Joined
·
296 Posts
Another incident of a CCW against an unarmed BG. Tricky stuff. Would you really be able to shoot him point blank when he is unarmed?
FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8A threat to life is a threat to life . . . no material weapon required. How many people have been beaten to death by fist or foot alone?
My CCW instructor gave a very similar example... "You're walking down the street, look down an alley and see a guy standing over another guy with a gun, what do you do?" You call 911 because you have no idea what the situation is... was the guy having a gun pointed at him a victim or was he a robber who had his gun taken away from him? You may end up helping the wrong guy... and endangering yourself in the process.Imagine if things had been slightly different, for example: maybe the woman had pulled a knife or gun o. The guy to rob him, and our fearless CCW pulls up and only see's the man kick the woman. All the sudden he's pointing a gun at a victim.
More than have been killed with an AR... shocking, I know!A threat to life is a threat to life . . . no material weapon required. How many people have been beaten to death by fist or foot alone?
To me, it's a matter of character. I would probably feel better sitting in jail rather than thinking "I could have saved her" for the rest of my life. It would be a nice feather in the cap on judgement day when asked, "What did you do to love thy neighbor?"I think it's an excellent example of why knowing your local laws is so important and how the law and morality can differ. . Back when I first did my CCW class the laws were a little more strict on my state. My instructors advice at the time was something like: "unless that other person being attacked is your immediate family or has your last name, call 911 and be a good witness". As is said so often, you are NOT the police.
Morally, the guy did great, probably saved this woman's life. Legally could be a murky question depending on the local laws. So knowing what the law says and then thinking about scenarios like this one * before your faced with it * can be of great help.
Since my class the state has passed castle doctrine, then more recently relaxed the standards under which it applies, but I find myself mentally falling back to my original training, of being a good citizen by calling 911 and assisting the police with being a witness.
Again, morally, the guy did great and stopped a brutal attack. I'm no lawyer, and I wish I could talk to one and run various scenarios past him/her (for free cause that's expensive!!)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, indeed, if the deadly threat were legitimate and immediate. What possible difference does it make if the person trying/threatening to kill you doesn't happen to have a man-made tool in hand to assist in the dirty work? If the person's capable of making good on the attempt, is right there and fully able to begin (or has begun already), and you're only moments away from being at very real risk of loss of life ... damned right I'd defend mine. Sux to be him, to get his back up so badly yet to come so unprepared for resistance. Not my problem.Another incident of a CCW against an unarmed BG. Tricky stuff. Would you really be able to shoot him point blank when he is unarmed?
If the woman in this scenario was the initial agressor, at the point where he had her on the ground repeatedly kicking the snot out of her head and body, he no longer is the victim, he is the agressor and his actions are illegal, the good guy would have been justified in doing exactly what he did in the original scenario.It's sad that this is now the world we live in. A good upstanding citizen (such as myself) has a fear in my head that I could go to jail for saving someone's life. We truly let our kids down didn't we![]()
Imagine if things had been slightly different, for example: maybe the woman had pulled a knife or gun o. The guy to rob him, and our fearless CCW pulls up and only see's the man kick the woman. All the sudden he's pointing a gun at a victim. Yea it's far fetched, but stranger things have happened. 10 years ago I would never have believed that the Feds would jail a man because his AR malfunctioned.
Had this happened in NC:
- The BG was committing an assault with intend to to serious bodily damage...a Class A1 Misdemeanor.
- When the BG started approaching the Good Guy he committed an "Intent to Commit an Assault" which is a "Simple Assault"...a Class 2 or 3 Misdemeanor (lesser).
- When the Good Guy drew his weapon, he committed an Assault with a Deadly Weapon...a Class A1 Misdemeanor.
- When the Good Guy said he would "...put you down..." while pointing the weapon at the BG, he committed an "Assault With Intent to Kill"...a Class E Felony.
- It's against the law, in NC, to use deadly force in a case of "Simple Assault".
Any situation like this is always one of those "it could go either way" scenarios. My point is that you need to know your State's laws and conduct yourself accordingly. Morality and Legality are oft times mutually exclusive.
That is interesting. In every state of the union, lethal force is justified to defend against death; or serious bodily injury.Had this happened in NC:
- The BG was committing an assault with intend to to serious bodily damage...a Class A1 Misdemeanor.
- When the BG started approaching the Good Guy he committed an "Intent to Commit an Assault" which is a "Simple Assault"...a Class 2 or 3 Misdemeanor (lesser).
- When the Good Guy drew his weapon, he committed an Assault with a Deadly Weapon...a Class A1 Misdemeanor.
- When the Good Guy said he would "...put you down..." while pointing the weapon at the BG, he committed an "Assault With Intent to Kill"...a Class E Felony.
- It's against the law, in NC, to use deadly force in a case of "Simple Assault".
Any situation like this is always one of those "it could go either way" scenarios. My point is that you need to know your State's laws and conduct yourself accordingly. Morality and Legality are oft times mutually exclusive.
Agree. Silly. And bloody dangerous, as it essentially says a citizen must withstand serious bodily injury before defending effectively against it. That makes about as much sense (to me) as an absolute, sacrosanct requirement to retreat/withdraw, as though failing to do so (and almost certainly taking a horrible pounding first) makes one the criminal. :frown:That is interesting. In every state of the union, lethal force is justified to defend against death; or serious bodily injury.