Some folks shouldn't own guns..
Posted 25 March 2013 - 03:04 PM
Posted 25 March 2013 - 03:09 PM
I just got done pointing out an instance where you can start the fight and still claim self defense
Agreed, but it's so convoluted and probably would be so hard to prove, that stirs advice is good. Don't start anything, or even have the appearance of starting anything because if you shoot somebody, it's gonna come back at you.
Based on that video, had the kid in the truck had a gun, he would have been legally justified in shooting the man that threw the punch (based on what I read in that law), but certainly not the other way around.
Posted 25 March 2013 - 03:12 PM
Posted 25 March 2013 - 03:17 PM
Posted 25 March 2013 - 03:23 PM
Posted 25 March 2013 - 04:15 PM
also biscuit why would the kids be justified in pulling a gun on him?
Based on what I read since they were in their car and he attacked, they could have feared for their life.
Posted 26 March 2013 - 11:35 AM
let's start with some federal mandatory sentencing guidelines with crimes involving weapons.
Posted 26 March 2013 - 02:17 PM
This means that even if the kids cut him off, he was the aggressor in that he caused the initial physical confrontation by following them, exiting his vehicle, and approaching theirs... The kids remained in their truck (as far as we can see on the video) until one was physically assaulted (a crime). They (the kids) defended themselves by pushing the aggressor back towards his vehicle. The woman pulled the gun and handed it to the man, who once again approached the kids' vehicle (making him the aggressor once again).
If the kids had pulled a gun and shot him dead, they would have been completely justified. Not only were they the victim of an assault once, but twice. Also, the woman should also be charged and convicted with assault for producing the weapon in the first place. Neither of them should ever be able to legally own a gun again.
Per the SYG laws, you don't have to retreat so long as you are in your home, your property, or your vehicle. If the kids had've used SYG (shooting the man dead) it would have been justified under those laws. Rightfully so, in my book. Their lives could have been seen (especially after the gun was produced) as in imminent danger of loss or permanent damage.
Don't start none, won't be none.
Posted 26 March 2013 - 03:02 PM
good to know
Posted 26 March 2013 - 03:04 PM
so if someone punches me I can shoot them dead now
good to know
If you are on/in your property and/or feel you are in imminent danger of losing your life or suffering permanent disability, and you aren't the aggressor, yes...
Rightfully so, I say.
Posted 26 March 2013 - 03:07 PM
Posted 26 March 2013 - 03:12 PM
Posted 26 March 2013 - 03:13 PM
I completely agree with your (I presume) thought that not every gun owner is that responsible.
I think the difference in our beliefs is that you think something can be done about that through legislation, whereas I do not think so.
Posted 26 March 2013 - 03:14 PM
that older guy got one hit in before they jumped out of the car and ganged up on him. those kids had no reason to shoot him.
If I'd have been one of the kids and he came back at me with the gun after I'd forced him to retreat, I'd have a very good reason to shoot him.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users