Good Conceal Carry Story!
- Thread starter buckslayer
- Start date
buckslayer
New member
Not a clue but asking that question in this thread isn't the place to get a real answer. You'll likely only get people like me to tell you your posting in the wrong area. :to_pick_ones_nose:
Unfettered Might
Μολών λαβ&
Yeah, everyone become a paying member. :laugh:
buckslayer
New member
See rdc2co, I tooooold you! :jester::jester::jester:
If you are going to start second guessing people saying "well all he did was punch you", then you are thinking like a gun grabbing liberal. I dont know if you are or if you arent, but thats EXACTLY what one wold say.... :angry:
The point here is that it is against the law to walk up and punch someone, regardless of what your intentions after that are, while the law allows you to use deadly force to prevent bodily harm, (in the free states anyway) precisely BECAUSE no one can say whats going to happen AFTER the first punch, until its already happened. He may just punch you in the face, then when you go down, pull a knife and "finish the job".... or he may have just planned to take the guys wallet, no one knows but the thug, are you REALLY willing to bet an innocent persons life on that kind of "maybe" because it may save a criminals life? I'm not.
Crazy bird
New member
Yep !!!!!
Some how I knew that was coming ,YES it was RUDE .........
Some how I knew that was coming ,YES it was RUDE .........
truckie011
New member
Glade of the out come for the jogger. What sucks is some like the Brady bunch will add it to their tote board as "Another teen shoot with a handgun. When will the madness end?".
And as per shooting someone who just punched you. Well if your someone like me, a simple punch in the right place can easily cause your death.
And as per shooting someone who just punched you. Well if your someone like me, a simple punch in the right place can easily cause your death.
Unfettered Might
Μολών λαβ&
Now you can't make a blanket statement like that.
I am vehemently anti-liberal and I am torn over this one. I've been in many a scrap in my life and I'm not afraid to stand toe to toe with anyone...but that was before I started carrying a gun. I've personally already made the decision that I'm not going to get into a first fight because I fear that they might take my gun during it. I would have drawn and ordered the guy to the ground and then fired if he persisted, I would not have just shot without warning.
I am not speaking against the guy for doing it. As many shots as he fired, he was definitely in fear for his life, but I think the guy is lucky the DA decided not to pursue charges for excessive force.
truckie011
New member
First I want to say I am not a lawyer. And I don't play one one t.v.
But I did ask an Indiana prosecutor that I know, about this same question. And her response was (and I'm para-phrasing here) Once deadly force is determined to be justifiable. It is irrelevant whether you shoot 1 time or 10 times. But that said, when someone does use over kill they will take a real close look at the evidence. And it is know to happen, for someone in a personnel self defence situation, to keep shooting until the gun is empty.
I know this may not the case everywhere.
ClearSightTactical
New member
I'm all for people defending themselves, and not being charged. I am curious how this man was able to articulate he felt that grave bodily injury or death was immanent due to a punch in the face. Are FL's laws that strong? I don't know all the circumstances ages/size there could have been disparity of force issue. In my state I'm sure a person would be unjustly charged for this...
ClearSightTactical
New member
The standard is GRAVE bodily harm, that doesn't mean a black eye. It means crippling injury as far as I've ever read or heard from subject matter experts.
buckslayer
New member
Realistically this is a topic where people can and will argue back and forth until the end of time about.
While you are totally correct about what you've said above, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. While growing up I've been in more than my fair share of fights, and never did I worry about things escalating to anything more than just a fistfight. Fast forward 10+ years and nowadays you never know what will happen if someone attacks you. The likelihood of someone pulling a knife or a gun on you when they start losing a fight that they started by attacking you is just too great these days. And that’s if they even started the whole assault bare handed to begin with.
Being that everyone is built differently, and everyone has different levels of training (both hand to hand as well as with weapons), it really isn't fair to say what would constitute the right to deadly force for someone else.
Just my two cents.
homershoots
New member
I wanted to post on this when the "all he did was punch you" comment was posted. I've found it difficult to articulate what I'd like to say on this subject. A good friend of mine is no longer with us because of a simple fistfight. He was knocked unconscious and fell on some pavement hands to his sides onto his skull. How can anyone even know how and when a punch can end in a serious injury? I say anyone tries to do you harm use any and all means to stop the threat.
ClearSightTactical
New member
I agree completely. I'm just saying in my state I think the person would go through the system. I also admitted to not knowing the details, such as the age of the victim any disability, whether there was a history with the teen, etc. Not trying to arm-chair quarterback just saying I think its worth thinking about from our own morals, ethics, and values. Not passing judgement on the gentleman in any way, glad he is still alive and free.
The words in utahs code are "serious bodily injury" (my home state)...
Here are my feelings on the matter. If someone walked up to me and gave me a black eye, thats enough for me to think they intend "serious bodily injury"..... The point is, you dont know what the agressor intends to do next. You can stand there and hope that it stops at a black eye. Me, I'll take action to make SURE it does.
ClearSightTactical
New member
Looks like no ruling has been made, they're trying to have the trial judge removed from the case. If I were on the jury I'd likely find him guilty of 2nd degree murder, first is pushing it under the 'heat of the moment'...
Link Removed
Question has been raised about how many times the jogger shot which was 8. Read closely, he only hit him 4, 2 in the chest. Other 2 may not have slowed him down much at first. So night time, blindsided and the guy may not not have gone down quickly but kept moving. I say the jogger did what he felt like he had to at the time. Sadly someone died.
retirednak
New member
It doesn't matter how many shots were fired. The jogger has every right to defend himself. Just because he jogs,doesn't mean he is able to defend himself with his fists. We'll never know if the attacker would have continued assaulting him till he was dead or what.
After my forth back surgery,there is no way I would be able to defend myself against my wife,let alone a mugger. Muggers beware.
Ed Hamberger
New member
And I doubt you would be out jogging after four back surgery's either!!! :no:
Well, firing 10 rounds one after the other to end the thread is different than what happened in that case,
Pull the trigger till the threat stops, thats self defense.
where the store owner shot the kid, who went down immediately, the store owner ran after the other kid, came back, walked within a couple feet of the kid of the floor, which shows the kid obviously no longer posed a threat or he wouldn't have walked by so calmly, then either reloaded his gun or retrieved another gun, then walked back, stood over the kid, and fired 5 more rounds into him... Yea, thats murder.
