Gas station shooting legally justified

[remydat]

If the guy attacking him saw the gun, he's really fucking stupid to attack the guy. What did he think would happen?
If I were dumb enough to attack an MMA fighter, I'd get my ass kick badly. Would you say the MMA was a pussy for beating me within an inch of my life when he could have just push me away or would you think I'm a dumbass that had it coming?

The stupidity of the drunk is not in question. The question is whether his stupidity warranted summary execution.

 

[Enasic]

If the guy attacking him saw the gun, he's really fucking stupid to attack the guy. What did he think would happen?
If I were dumb enough to attack an MMA fighter, I'd get my ass kick badly. Would you say the MMA was a pussy for beating me within an inch of my life when he could have just push me away or would you think I'm a dumbass that had it coming?

Well, they're two different situations for one. Secondly, I said both "men" were at fault and the guy who got killed obviously didn't act like someone very smart. But just because he saw the gun, doesn't mean he deserved to be murdered. Cowboy Bill's life was not threatened. Was the victim drunk and stupid? Sure. Did he deserve to be shot? No. A single punch would have handled the situation just fine.

And to answer your hypothetical situation, the drunk guy didn't even really "attack" Cowboy Bill. He pushed him. Not even that hard. I didn't see a single punch thrown. I've been attacked more by angry GF's.

 

[Tater]

Well, they're two different situations for one. Secondly, I said both "men" were at fault and the guy who got killed obviously didn't act like someone very smart. But just because he saw the gun, doesn't mean he deserved to be murdered. Cowboy Bill's life was not threatened. Was the victim drunk and stupid? Sure. Did he deserve to be shot? No. A single punch would have handled the situation just fine.

And to answer your hypothetical situation, the drunk guy didn't even really "attack" Cowboy Bill. He pushed him. Not even that hard. I didn't see a single punch thrown. I've been attacked more by angry GF's.

=) Ditto.

 

[Burque]

No this logic is dumb. There is no universal law that says you have to shoot to kill. That's just used as an excuse anytime someone is accused of excessive force. We all know that when someone is actually being a real threat to someone's life, shooting to kill makes perfect sense. In a scenario were not a single punch or slap even was thrown, this shoot to kill mentality is just being used to justify someone overreacting to a situation.

In this situation most of us tend to agree that he shouldn't have shot him, he should have defused the situation differently.

If you are pulling your firearm to defend yourself you should be shooting to kill.

This nonsense about shooting someone in the leg is stupid and ridiculous. If you are not in enough danger to be shooting to kill you should not be shooting at all.

If you shoot someone to disable them a couple of things can happen: 1. You could accidentally kill them. 2. You could disable then successfully and that's the end. 3. You could disable them successfully and then get sued out your ass for damages. 4. You could end up still having to fight for your life because they now think it's a fight to the death. 5. You could miss and end up fighting for your life against someone who is uninjured and now thinks it's a fight to the death.

The basic premise is that if you need to use a gun then it's a life threatening situation and that attempting to disable someone is now out of the question.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[SilenceS]

My question, once the man was shot. He continued after the guy. I dont know about you, but if I got shot in the stomach. I am not trying to go back after the guy that just shot me. Makes me think he was more aggressive than you think. Also, no audio so you dont know what the drunk guy was saying. I will agree that the guy with a gun is probably a ****** who thinks he is part of saving society. But, the guy was completely non aggressive and even tried to stay out of the guy's range of vision when he kept trying to say things to him.

 

[Xuder O'Clam]

My question, once the man was shot. He continued after the guy. I dont know about you, but if I got shot in the stomach. I am not trying to go back after the guy that just shot me. Makes me think he was more aggressive than you think. Also, no audio so you dont know what the drunk guy was saying. I will agree that the guy with a gun is probably a ****** who thinks he is part of saving society. But, the guy was completely non aggressive and even tried to stay out of the guy's range of vision when he kept trying to say things to him.

He kept trying to keep his holster side away from the drunk. It happened pretty quickly, and the video is choppy. Hard to say if he was actually still going at the guy, or trying to figure out what the **** just happened.

I just think if there was no gun, nobody would have come to any harm. The fat, bald, vigilante **** would have left long before, and the drunk would have got in his car and likely been pulled over shortly after leaving the store.

I just think this is a bad precedent. You guys want the wild west again?

 

[botfly10]

If the guy attacking him saw the gun, he's really fucking stupid to attack the guy. What did he think would happen?
If I were dumb enough to attack an MMA fighter, I'd get my ass kick badly. Would you say the MMA was a pussy for beating me within an inch of my life when he could have just push me away or would you think I'm a dumbass that had it coming?

Yeah for sure. If you stand too close to someone and say mean things, you should expect to get shot.

 

[Tater]

Yeah for sure. If you stand too close to someone and say mean things, you should expect to get shot.

Exactly. Just because he was too close and said mean things. That's all he did.

 

[Ares]

Yeah for sure. If you stand too close to someone and say mean things, you should expect to get shot.

Might make for a more polite society....

 

[Xuder O'Clam]

Lol. Say "please", motherfucker.

 

[Enasic]

Manners should be instilled by the use or threat of firearms. At least that's what my mother used to tell me.

 

[Urblock]

Shut Up!

Might make for a more polite society....

Shut Up!

 

[Tjodalv]

He kept trying to keep his holster side away from the drunk. It happened pretty quickly, and the video is choppy. Hard to say if he was actually still going at the guy, or trying to figure out what the **** just happened.

I just think if there was no gun, nobody would have come to any harm. The fat, bald, vigilante **** would have left long before, and the drunk would have got in his car and likely been pulled over shortly after leaving the store.

I just think this is a bad precedent. You guys want the wild west again?

Don't be dramatic, the "wild west" wasn't anywhere near as violent as Hollywood would like you to believe.

 

[Xuder O'Clam]

Don't be dramatic, the "wild west" wasn't anywhere near as violent as Hollywood would like you to believe.

It wasn't drama, it was humour. But I appreciate your condescension.

 

[Ares]

Don't be dramatic, the "wild west" wasn't anywhere near as violent as Hollywood would like you to believe.

It was more violent.... you needed a 6 shooter just to make it to the General Store and back without getting scalped by an Apache....

 

[Tjodalv]

It wasn't drama, it was humour. But I appreciate your condescension.

I prefer condensation, it helps make my booze.

 

[Xuder O'Clam]

[video=youtube;gS1RIyR6uW8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gS1RIyR6uW8[/video]

 

[remydat]

In this situation most of us tend to agree that he shouldn't have shot him, he should have defused the situation differently.

If you are pulling your firearm to defend yourself you should be shooting to kill.

This nonsense about shooting someone in the leg is stupid and ridiculous. If you are not in enough danger to be shooting to kill you should not be shooting at all.

If you shoot someone to disable them a couple of things can happen: 1. You could accidentally kill them. 2. You could disable then successfully and that's the end. 3. You could disable them successfully and then get sued out your ass for damages. 4. You could end up still having to fight for your life because they now think it's a fight to the death. 5. You could miss and end up fighting for your life against someone who is uninjured and now thinks it's a fight to the death.

The basic premise is that if you need to use a gun then it's a life threatening situation and that attempting to disable someone is now out of the question.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Umm.

1. Accidentally killing someone is better than executing them.

2. Yeah and ?

3. Getting sued for damages for injury is better than getting sued for damages for wrongful death. If he had shot the guy in the leg then not sure how the same cops that concluded the shooting was justified would have charged him instead. Also, not sure how an injury case would be more likely to succeed than the wrongful death case that the dude's family can bring against him.

4. In the scenario we are discussing with a slow moving drunk ******, it is unlikely. Further, it said he shot him once in the chest and then twice more when he kept coming. Ergo, if he had shot him in the leg, it could have prevented him from continuing to move forward since it's his leg and even if it didn't, then you can still shoot him twice in the chest. At least you give the ****** a chance instead of just executing him for being a ****** that in no real way threatened this guy's life.

5. The guy was a firearms instructor. The chances of him missing from that close is unlikely and as in 4 above, he still had time to fire two more shots to the chest so if he missed him and the guy kept coming instead of running away, pretty sure you had time to then shoot him in the chest. At least you give the ****** a chance instead of just executing him for being a ****** that in no real way threatened this guy's life.

I get the basic premise. That was not the scenario here. There are plenty of things that makes sense in theory that don't make sense in real life. I am not talking about any other scenario other than the one these two people find themselves in.

 

[Monster]

Remy... I don't agree with everything he said but it's always center mass... Shoot to stop.
Cops are trained, military are trained, CCP classes, all center mass
When the time comes to pull a trigger its for lethal force.
They teach center mass for a reason... under stress and adrenaline... You'll miss.
The military now teaches a three shot engagement, two center mass, one head due to PPE.
This case never needed lethal force... but once engaged it is center mass to stop the threat.
He said kill which is wrong... you shoot to stop... but only as an absolute final option.
You are right about law suits... You shoot a guy you're getting sued, live or die.
Best to find any option not too... in my opinion this guy was wrong... maybe not criminal under the law... but no one should have died in this incident.

 

[Burque]

Remy... I don't agree with everything he said but it's always center mass... Shoot to stop.
Cops are trained, military are trained, CCP classes, all center mass
When the time comes to pull a trigger its for lethal force.
They teach center mass for a reason... under stress and adrenaline... You'll miss.
The military now teaches a three shot engagement, two center mass, one head due to PPE.
This case never needed lethal force... but once engaged it is center mass to stop the threat.
He said kill which is wrong... you shoot to stop... but only as an absolute final option.
You are right about law suits... You shoot a guy you're getting sued, live or die.
Best to find any option not too... in my opinion this guy was wrong... maybe not criminal under the law... but no one should have died in this incident.

I did misuse kill for stop or eliminate threat, the general concept is the same.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk