but I ALSO have pepper spray, a 1 million volt ZapLight from Cabelas
Great example would be first CHL case in Texas when a man Gordon Reid Hale III, 42, of Grand Prairie was in bumber to bumber traffic and his vehicle accidentaly bumb the side of pick up delivery driver and the driver got upset got of his truck and went to the driver side of the mans car. Now the Truck driver was an ex boxer 230 + pounds, came up to his window ready to fight. well before the man had time to react (i.e roll his window up all the way) the man begin a furry of punches on him. Now the man who bumb his truck had on his seat belt, bumber to bumber traffic and was being choked and punched at the same time. So he reached over where he knew his .40 caliber handgun was that was concealed under a newspaper pulled out from underneath turned his head and shot off a round that struck Kenny Tavai, 33 in the chest and later died of his wound. Now Hail was brought to a hospital where his eyes were nearly hanging out of the socket if it werent for the swelling.
Now do you have to go to that extreme effect to protect your life.
You can find this story at articles.latimes.com/keyword/shootings-texas/recent
He shot someone unarmed and was cleared of murder and he had a CHL
I know there a tons of "What if's" but I have one thing that still lurks in my mind.
We all know that there are situations which clearly warrent deadly physical force. Someone breaking into your home, someone trying to carjack you, someone trying to rob you, etc.
What about the simple argument that turns into a punch?
I am assuming that as the law abiding citizen we aren't going to be the ones to start any kind of a physical altercation. But assuming that someone else takes a small matter and turns it into a big one. What kind of force is allowed by law for someone who throws a punch at you?
I live in Alabama and I belive that I would be well within my right to shoot a person who threw a punch at me. Maybe it seems unfair, why not just duke it out? But who is to say that by choosing to defend myself with only my hands won't lead to a worse situation, i.e. the perp obtaining my firearm? Or should you draw and order the person to the ground? (I am a firm believer in pulling your firearm only when you are going to use it.)
Take this example:
Your at dinner with you friends, wife, girlfriend, mistressno or whom ever. For some reason or another a man verbally insults you, or is extremely rude. You correct him politely, stating you want no trouble and wish to remain in peace. Being in a public place, (in Alabama) you have NO duty to retreat.
The guy won't back down, he is determined to piss you off further, and cause a ruckus. You politely remind him that you are here merely to enjoy your meal. You don't instigate at all, but merely inform the person of your right to be there, maybe you throw in that you have the right to defend yourself should unlawful force be used against you. He doesn't buy your attempt to play the street lawyer and he finally has enough and throws a punch.
Either way, being hit (assuming your not knocked out), or if you dodge. Would you be within your legal right to put two in his chest one in his head? You can't let him just beat you to a pulp, but you don't want to resort to pulling your firearm before things are clearly on your side of the law. In Alabama I believe that one would be in total accordance with the Code of Alabama to defend yourself using deadly physical force. It might not look too great, but I think you would have legal standing. Shooting an unarmed man seems lowly and bully like. But if he is the aggessor then his blood be upon his own head.
There are lots of different options but some things are just unacceptable. Leaving a public place, where you have every legal right to be, because of some low life--unacceptable.
Not every perp is a gun toting, ski mask clad monster in a dark ally in the middle of the night. Knowing when to shoot is part of knowing how to shoot. Thoughts?
One of my grandsons has a black belt, no one at the high school attended knew about this. He was constantly bullied and harassed, even assaulted by a gang of indigenous numbnuts who believed they owned the school and everything to do with it. He asked me what should he do, the teachers are doing nothing to stop this. I told him to defend himself, he does not have to put up with that every day. The gang trapped him on a stairwell one morning and started punching him. My grandson went straight for the leader of the gang and flattened him on the spot. The gang split and ran like rabbits looking for a burrow to crawl into. Unfortunately my grandson was suspended for two weeks but when he returned to school, the gang avoided him like the plague.
(Proverbs 25:26, A righteous man falling down before the wicked is as a troubled fountain, and a corrupt spring.)
I suspect they continued bothering everyone else.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
VERY, VERY WELL SAID!!!This begs the question: What were you arguing about in the first place? No "simple" argument goes to blows. If it does, it is considered mutual combat. There is no legal definition for one combatant being disadvataged by size or Karate, invoking the "gun" option. Any introduction of fatal firearms discharge by only one armed combatant will find that gun owner guilty of murder by a judge, jury, the court of public opinion or any rational person who "knows the law."
No grey area there at all.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?