Would you, could you, should you shoot this man? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Would you, could you, should you shoot this man?


hogship
03-23-2012, 13:47
<script src="http://player.ooyala.com/player.js?embedCode=p5aGI4NDqfNuRjwNNmIlXYnFtv2vaisa&deepLinkEmbedCode=p5aGI4NDqfNuRjwNNmIlXYnFtv2vaisa&width=640&height=360"></script>
http://entertainment.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/23/10828900-man-pulls-a-gun-on-arkansas-news-team

Sorry, having trouble figuring how to embed a video. If someone can tell me how to do it, I'll fix it.......thanks.

............................................

Forget the subject of the video, and put yourself into the scenario, instead of the camera crew.

As I watched this video, I projected myself into it and asked myself if I could, would, or should shoot this man if he acted this way with me.

I believe it would fit the prerequisites of fearing for my life, and the man was armed. He did not directly point the gun at me (or cameraman, reporter), but he was definitely "brandishing" in a very threatening manner.

Is there anything else that would have been appropriate to note here?

I think a defensive response is definitely warranted, but to what degree? Is a shooting justified under the law? I think so, but what do you all think?

ooc

Javelin
03-23-2012, 13:51
He will be charged with brandishing and assault and all that good stuff.

He will probably be convicted too.

Bald Baron
03-23-2012, 14:05
Only you can determine what puts you in fear for your life. You then act accordingly. Then you will have to explain your actions to others and accept the consequences if any.:wavey:

hogship
03-23-2012, 14:19
Only you can determine what puts you in fear for your life. You then act accordingly. Then you will have to explain your actions to others and accept the consequences if any.:wavey:

Agreed, but I'm asking what you would do. I've already said I think a shooting would have been justified......What I want to know is what others think if they were confronted by this situation.

The only thing that makes me wonder some about this situation, is that the man's gun was not pointed directly at me. Is this the point where the law would not justify a shooting in self defense......or, must I wait for the weapon to be pointed directly at me to warrant a legally justified armed response? If this is so, then it would seem to me that I would likely have to resign myself to shooting after having been shot at first.......yes?

If the gun is pointed directly at you, is "intent" any less/more evident than the actions of the man in the video? :dunno:

ooc

WinterWizard
03-23-2012, 14:21
Deleted

AA#5
03-23-2012, 14:35
No, I wouldn't have to think about shooting him because if I were on someone else's property & they asked me to leave, I'd leave.

Additionally, when news people are violating someone's privacy and trespassing, it's even more annoying.

Of course, that doesn't mean it's OK to brandish a gun.

GlockFish
03-23-2012, 14:36
hogship, I like your other avatar better. I keep thinking you're a noob when I see your posts now.

hogship
03-23-2012, 14:59
No, I wouldn't have to think about shooting him because if I were on someone else's property & they asked me to leave, I'd leave.

Additionally, when news people are violating someone's privacy and trespassing, it's even more annoying.

Of course, that doesn't mean it's OK to brandish a gun.

I'd leave, too......so were the camera crew and reporter. This has little bearing on the man's intent......

I guess one would have to ask why the gun became a part of the scenario in the first place, if "brandishing"on private property meant there were was never any intent to use it.........right? In my way of thinking, it makes no difference where this all takes place......what does make a difference is there was intent on the man's part to be perceived as a deadly threat to my life, and it looks like an equally deadly response would have been necessary to ensure my own safety.

If I can "read" into your response, you would not use deadly force, because you were on private property? If that were the lawful determination of whether a response is justified, then the act of ringing somebody's doorbell means your rights to defense of your life ended at the property line?

All this is hypothetical, and your thoughts are perfectly ok with me.......just as I'm doing nothing more than expressing an opinion as well........



ooc

hogship
03-23-2012, 15:04
hogship, I like your other avatar better. I keep thinking you're a noob when I see your posts now.

Yeah......me, too.......Jack Nicholson is one-of-a-kind!

Every once in awhile, I get a "wild hair", and get an itch to change.......it was time!

:supergrin:

ooc

Dalton Wayne
03-23-2012, 15:06
Looked like a High Point

HandyMan Hugh
03-23-2012, 15:10
The decision to shoot would have to be made on the scene and in a split second. For me it would depend on how angry the gunman appeared to be. This guy at the point the news people left, he just looked like he was trying to intimidate them. He let them know he was armed, but went no farther than that. If he had brought the pistol from behind his leg, I would shoot. Fortunately, the news team got good footage of the confrontation, so the charges should stick, and that idiot should loose his gun rights forever. :steamed:

WiskyT
03-23-2012, 15:14
No, I wouldn't have to think about shooting him because if I were on someone else's property & they asked me to leave, I'd leave.

Additionally, when news people are violating someone's privacy and trespassing, it's even more annoying.

Of course, that doesn't mean it's OK to brandish a gun.

First, it was a public street. Second, it wasn't the ****bird's property. He has no more business telling them to leave a third party's property than I do telling you to get off your neighbor's lawn. Third, they were leaving. It would have been a good shoot, plane and simple if liberal reporters carried guns and dumped that pipe head.

Also, by blocking the roadway and the reporter's ability to retreat, it would have given her even more justification in shooting him.

hogship
03-23-2012, 15:32
The decision to shoot would have to be made on the scene and in a split second. For me it would depend on how angry the gunman appeared to be. This guy at the point the news people left, he just looked like he was trying to intimidate them. He let them know he was armed, but went no farther than that. If he had brought the pistol from behind his leg, I would shoot. Fortunately, the news team got good footage of the confrontation, so the charges should stick, and that idiot should loose his gun rights forever. :steamed:

I believe you have raised an excellent point, Hugh.....

It does look like the man appeared to deliberately show the gun, then hide it behind his leg.....and, this does (on the surface) seem to indicate an intent to intimidate as a primary motive. Your suggestion on evaluating just how angry the man appeared to be, and how that would effect the outcome, is guesswork at best. To me, he definitely looked "angry"......so, at what point does that make the difference in whether he'll use the gun, or not? That seems to be a question that you or I couldn't answer with any definitive conclusion.......don't you think?

I think, if it were me, I'd have drawn and shot him, at the very moment I saw him get the gun out of the truck.......and, at that moment, it would have been lawfully justified. Since he "brandished" the gun, and then hid it behind his leg, at that point, it would seem the intent to use it would have shifted to the level of intimidation, rather than as an actual deadly threat. If, and only if, I had shot him at the moment I saw the gun, it would have been lawfully justified. At the moment where he held it behind his leg, THEN it would seem that the legal justification may have been unclear at that point. That point is not conclusive to my thinking at this time......because "intent" is still up to speculation.

Good input......and thanks for giving it.

ooc

DonD
03-23-2012, 18:25
Only you can determine what puts you in fear for your life. You then act accordingly. Then you will have to explain your actions to others and accept the consequences if any.:wavey:

Good post in my opinion.

My cop son always emphasizes that one of your most if not the most important thing you can do after a defensive shoot is to accurately and non aggressively articulate what was going on w/o acting like a vigilante. Don

Bruce M
03-23-2012, 18:58
I think there are alot of shootings that are questionable and can be difficult to determine who was the victim and who was the subject. Had this been a shooting, I do not think it would be one of the many that seem questionable.

Nutt51
03-23-2012, 19:17
Heard tonight that after the news crew called the police and filed a complaint, the local police knew who the idiot was. He later turned himself in and one officer said that
he would be charged with a felony assault charge, at the
least.
Guess he will be spending time in the pokey with his
sister and her boyfriend, who were the ones the news crew were investigating over the murder.

hogship
03-23-2012, 19:39
Heard tonight that after the news crew called the police and filed a complaint, the local police knew who the idiot was. He later turned himself in and one officer said that
he would be charged with a felony assault charge, at the
least.
Guess he will be spending time in the pokey with his
sister and her boyfriend, who were the ones the news crew were investigating over the murder.

Hmmmmm.......this is getting off the point, but am I mistaken to think there is no basis for an assault charge? There was no assault that I saw. I did see gross misuse of a firearm, and there is no doubt the news crew and reporter were in fear for their lives......but, no assault, or physical contact at all........

I am not someone who is familiar with this aspect of the law, and it may be the case that an assault charge would be the correct charge......but, if not, what would be the correct charge to make against the man?

ooc

HandyMan Hugh
03-23-2012, 20:04
Hogship, thanks for the kind comments. It is true that evaluating a level of anger is guesswork. I've seen a range of anger in my career as a "Customer Engineer" for a major office equipment manufacturer. The one place I hated to go to work was a local county mental hospital. I was always concerned that they might not let me out again. In that place I occasionally saw some patients with uncontrollable rage, eyes bulging, sweating, swearing, screaming, struggling, totally out of control. It was a bit unnerving! Then the meds came and things calmed down a bit. The guy in the video looked to me more like he was trying to keep control of the situation, and intimidate the TV crew. He MIGHT have escalated to violence if the TV crew had resisted. He knew that he was doing wrong when he first displayed the pistol, and then hid it.

Had I been there I would probably have been very concerned when he grabbed the gun out of his truck, and would have prepared to draw and fire my own sidearm

I don't doubt that this would have been a justifiable shoot, especially when they had this bird on tape retrieving his gun from his truck.

:shocked:

Syclone538
03-23-2012, 23:16
...
My cop son always emphasizes that one of your most if not the most important thing you can do after a defensive shoot is to accurately and non aggressively articulate what was going on w/o acting like a vigilante. Don

Of course he does, but what you really need to do is say nothing, at all, other then that you need to go to the hospital, and from there call a lawyer.

01coltcolt
03-23-2012, 23:24
Basically its all about perception. What will you sell in court? "Sir, did you preceive you or you families life was in danger?"

T-Rod45
03-23-2012, 23:29
That deputy... :wow: :wow: :wow:

TankerMax
03-24-2012, 01:06
This video immediately makes me think of that Florida shooting that left that teenager dead. This guy initiated the contact, then escalated the confrontation. If you drew your gun and he shot and killed you, he would probably claim self defense also.

I would look to leave the scene, but if he were to point his weapon at me, I would draw as I'm heading to cover and fire. Righteous shoot.

WiskyT
03-24-2012, 07:27
Basically its all about perception. What will you sell in court? "Sir, did you preceive you or you families life was in danger?"

It's not about what "you" perceived, it's about what a "reasonable person" in those same circumstances would perceive. A paranoid person who thought someone was looking at them "funny" can't just open fire because he perceived a threat. A soccer mom doesn't have to wait until she's been dragged into the woods and violated.

Any reasonable person would perceive an angry man who blocked the road, made threats, assaulted the camerman, and then retrieved a gun from his car as a threat to life.

hogship
03-24-2012, 08:01
It's not about what "you" perceived, it's about what a "reasonable person" in those same circumstances would perceive. A paranoid person who thought someone was looking at them "funny" can't just open fire because he perceived a threat. A soccer mom doesn't have to wait until she's been dragged into the woods and violated.

Any reasonable person would perceive an angry man who blocked the road, made threats, assaulted the camerman, and then retrieved a gun from his car as a threat to life.

This is an excellent point WiskyT........

If I get your meaning as you intended, this isn't about any individual's belief that a threat to life exists.......it is whether a "generic" set of circumstances exist that would cause a "reasonable" person to to believe it was so.

It is assumed that a jury, or judge would provide a validation of what "reasonable" is.......but, in these days of activist judges, and a high degree of public tendency to ignore basic values which conflict with political motivations, we are less able to have faith and trust that we will be judged by "common sense", than at any point in our history.......

ooc

svtpwnz
03-24-2012, 08:53
I'm pretty sure he will be spending a little time in the tank for brandishing, however, that dumb ***** reporter and camera man should have left when asked to do so. Instead, dumb ***** wanted to explain why she was there and dig for information instead of saying "yes sir, we are leaving now" and just walk away towards her vehicle.

They could obviously tell the man was agrivated and on the edge wich is a very clear sigh to GTFO! Me, I would have just left as soon as I was told to do so and the moron with the gun probably would have got back into his car and left and this whole situation would never have happened.

I blame the stupid reporter as much as the moron brandishing the weapon for this. They were asked more than once to leave, and chose to hang out. Do stupid stuff, win stupid prizes!

WiskyT
03-24-2012, 08:57
I'm pretty sure he will be spending a little time in the tank for brandishing, however, that dumb ***** reporter and camera man should have left when asked to do so. Instead, dumb ***** wanted to explain why she was there and dig for information instead of saying "yes sir, we are leaving now" and just walk away towards her vehicle.

They could obviously tell the man was agrivated and on the edge wich is a very clear sigh to GTFO! Me, I would have just left as soon as I was told to do so and the moron with the gun probably would have got back into his car and left and this whole situation would never have happened.

I blame the stupid reporter as much as the moron brandishing the weapon for this. They were asked more than once to leave, and chose to hang out. Do stupid stuff, win stupid prizes!

You just let people tell you what to do all the time? She obviously has more fortitude than that and recognizes that she has a job to do.

stolivar
03-24-2012, 09:42
Hmmmmm.......this is getting off the point, but am I mistaken to think there is no basis for an assault charge? There was no assault that I saw. I did see gross misuse of a firearm, and there is no doubt the news crew and reporter were in fear for their lives......but, no assault, or physical contact at all........

I am not someone who is familiar with this aspect of the law, and it may be the case that an assault charge would be the correct charge......but, if not, what would be the correct charge to make against the man?

ooc

battery is the contact


steve

M2 Carbine
03-24-2012, 09:50
As a rule I don't like pushy reporters but when that guy pulled up it appeared the reporter and camera man were not on private property. The jerk has no right to tell the reporter to leave.
The reporter also escalated the situation with her attitude. She should have just left, she was leaving anyhow.


But all that aside, if a "disturbed" person pulls a gun on me I probably will not wait to see just how fast and accurate they are. Most likely I will put three bullets in them.

WiskyT
03-24-2012, 10:19
I don't get this "she should have left because she was told to" stuff. If you are loading goroceries in your car at walmart and some guy pulls up in a car and tells you to leave and manhandles you and your groceries, you are supposed to leave?

Openroadracer
03-24-2012, 10:34
I'm pretty sure he will be spending a little time in the tank for brandishing, however, that dumb ***** reporter and camera man should have left when asked to do so. Instead, dumb ***** wanted to explain why she was there and dig for information instead of saying "yes sir, we are leaving now" and just walk away towards her vehicle.

They could obviously tell the man was agrivated and on the edge wich is a very clear sigh to GTFO! Me, I would have just left as soon as I was told to do so and the moron with the gun probably would have got back into his car and left and this whole situation would never have happened.

I blame the stupid reporter as much as the moron brandishing the weapon for this. They were asked more than once to leave, and chose to hang out. Do stupid stuff, win stupid prizes!

They were on a public street. They could camp out there for the next month if they wanted to. The normal expectation wouldn't be for a retard to commit a felony on camera as well.

svtpwnz
03-24-2012, 16:21
You just let people tell you what to do all the time? She obviously has more fortitude than that and recognizes that she has a job to do.

If I am someplace that I don't need to be or belong and asked to leave, I will do so. She was asked to leave and she chose to stick around and continue to ask questions. She can't to her job very well if she is dead!

I am by no means saying what the agitated retard did was right, but if you look for trouble long enough you are going to find it.

They were on a public street. They could camp out there for the next month if they wanted to. The normal expectation wouldn't be for a retard to commit a felony on camera as well.

That place was a trailer park dump and there is no telling what part of that property is public and what part is private. In alot of the rural areas around here many roads leading to mobile homes are private drives even though several homes are near that road.

WiskyT
03-24-2012, 16:28
If I am someplace that I don't need to be or belong and asked to leave, I will do so. She was asked to leave and she chose to stick around and continue to ask questions. She can't to her job very well if she is dead!

I am by no means saying what the agitated retard did was right, but if you look for trouble long enough you are going to find it.



That place was a trailer park dump and there is no telling what part of that property is public and what part is private. In alot of the rural areas around here many roads leading to mobile homes are private drives even though several homes are near that road.

You clearly don't understand trespass laws or the 1A Rights that the Press is protected under. Fortunately, the local Prosecutor will and that pipehead will get burried in charges. The TV station's attornies will see to it that his actions aren't overlooked. Stupid is as stupid does and that dude is going to really regret his attempts to intimidate that news crew.

Presscheck40
03-24-2012, 16:33
Public or private the terd has no right to pull a gun on someone for the reason he did. Terd had no say over the property anyway. Yes if I was one of the news crew I would have dropped the boy like a sack of tatters.


Presscheck40

svtpwnz
03-24-2012, 18:34
You clearly don't understand trespass laws or the 1A Rights that the Press is protected under. Fortunately, the local Prosecutor will and that pipehead will get burried in charges. The TV station's attornies will see to it that his actions aren't overlooked. Stupid is as stupid does and that dude is going to really regret his attempts to intimidate that news crew.


Freedom of the press in the United States is protected by the First Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Freedom_of_the_press) to the United States Constitution. This clause is generally understood as prohibiting the government from interfering with the printing and distribution of information or opinions, although freedom of the press (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press), like freedom of speech, is subject to some restrictions, such as defamation law and copyright law.

WiskyT
03-24-2012, 18:38
Freedom of the press in the United States is protected by the First Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Freedom_of_the_press) to the United States Constitution. This clause is generally understood as prohibiting the government from interfering with the printing and distribution of information or opinions, although freedom of the press (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press), like freedom of speech, is subject to some restrictions, such as defamation law and copyright law.

:dunno: huh? :dunno:

svtpwnz
03-24-2012, 18:45
:dunno: huh? :dunno:

You are making it sound like the press has a pass to do stories wherever they please. By your defininition, they can hang out in your livingroom if they wish. If that was a public road she was on, then by all means, she could camp out there as long as she wanted to.

WiskyT
03-24-2012, 19:00
You are making it sound like the press has a pass to do stories wherever they please. By your defininition, they can hang out in your livingroom if they wish. If that was a public road she was on, then by all means, she could camp out there as long as she wanted to.

Dude,seriously, you aren't even making sense. They weren't in anybody's living room, and even if they were, it wasn't HIS lving room and he had no business telling them where they could be. That is what law enforcement is for. We are a nation of laws and you should get a better understanding of when use of force is justified if you are going to own a gun, or even breath. You can't pull a gun on someone who is on a public road because you want them to leave and they aren't moving fast enough.

svtpwnz
03-24-2012, 19:19
Dude,seriously, you aren't even making sense. They weren't in anybody's living room, and even if they were, it wasn't HIS lving room and he had no business telling them where they could be. That is what law enforcement is for. We are a nation of laws and you should get a better understanding of when use of force is justified if you are going to own a gun, or even breath. You can't pull a gun on someone who is on a public road because you want them to leave and they aren't moving fast enough.

What are you talking about?????? I never once said he had a right to draw a firearm and come towards the news crew. They posed no threat to the man other than being the asses they are, agitating him and pissing him off. My point was that I was unclear if they were on a public or private road. To my knowledge, they didn't know that he didn't live there or was temporarily staying there or whatever.

This guy was clearly not in a stable frame of mind from the get go. When he rushed back to his vehicle, that was a clear sign to be ready for some sort of big problem. Yet, the morons filming the story chose to keep rolling.

Presscheck40
03-24-2012, 19:29
From a law enforcement view I'm quite sure that I would have kept filming. Looks like pretty good solid evidence to me and any Judge or Jury that may have to look at it.


Presscheck40

WiskyT
03-24-2012, 19:36
What are you talking about?????? I never once said he had a right to draw a firearm and come towards the news crew. They posed no threat to the man other than being the asses they are, agitating him and pissing him off. My point was that I was unclear if they were on a public or private road. To my knowledge, they didn't know that he didn't live there or was temporarily staying there or whatever.

This guy was clearly not in a stable frame of mind from the get go. When he rushed back to his vehicle, that was a clear sign to be ready for some sort of big problem. Yet, the morons filming the story chose to keep rolling.

It's not clear to you. It is clear to the news crew that the road is a public road. I'm not going to bother posting the address, but it is not some kind of gated community. It's a ****ing road that the mailman, garbage man, you, me and the news crew are allowed to use any time they want. Even if it were a private road, it's not the ****bird's private road and he has no business telling people they can't be there.

I think I'll take my kids to the park tomorrow and tell someone they have to leave:rofl:

WiskyT
03-24-2012, 19:40
From a law enforcement view I'm quite sure that I would have kept filming. Looks like pretty good solid evidence to me and any Judge or Jury that may have to look at it.


Presscheck40

If you're not too busy tomorrow, would you like to meet up with me and demand people leave places while waving Highpoints around? We could start with private property, not our private property, and then move on to streets, parks, greenways etc.

svtpwnz
03-24-2012, 19:51
If you're not too busy tomorrow, would you like to meet up with me and demand people leave places while waving Highpoints around? We could start with private property, not our private property, and then move on to streets, parks, greenways etc.

Sounds like fun. You could also learn the whole 1st amendment thing and how it applies to the press.

The_Gun_Guru
03-24-2012, 20:06
Looked like a High Point

Yes it did, but it will still make you dead.

HOG, here in FL I have the LEGAL right to drop him where he stands. Our "Stand Your Ground" law was the smartest thing that our law-makers did for us since giving us our CCW law.

I would have shot him.


TGG

Dogbite
03-24-2012, 22:44
The guy who pulled the gun was a complete idiot. Would I have shot him because he got a gun and hid it behind his leg, no. However I would have my hand on my gun in the holster. He basically brandished. If he would have pointed the gun at me, then he is seriously threatening my life, and I would have drawn my gun. Its right on the edge, but no I would not have pulled my gun and shot the guy right then for what I saw. This is a case of--He is pissed off and trying to scare the crew off. I would have left, and called the cops. If you would have pulled your gun and shot him, believe me when I say that whole situation would have been picked apart later...Did he POINT the gun at you? Well, no, he got it and put it behind his leg..Yeah, you might win this one later, or maybe not. Im going to wait until its very clear he is about to try to kill me with the weapon, before I shoot. In my eyes, it has to be a last last last last chance deal. Is this really close for me--yes, but hell if you can avoid it, your a ton better off.

I have actually been in this situation. In my situation though, the guy was arms length away, and I took the gun from him. Also in my situation, the guy was spouting threats as he did it. Once I had the gun, i unloaded it and told him to leave. He spouted a few more threats, left, and was picked up by the law in short order. I am glad both he and I are still breathing.

hogship
03-24-2012, 23:56
The guy who pulled the gun was a complete idiot. Would I have shot him because he got a gun and hid it behind his leg, no. However I would have my hand on my gun in the holster. He basically brandished. If he would have pointed the gun at me, then he is seriously threatening my life, and I would have drawn my gun. Its right on the edge, but no I would not have pulled my gun and shot the guy right then for what I saw. This is a case of--He is pissed off and trying to scare the crew off. I would have left, and called the cops. If you would have pulled your gun and shot him, believe me when I say that whole situation would have been picked apart later...Did he POINT the gun at you? Well, no, he got it and put it behind his leg..Yeah, you might win this one later, or maybe not. Im going to wait until its very clear he is about to try to kill me with the weapon, before I shoot. In my eyes, it has to be a last last last last chance deal. Is this really close for me--yes, but hell if you can avoid it, your a ton better off.

I have actually been in this situation. In my situation though, the guy was arms length away, and I took the gun from him. Also in my situation, the guy was spouting threats as he did it. Once I had the gun, i unloaded it and told him to leave. He spouted a few more threats, left, and was picked up by the law in short order. I am glad both he and I are still breathing.

Good post, Dogbite.........I can't say I fully agree with everything you've said, but I do understand the reasoning by which you came to your conclusions.

It seems clear to me that the man did not intend to shoot, but to only intimidate the news crew.....but, how in the world can anyone make that judgement until after the situation played out? The answer to that question is: You, or I, or anyone else couldn't possibly know what the intentions of the guy are with any absolute certainty. Since the intent is a complete unknown, and a deadly threat is certainly being used as a means to facilitate that unknown intent......we, all have a right to protect our lives when there is enough evidence to conclude an armed response is warranted.......Do you agree with that?

Now, we have an angry man going to his vehicle and retreiving a gun. I think it's a safe bet to say he's not doing this to check to see if the grip screws need tightening......so, what is his purpose in getting the gun? You're going to have to use your best judgement and act on that......or, not.

If you wait until he points his gun directly at you, you've already lost any advantage you might have had.......and, you could become very dead. Doing it your way, the only option you really do have is to wait and see what he does do.......in that case, it's a strong likelyhood you'll die. Or you could just take him out because he's given you every indication that that's exactly what he intends to do to you, or wants you to think that's what he'll do.

At some point, you've just got to start thinking that preservation of your own life is on the line, and jerkwads like this make it clear that they want you to think that. What hasn't occurred to them is confronting someone like me or a few others here, who are not going to allow our lives to be the stakes in this deadly confrontation.

ooc

Nalapombu
03-25-2012, 01:45
I saw the video and that guy is probably going to go to jail for his stupidity. The really bad thing is that he, and the guy in Florida, is what a lot of people will think about when Concealed Carry permit holders are mentioned.

As for the original question, I don't think I would shoot. I would do everything I possibly could to AVOID having to pull the trigger or even draw my weapon. I had to hold a thief one night at gunpoint for about 15 minutes while waiting on the cops to come and arrest him. He wasn't armed and was caught in the act by my neighbor. It was all caught on video from a home surveillance system and it went all over the local news and such. We even had Good Morning America and one of the other tabloid shows calling us and wanting to fly us to NY to put us on the show, but we didn't go. The whole time I was there with my pistol on this punk I was scared to death. I had never done any thing like that in my life. I kept praying under my breath "please GOD don't let this guy get up and try to come at me or my friend." I honestly don't know what I would've done. At the end, right before the cops got there, he did try and fight his way free, but my best friend whom had caught him was there and luckily was a champion wrestler in high school and was able to hold him for another couple of minutes until the cops arrived and arrested him. Scariest 20 minutes of my life. I would never, and hope I am never, put in a situation like that again. I also hope that no one here is ever put in the situation where they have to decide whether to shoot and kill someone.

Nalajr

Joshua M. Smith
03-25-2012, 04:39
Hello,

1. I would not be trespassing.

2. I would not film someone who did not want to be filmed.

No, the feller who had the firearm didn't act right. There is a significant difference between a threat and someone being more annoying than they have any right to be.

They were both wrong.

Josh

WiskyT
03-25-2012, 05:28
Hello,

1. I would not be trespassing.

2. I would not film someone who did not want to be filmed.

No, the feller who had the firearm didn't act right. There is a significant difference between a threat and someone being more annoying than they have any right to be.

They were both wrong.

Josh

You are filmed all the time on public and private property without your permission. You do realize that? If you buy gas, food, cash a paycheck, or walk down the street, you are being recorded. So, I should pull a gun on the bank teller and demand she stop filming me?

Don't forget, he approached THEM and their camera. I know what let's do, let's find a camera crew that is filming, approach them and demand they stop.

Bren
03-25-2012, 05:44
Agreed, but I'm asking what you would do. I've already said I think a shooting would have been justified......What I want to know is what others think if they were confronted by this situation.

The only thing that makes me wonder some about this situation, is that the man's gun was not pointed directly at me. Is this the point where the law would not justify a shooting in self defense......or, must I wait for the weapon to be pointed directly at me to warrant a legally justified armed response? If this is so, then it would seem to me that I would likely have to resign myself to shooting after having been shot at first.......yes?

If the gun is pointed directly at you, is "intent" any less/more evident than the actions of the man in the video? :dunno:

ooc

If you wait until the gun is pointed at you, you have already lost, unless he decides to let you win. If an angry man gets his gun out of his truck while yelling at me, I will, can and should shoot him as soon as I believe he is getting a gun (all that is required in KY). The ideal time would be when he reaches in the truck, if you already know what he is getting. Otherwise, I would absolutely start shooting when he truns around with a gun in his hand.

I can't say how that would work in every state, of course.

H&K 4 LIFE
03-25-2012, 06:15
If you wait until the gun is pointed at you, you have already lost, unless he decides to let you win...

I agree. All too often I see people so worried about the possible legal ramifications of defending themselves, that when/if the fight for their life starts, they have put themselves so far behind the curve for the sake of being cautious that they cannot possibly prevail. Simply put, being too abrupt can cost you your freedom just as easily as too much hesitation can cost you your life.

The best way to remedy this is to know and understand the laws surrounding the use of deadly force in your specific state before you find yourself in this type of situation.

WiskyT
03-25-2012, 06:24
I agree. All too often I see people so worried about the possible legal ramifications of defending themselves, that when/if the fight for their life starts, they have put themselves so far behind the curve for the sake of being cautious that they cannot possibly prevail. Simply put, being too abrupt can cost you your freedom just as easily as too much hesitation can cost you your life.

The best way to remedy this is to know and understand the laws surrounding the use of deadly force in your specific state before you find yourself in this type of situation.

How many training films have we seen with cops killed while calling the killer "Sir" and acting like they were mediating a neighbor dispute because they were trained to be accomodating by their CALEA clown chiefs?

They had that attidtude, like some of the posters in this thread, right up until their death. There is no law that requires you to have had a bullet impact you before you can defend yourself.

And for those that think the guy is armed, and angry, and making threats, but he isn't angry or threatening ENOUGH, you are avoiding the realities of life. There is evil, there is no Easter Bunny, and this guy is more than capable of firing a shot at you. What do you think killers look like anyway? Meet a few of them and you will see they don't wear a sign around their neck.

hogship
03-25-2012, 06:44
I agree. All too often I see people so worried about the possible legal ramifications of defending themselves, that when/if the fight for their life starts, they have put themselves so far behind the curve for the sake of being cautious that they cannot possibly prevail. Simply put, being too abrupt can cost you your freedom just as easily as too much hesitation can cost you your life.

The best way to remedy this is to know and understand the laws surrounding the use of deadly force in your specific state before you find yourself in this type of situation.

Here is another very excellent and thoughtful post.

It needs no commentary, because it's concise and to the point.......a point that some people are doing everything they can to avoid! :wavey:

ooc

country85
03-25-2012, 07:56
I may ruffle some feathers here but here are my observations: The reporters hung around entirely too long, if some ass hole speeds up, blocks the road and starts screaming at me and I"m not or even if I am armed I'm getting the hell out of his way. BUT, at the same time, he DID block the road with his car, and did pull the gun, in my opinion he caught him self and didn't actually point it at them, it's a tough call, I agree with hogship, when he was coming out the car with it, definite shoot, but with him hiding it behind his leg, no shoot

The_Gun_Guru
03-25-2012, 09:20
I may ruffle some feathers here but here are my observations: The reporters hung around entirely too long, if some ass hole speeds up, blocks the road and starts screaming at me and I"m not or even if I am armed I'm getting the hell out of his way. BUT, at the same time, he DID block the road with his car, and did pull the gun, in my opinion he caught him self and didn't actually point it at them, it's a tough call, I agree with hogship, when he was coming out the car with it, definite shoot, but with him hiding it behind his leg, no shoot


I disagree.

As soon as he turned and went back to his truck you knew he wasn't going to pull out a bouquet of roses. Even if he had grabbed a baseball bat I would have had the legal right (here in FL) to drop him. WHY? Because a baseball bat can be used as a deadly weapon to beat someone to death. Would I have shot at the sight of a bat? NO, because I would have time to act if he made any moves toward me.

A gun changes all that because he could reach me from a distance, at any moment! Why give him the advantage? He's a LOSER!!!


TGG

country85
03-25-2012, 11:32
That's a very good point, as I think further into it, I probably would have shot him as soon as I saw the gun, before he even would had a chance to put it behind his leg, how ever as many have pointed out, in this day seems like every law abiding citizen with a carry permit who uses there firearm to defend there self is made out to be the aggressor instead of the victim, so from a legal point of view it's still a hard call since it happened in the middle of the street, now, put the idiot in my drive way, blocking me in and yelling at me with a gun, I'd shoot him in a heart beat and order pizzia while I waited for the meat wagon to come scrape him off my drive way

Bald Baron
03-25-2012, 12:03
The point I would like to make is that the legalities are a secondary issue. Who has time to think about it during such an encounter? If you are in fear for your life, act accordingly. If you do everything right you might still have legal consequences to deal with (criminal or civil), but you will still be alive to deal with them. In other words we do what we HAVE TO, not what we feel we can do.:wavey:

hogship
03-25-2012, 19:48
I guess this thread is dead, at this point. (It's about time for it to die, because I doubt anything new can be added to the discussion.)

It's obvious there are those who feel a defensive armed response isn't warranted, some feel it would be lawful, with stipulation (me), and some feel an armed response could have been used during the entire incident.......and, honestly, I don't think anyone's way of looking at what happened can be absolutely ruled out entirely...........so, where does that leave us?

There is one comment that probably should be made. This thread represents the kind of exchange of thinking that would probably be discussed between members of a jury......that is, if this whole thing was in response to an actual shooting, instead of the hypothetical it was in this thread.

It's not hard to imagine that there won't be some circumstances, data, clues, and other evidence in almost ANY shooting that will make the outcome a little less than conclusive, in the minds of those jurors......and they HAVE to make the decision based on the law as they see it applies.

Somebody else pointed out that we all must be aware of the laws in our own respective states, and be ready to defend our actions, if and when the time comes for any of us to deal with these things personally......very good advice.

The one bit of additional advice I might offer, is to keep your mouth shut and use your right to consult a lawyer, write things down, get contact information of any witnesses, commit to memory the details as best you can, use cell cameras, and do whatever you can to preserve any evidence........

What else would be good to know, or do under these circumstances.....?

ooc

country85
03-25-2012, 21:20
:agree:

H&K 4 LIFE
03-26-2012, 07:41
...There is one comment that probably should be made. This thread represents the kind of exchange of thinking that would probably be discussed between members of a jury......that is, if this whole thing was in response to an actual shooting, instead of the hypothetical it was in this thread.

It's not hard to imagine that there won't be some circumstances, data, clues, and other evidence in almost ANY shooting that will make the outcome a little less than conclusive, in the minds of those jurors......and they HAVE to make the decision based on the law as they see it applies...

I may be stating the obvious here, but we have a first hand video account of this situation on record as it unfolds. The video would serve as a key piece of evidence if one of the news crew members decided to shoot the man in self-defense and the case went to criminal trial.

In reviewing the video, there is little left to the imagination as to the mans ability to harm you (he has a gun) his opportunity to harm you (he is close enough to use said gun) and his intent to harm you (making threats and behaving aggressively with gun in hand). The only remaining aggravating factor missing here is him pointing, or actually discharging, the gun at the news crew, which some posters here apparently believe is the pivot point as to whether or not they would choose to respond to the threat this man poses with deadly force within the context of a similar situation. However, as WiskyT put it...
There is no law that requires you to have had a bullet impact you before you can defend yourself.Furthermore, at trail, the jury would be instructed to ask themselves whether a reasonable and prudent person, knowing exactly what you knew at that moment (and no more), would have come to the same conclusion, that using deadly force to defend was both judicious and necessary in avoiding grave bodily injury or death being inflicted upon you. At the time of the altercation, one would have no way of knowing that the readily apparent and immediate threat this man posed amounted to nothing more then alot of chest thumping of which the only goal was to intimidate without actually causing any harm.