Man defends himself with licensed gun may still face charges

SLAYER69
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

I dunno, I imagine the third guy after seeing his two buddies being blown away probably grabbed a quick knee and gave up, at that point had he shot then that would have been murder.

edit on 14-3-2014 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

You're right of course. Once they give up, ya gotta let 'em Even if they just got done playing Babe Ruth on your body. That's what I mean. He was just too slow... 2 out of 3 isn't bad though.

He ought to get a key to the city, not a possible case to worry about.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Don't get me wrong if the third guy was still all full of piss & vinegar and aggressive then by all means show him the business end. However, I think the third guy either surrendered or as TDawgRex said, high tailed it out of there in the confusion.

reply to post by Bassago


Why, may I ask, does it matter that the thugs mistook him for the building manager?

TheProphetMark
reply to post by Bassago

 

Each to their own I suppose. Some people would shoot to kill, others like myself would just shoot to subdue.

Know how I can tell you don't shoot at all?

The whole "shoot to wound" thing is a farce. It's cute for TV programs but in real life, that doesn't work well. Unless you're a foot away.

greencmp
reply to post by Bassago

 

Why, may I ask, does it matter that the thugs mistook him for the building manager?

For accuracy mostly.

This guy should go uncharged as long as everything lines up. Anytime one is involved in a shooting it should be fully investigated. The real problems don't usually crop up in these situations unless you are in a State that requires you to prove you were defending yourself instead of the State being required to prove you committed a criminal act.

KeliOnyx

greencmp
reply to post by Bassago

 

Why, may I ask, does it matter that the thugs mistook him for the building manager?

For accuracy mostly.

This guy should go uncharged as long as everything lines up. Anytime one is involved in a shooting it should be fully investigated. The real problems don't usually crop up in these situations unless you are in a State that requires you to prove you were defending yourself instead of the State being required to prove you committed a criminal act.

If he is still under investigation, why would they disclose an unverified claim of intent on the part of the two dead attackers?

Bedlam

The whole "shoot to wound" thing is a farce. It's cute for TV programs but in real life, that doesn't work well. Unless you're a foot away.

Yes it is a farce. Things that work against you in a self defense situation.
1.) Not aiming for the torso.
2.) How many rounds you fired. The fewer the better, ideally you only want to have fired and hit once per assailant(enough force to stop the attack).
3.) Shooting an attacker as they are running away to wound or otherwise.
4.) Speaking to the police without your attorney, their job is to not be understanding their job is to find a way to charge you.

I have lived through the court nightmare that is self defense, you follow those four things and you will be ok.

reply to post by Bassago


If this story is as it appears. The man had every right to defend himself, even to go so far as to use lethal force to do it. I am in no way a gun nut, (In fact, most 2nd Amendment supporters do more harm than good for their cause) but a person has the right and duty to defend themselves.

I hope that this man is vindicated and cleared of any charge.

More political bomb throwing, keeping the populace scared and angry.

Of course he may be charged, you could just as easily say man may not be charged. It's an investigation, it has either one outcome or another. Police have to look into every shooting and determine whether it is a homicide or not.

reply to post by TheProphetMark

Each to their own I suppose. Some people would shoot to kill, others like myself would just shoot to subdue.

Unfortunately you can't do that, you cannot shoot to wound (or subdue) if you were to do that, the assailants would be able to sue you (and probably win). If you are forced to shoot someone, it has to be to kill only.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


I'd add one thing that I know people don't want to think about and many with limited life experience won't even believe. Their loss. I think you've been around enough to well appreciate these words...

People need to be careful what they say online on these topics if they may ever end up in the real world issue. At least be aware of whats been said online. A clever attorney will dig for it and will find it (people need to assume that anway).

So, if Roger Rambo with the fully automatic keyboard goes around saying he'll put two in the chest, one in the head and then add another for good measure........and then something happens close enough to that to be called similar? Ewww... Juries hate that stuff, I'd guess.

I suppose if he does get sent to court he'll hopefully get off free and it'll be on all the TV channels/radio/newspapers etc so will send out a message that self defense is fine and you can have your bones blown away if you fancy jumping someone so beware

SLAYER69

If true and it went down as written I see no reason to prosecute this man. At what point does self defense with a hand gun not become glaringly obvious to some?

When the dead guys black...then it becomes "He had the opportunity to run away, why didn't he run away, he didnt have to kill him but he chose to kill him..etc etc etc"

What colour is the deceased??

andy1972
What colour is the deceased??

Why are you asking me?

What does it matter?

Are you trying to imply I'm a racist?

Did you have your morning coffee yet?

If I'm being held down by two guys while being beaten with a bat by a third, I don't give a rats furry butt what color they are, hell, they could be green Martians. The situation would have ended the same.......badly for them.

reply to post by boncho


A bat and anything that can break bones IS LETHAL FORCE and shooting is permissible even in CANADA.

SLAYER69

andy1972
What colour is the deceased??

Why are you asking me?

What does it matter?

Are you trying to imply I'm a racist?

Did you have your morning coffee yet?

If I'm being held down by two guys while being beaten with a bat by a third, I don't give a rats furry butt what color they are, hell, they could be green Martians. The situation would have ended the same.......badly for them.

edit on 15-3-2014 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

Im asking you because i thought you might know?? nothing more, nothing less...

In the eyes of the MSM it ALWAYS matters...because they can spin how they want, the poor black victim or the nasty black attacker...

As for the coffee, yes..thanks, a little irrelevant but...

And finally i am not denying the fact the guy had the right to defend himself, he was more than entitled, i asked simply because in these cases the media and the family always play the race card...

I find your answer to the question i asked over the top...have YOU had your coffee yet...

reply to post by andy1972


No problem

If race is not an issue with this story why interject it?

Unity_99
A bat and anything that can break bones IS LETHAL FORCE and shooting is permissible even in CANADA.

It does not even have to be able to break bones, it can be less 'severe' than that as legal precedent has set:

An assault with a deadly weapon occurs when an attacker accompanies a physical attack with a physical object capable of inflicting serious bodily injury or death, by virtue of its design or construction. Because the use of a dangerous object creates a risk of such serious consequences, all states classify assault with a deadly weapon as a felony. (Judges and lawyers often refer to the crime as “ADW.”)

“Deadly weapon” generally refers to a wide range of objects that can inflict mortal or great bodily harm—for example a car or a golf club. Some states consider knives and guns as "deadly weapons per se," which means that the prosecutor need not present evidence of their ability to cause mortal or serious injury. And some instruments, such as pocketknives, shoes, canes, walking sticks, and stones, while not deadly by design, can become "deadly weapons" depending on how the defendant has used them.

Even parts of the human body can be deadly weapons, such as feet, knees, arms, and teeth (people that are aware of their HIV+ status, who use their teeth to bite someone else or have unprotected sex with another person, may be charged with ADW or aggravated sexual assault). source

Either way, the victim in the Original Post was justified in using deadly force if the story is accurate.

SLAYER69
reply to post by andy1972

 

No problem

If race is not an issue with this story why interject it?

Im not trying to interject it..these things have a tendancy to interject themselves through the MSM. Either way, they got what they deserved.

SLAYER69
reply to post by andy1972

 

No problem

If race is not an issue with this story why interject it?

I think he is trying to figure out if he was wrongly charged cause he was black.

Face it, the american legal system can be pretty racist at times. So can the MSM.

It not your fault just the system.