And no charges filed.
This is a discussion on Missouri's first CCW self defense within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; And no charges filed. http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/MyFox/p...1&locale=EN-US...
And no charges filed.
"fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.'' Warren vs District of Columbia
I'm sure he was shaking in his boots, but the BG gave him...no choice!
This was this 'dirtbag's' fourth hijacking? Why was this BG still on the street?
Juan? Well done...
The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member[/B]
Pretty good after near two years. As the lawyer mentioned, it sure ain't every time by far that shots are actually fired by a victim.... not that his 1 in 10,000 ratio sounded quite accurate!
Sounds like he was severely disadvantaged initially and had to pretty much try and follow commands. When the last phase came on it was from my perspective his only chance, to actually use his snub.
Very glad he managed to handle things well but can fully understand his thinking wishing he had not had to do it. he defended his life well and justifiably but was not exactly gaining any pleasure from having it thrust on him.
Arguably he might have been better aware at the beginning - who knows.
Chris - P95
NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.
"To own a gun and assume that you are armed
is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."
http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.
He waited until the last second, surely. Given the severe disadvantage he had, until the BG got into the cab and left him alone, I think he did pretty well. Kudos to him for surviving against all odds. May he get through this okay.
Don't reckon any of us have to worry about that fella stealing our cars. 1 criminal out of the picture = his future victims protected. IMO
When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.
excellent self control not trying to shoot it out intially. Not much abd the Antis can say about his actions. he gave the BG every chance before shooting.
"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." Thomas Jefferson
Nemo Me Impune Lacesset
Kinda good to know that a snubbie can do the job, too. The guy was shot 5 times, so he got 5 hits out of probably 5 or 6 shots. Good for Juan, and good for MO legislators for passing the law that made it legal carry.
I learned a lesson here. ALWAYS TAKE YOUR GUN WITH YOU. Even if you are going to be out next to your car cleaning it or whatever. If "Juan" would have left his gun in the car, it may have turned out different.
We have a "must retreate" and no castle doc yet. So, really Juan had to do what he did and really couldn't by law shoot first and ask questions later even being held up/car jacked at gun point (not that he had any choice in the matter). It is just funny to me that this happened several months ago and they are just now reporting favorably about it.
Train and train hard, you might not get a second chance to make a first impression!
I vote for Monica Lewinsky's Ex-Boyfriend's Wife for President.....Not!
Anyway, I dunno about the idea that Juan had to do what he did. He was in a close-quarters situation in which turning to flee in an attempt to de-escalate the situation could easily have left him shot in the back and dead. If I were judging, I would say that drawing and firing IMMEDIATELY in such a situation is NOT afoul of the "retreat-if-possible" aspect of the law. I don't believe that a SAFE retreat was possible at all in this situation.
I know that it's very likely that Juan is being cautiously reserved in his statements, especially when they say he says it was the "worst thing that has happened in his life," and that he "didn't want to kill." I would be pleased to learn that in his private thoughts, he is patting himself on the back for taking out a piece of feces who claimed over and over that he was going to KILL Juan -- and seemed very likely to be planning to do just that. Why anyone would be upset about removing such a specimen from our misery is beyond me. There is NO LOSS to humanity that the guy is dead dead dead.
BTW, I got only audio, no video on that link. Is it just this crappy computer or is that how it is?
The lawyer in the news clip is Kevin Jamison, author of 'Missouri Weapons and Self Defense Law', which should be required reading for anyone interested in carrying a weapon in Missouri. He's an all-around good guy, and a member of several pro-gun groups that I belong to.
I'll have to ask him when I next see him about this interview. The interviewer seemed to be rather biased, calling this defensive shooting a murder and such.
Hopefully, we'll take care of the castle doctrine this year... IF we can get through tonight without McCaskill being elected as our representative! Not looking good at this point...
On the shooting itself... bad guy permanently out of business, good guy goes home at the end of the day. Sounds like a happy ending to me!
Liberty is an inherently offensive lifestyle. Living in a free society guarantees that each one of us will see our most cherished principles and beliefs questioned and in some cases mocked. It's worth it.
Sounds like homeboy was packin' a golf gun...
..because he tried to make a hole-in-Juan!!
( ...couldn't resist!!)
Last edited by BushidoMarine; November 8th, 2006 at 12:34 PM.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."
- Col. Jeff Cooper, USMC
Kudos to "Juan" for surviving and taking out the trash. I absolutely hate the F***ing media. The whole report was full of not-so-subtle "jabs" on the CCW and self-defense issues.
Here's the "Use of Force in defense of persons" section from the Missouri Revised Statutes. I don't see anything that implies a duty to retreat.
563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:
(1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided
(a) He has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or
(b) He is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or
(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;
(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force.
2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless he reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself or another against death, serious physical injury, rape, sodomy or kidnapping or serious physical injury through robbery, burglary or arson.
3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
"Being a predator isn't always comfortable but the only other option is to be prey. That is not an acceptable option." ~Phil Messina
If you carry in Condition 3, you have two empty chambers. One in the weapon...the other between your ears.
Hole in Juan...classic! That was super hilarious.