28Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI don't think you are the Lone Ranger on this one but, if you are; call me Tonto.Originally Posted by MitchellCT
This is a discussion on "Don't be a victim of your own mistakes, Shoot or Don't Shoot" within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by MitchellCT Like I said, I don't believe the walking into a deal and getting attacked story. I don't think you are the ...
Array
I don't think you are the Lone Ranger on this one but, if you are; call me Tonto.
"To believe that social reforms can eradicate evil altogether is to forget that evil is a protean creature, forever assuming a new shape when deprived of an old one." - SAT
Never argue with an idiot - they'll bring you down to their level then beat you with experience.
Array
I don't know if the post is true or not, but IF it was..I would rely on my instinct at the moment. If I percieve I'm not threatened anymore, I won't pull the trigger. If I do, I will, and deal with that choice later. All you can do before hand is train,train,train and that will help in your decision.
Light travels faster than sound...thats why some people appear bright before they speak
Array
Actually he says he's from Shingle Springs,, that's about a 100 miles from Oakland and it's drug infested streets. Shingle Springs is a small, primarily white rural communtity with very little crime. A search of the Eldorado County sherrifs logs turns up nothing of a crime matching the OP's account. The call for BS is probably the correct one. Unless this guy drives 100 miles to Oakland to walk his dog.
.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ - Second Amendment T-Shirts
ΜΟΛΩΝ-ΛΑΒΕ - Go Greek. Lifetime member Kappa Kappa Bang (KKB) Fraternity
Array
I absoluely agree with your decision not to take the shot. Of course, we can't back shoot when they are fleeing; however, I would suggest that there should be a legal exception that allows a below the waist disabling shot. Granted, we all may not have the ability to accurately make that shot under pressure; but it would sure give the cops something to look for when they canvas the hospitals.
Array
If they were that close and my dog didnt bark, growl or wag his tail at least, I would get me another dog!! I am unsure as to what I would do if I were laying there bleeding while they tried to finish the job. i know if they were within 30 ft, I would still be in fear for my life.
Equality does not exist in the real world - it is a fiction to help the self esteem of those groups who consistently fail to succeed.
Retired SF(SP) CMSgt 1979-2005
Array
Ah yes, shoot to wound. Good way to have to pay for the perp's lifetime medical care when you make a paraplegic out of him. Shooting at someone fleeing is a good way to live for many years at your state's expense.I absoluely agree with your decision not to take the shot. Of course, we can't back shoot when they are fleeing; however, I would suggest that there should be a legal exception that allows a below the waist disabling shot. Granted, we all may not have the ability to accurately make that shot under pressure
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. - Robert A. Heinlein
Wow! Smart not to take the shot. In Washington, you must establish that there is an imminent threat to your life at the moment you pull the trigger. I can't even imaging how a CA jury would look at this...
He wasn't fleeing, but retreating to a more tactical position from which to resume his attack.I absoluely agree with your decision not to take the shot. Of course, we can't back shoot when they are fleeing; however, I would suggest that there should be a legal exception that allows a below the waist disabling shot. Granted, we all may not have the ability to accurately make that shot under pressure
Just stabbed, bleeding out, going to lose consciousness in the next five to ten seconds, seems imminent to me.
Array
Ok, I'll tell you guys what. Shoot someone in the back while they are running away and tell me how that work out for you. Or why don't you ask the guy that got robbed at walmart then shot his robber in the backside and killed him. He is being charged with murder, as well as he should be.
Glock: G22 .40 S&W Smith and Wesson: Model 437 .38 Spl, and Sigma SW9VE 9mm
We are discussing someone who has just criminally used lethal force on a victim, not someone running away with a wallet. Big difference.
Array
No we are talking about someone that has ran away and is no longer a threat to you. A murder charge is a murder charge no mater how you look at it.
Array
Trying to find the RCW for that one. Help?
"The flock sleep peaceably in their pasture at night because Sheepdogs stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
cafepress.com/bgstudios
I sat in on a case at King County District Court where case law sighting the "imminent threat" test was used. The relevant RCW is 9A.16.050: Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.:
By that statute, the person had already committed the felony and/or done great personal injury so the use of deadly force would not be lawful.Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.
Relavent excerpt from Wikipedia on Deadly Force:
In the United States, a civilian may legally use deadly force when it is considered justifiable homicide, that is to say when the civilian feels their own life, or the lives of their family or those around them are in legitimate and imminent danger. However, self-defense resulting in usage of deadly force by a civilian or civilians against an individual or individuals is often subject to examination by a court if it is unclear whether it was necessary at the point of the offense, and whether any further action on the part of the law needs to be taken.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
