Immediate vs imminent

[Citizen]

Had to hunt this down. I'm speechless. Laughing out loud, but speechless. I really don't know what to do with the fact that this little tidbit was floating around inside your head.

TFred

It stuck in my head because of the exact sequence of words Clemens used. He didn't say the dog would have gotten out of the way. He didn't say the dog would have moved. He said the dog would have "stood from under." Just a neat, succinct little way of putting it.

 

[TFred]

It stuck in my head because of the exact sequence of words Clemens used. He didn't say the dog would have gotten out of the way. He didn't say the dog would have moved. He said the dog would have "stood from under." Just a neat, succinct little way of putting it.

I can see that.

TFred

 

[2a4all]

This may detract, rather than add to the discussion... reading only the post from Peter Nap above, I get the idea that:

Imminent is standing under a piano which is hanging from a rope that you can see is fraying one strand at a time.

Immediate is standing under that same piano, after that last strand has snapped.



Close?

TFred

And you have that Wile E.Coyote Look on your face.

 

[Citizen]

And you have that Wile E.Coyote Look on your face.

Funny you should mention that.

The creator of Roadrunner and Coyote was Chuck Jones, a director at the Warner Bros. cartoon unit.

In his youth, Jones' dad rented a home for the family. The home came with a well-stocked library.

Jones remarked about reading Mark Twain's Roughing It from that library wherein Twain describes his first coyote, "...a living, breathing allegory of Want...-so scrawny, and ribby, and coarse-haired, and pitiful." Years later, Jones' was inspired by that description when coming up with the model drawings for Coyote.

So, I'm not the only one who's got Mark Twain quotes stuck in his head.

 

[Maverick9]

Police officers have no duty to defend - that is a given.

Agree with your recommendations generally.

In the final analysis we are talking/discussing certain meanings/definitions - THAT is very relevant to us.

Cops have no duty to defend? Yes, no duty to stop someone from killing an individual. They certainly have a 'license' to stop an act of apparent deadly violence, one on another with their firearm, as in shooting with a bullet - IF THEY WISH (or not).

AND they can shoot this bullet whenever they damn well please - in the act, or, fleeing the act (flight/commission of a felony). What, (in contrast) is their burden of proof? (Officer felt unsafe?).

But ask yourself why the definition is meaningful, because you're talking AT THE TIME, in the HEAT of the action and ALL jury deliberations and judicial instructions are done in the COLD LIGHT OF THE COURTROOM. It's completely different most of the time. You have to PROVE the immediacy or the imminency with EVIDENCE. Saying it (the layman/victim/defendant) means nothing.

FWIW

 

[user]

... because YOUR IDEA of whether something was immediate or imminent means NOTHING by itself. ...

"Evidence" is information provided by a person having personal knowledge of the facts who testifies under oath. Other data, pictures, recordings, etc., only support the evidence. Sometimes that distinction is referred to as "direct evidence" as opposed to "indirect evidence"; sometimes the pictures and things are referred to as "real evidence" because they're tangible objects (and not because they have authority), as opposed to words in the air from a live witness, which are intangible. I agree with the observation to the extent that the words, "imminent" and "immediate" refer to a characterization and not a fact, and that it will be up to the court to determine whether that characterization is accurate. However, if a live witness with personal knowledge of the facts says that something was happening right then, and neither before nor after, I'd say that leads to a necessary inference.

 

[Grapeshot]

Cops have no duty to defend? Yes, no duty to stop someone from killing an individual. They certainly have a 'license' to stop an act of apparent deadly violence, one on another with their firearm, as in shooting with a bullet - IF THEY WISH (or not).

AND they can shoot this bullet whenever they damn well please - in the act, or, fleeing the act (flight/commission of a felony). What, (in contrast) is their burden of proof? (Officer felt unsafe?).

But ask yourself why the definition is meaningful, because you're talking AT THE TIME, in the HEAT of the action and ALL jury deliberations and judicial instructions are done in the COLD LIGHT OF THE COURTROOM. It's completely different most of the time. You have to PROVE the immediacy or the imminency with EVIDENCE. Saying it (the layman/victim/defendant) means nothing.

FWIW

Au contraire - You do not have to prove anything - only create reasonable doubt.

Further, if you do not speak up and say your piece, you have nothing with which to claim a defense. The prosecution will not do it for you.

"Yep I shot him. Had too. It was him or me."
If you've just shot and killed someone there are only 2 desired verdicts: justified or excuseable. There is no "not guilty" so if you don't speak up, offer a defense, you'll be in a world of hurt and facing at least a 2nd degree murder verdict.

Those that claim that the officer feeling unsafe is enough, should read up on the Culpeper/church lady thread. Frankly I find the standard(s) to be much the same.