Definition And Consequences

In our society has been through tremendous changes and is now living in line with the civilized standards, however, it is still true to say that we all live in a dog eat dog world. That is right – the number of crimes that people commit grows on yearly basis. There are plenty of reasons for such violence – people these days lack decent employment opportunities, they live in a genuinely fast paced society, where most of us are depressed and frustrated – the anti-utopia model is now turning into reality.

The law enforcement authorities do their best to fight with the crime and people, who commit it. With that said, in some cases everything is not as straightforward as it may seem at first. There is the notion of self-defense – the usage of force applied against the imminent danger. Imminent is the key word – in case you had actual reasons to believe that you were in danger, you had every right to strike back. In case you were acting in line with the self-defense, you may have the case dismissed whatsoever, since you reacted exactly like any other reasonable person would.

Still, one must also understand that striking a person is not always considered self-defense. For instance, a guy from your office is frustrated with some of your actions. So he sits down and writes an angry message to you. He says that he is going to kill you eventually. You do not hesitate, take your gun, go to this colleague of yours and shoot him on sight. This is not considered a self-defense. Your actions were not reasonable, the man only wrote that he is going to harm you and it does not mean that he would necessarily do so.

Another good example – you are in a bar, drinking your beer, when all of a sudden some drunken guy comes to you and says that he is going to kill you, but first he is going to go and buy more beer. He leaves and returns in a couple of minutes, so you strike him with your bottle. Again, you had other options – the guy left for some time and you could simply leave the establishment.

In order for the self-defense to stand in court, you must have used reasonable amount of force when striking back. Let’s imagine that some guy hit you in the stomach. You take out your gun and kill him on the spot. This is not reasonable self-defense. Now, if you would hit the guy back, it would be considered self-defense and you would be able to say that you were right to do so.

Regardless of how violent the case may have been, it is crucial to get in touch with a qualified as well as experienced defense attorney, who would be able to prove that you were acting reasonably, based on your instincts and that you had every right to strike back, sine your health and your lifestyle were at stake. Only a professional Los Angeles criminal defense attorney would have what it takes to help you get out of this situation quickly and effectively. Even if you are 100% certain that you were right to hit a person, it is still important to have a good lawyer by your side to help you deal with the prosecution and your opponent’s lawyers. Only then can you count on successful outcome that will not disappoint you.