Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Pics and Videos Buffet
Crazy situation
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="L8APEX" data-source="post: 17010450" data-attributes="member: 51947"><p>As far as I know the right to self defense no matter how red your state doesn't give us the right to go on the offensive and just kill everyone. It does give us the right to defend ourselves by stopping the threat.</p><p>First kill seems justified, the 2nd I have mixed emotions.</p><p>Part of me see's the offender as retreating and a good time to put distance between the two of you, and thus ending the engagement.</p><p>Going up to the window and shooting him is a very aggressive move.</p><p>The only time I can see that as a viable reaction is situations like if there were children or others around that could easily get caught in a crossfire or run over, I could still see that as a reasonable (but ballsy) way to stop the threat. Or if the guy that retreated to the car sated something to the fact " I'm going to grab my Glock, you'll be sorry.." Instead of screaming and trying to get the hell out of Dodge.</p><p>But being by yourself and armed with cover after taking out his friend and the last assailant appears to be retreating might be <em>really</em> pushing the faith of the law, I think it's really stretching it.</p><p>Ultimately it will be up to a jury, and depending on the pool the only way he gets out of murder if charged, is if they overcharge him with murder because they get a very sympathetic jury member to nullify it. Everything below Murder 1 to Manslaughter should easily stick if the prosecutor is worth their salt.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="L8APEX, post: 17010450, member: 51947"] As far as I know the right to self defense no matter how red your state doesn't give us the right to go on the offensive and just kill everyone. It does give us the right to defend ourselves by stopping the threat. First kill seems justified, the 2nd I have mixed emotions. Part of me see's the offender as retreating and a good time to put distance between the two of you, and thus ending the engagement. Going up to the window and shooting him is a very aggressive move. The only time I can see that as a viable reaction is situations like if there were children or others around that could easily get caught in a crossfire or run over, I could still see that as a reasonable (but ballsy) way to stop the threat. Or if the guy that retreated to the car sated something to the fact " I'm going to grab my Glock, you'll be sorry.." Instead of screaming and trying to get the hell out of Dodge. But being by yourself and armed with cover after taking out his friend and the last assailant appears to be retreating might be [I]really[/I] pushing the faith of the law, I think it's really stretching it. Ultimately it will be up to a jury, and depending on the pool the only way he gets out of murder if charged, is if they overcharge him with murder because they get a very sympathetic jury member to nullify it. Everything below Murder 1 to Manslaughter should easily stick if the prosecutor is worth their salt. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Pics and Videos Buffet
Crazy situation
Top