2018, What Armed Self Defense Looks Like

I often suggest to folks meet in front a nearby police facility particularly for women; does a bit of weeding, that.

 

Let me try this again. Was there absolutely no other way the shooter couldn’t have handled the situation where he was not directly threatened?

 

The violence policy center is not a credible source of information.

 

A threat does not have to be confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt for lethal force to be justified for self defense. Simply because the firearm turns out to be a non-functioning imitation does not mean it does not appear to be a real firearm. Such cannot be known until after the fact.

 

Horsehockey, I did it for thirty years and never once had to use a weapon, I just used my hands..

 

Which ultimately means nothing, as such is not indicative of any general overall trend.

 

It's is the majority action by the majority of people.
I never got to shoot anyone in the Army either.

 

So if a cop showed up would the cop have just shot the person outright or would the cop have given a warning to put the gun down or they will shoot? Keep in mind from the reports so far, the robber was only pointing the gun at the clerk and NOT at the shooter.

 

You tell me. You seem to have the 20/20 hindsight. What would you suggest?

 

How long would it take for the robber to shoot the clerk once challenged, or to turn and shoot the CCW holder? Why should anyone committing a crime with a gun be given the benefit of the doubt?

 

You're great at dodging questions. What is the protocol a cop would have to take? Shoot without warning OR give a warning to put the gun down or be shot?

 

Why do you keep dodging the question? I will be happy to answer you but YOU need to step up and answer my question. How conversation work is someone asks a question. The other person answers that question then asks THEIR question. And back and forth it goes.

 

Oh, that wasn't a rhetorical question? Yes, he could have said "drop it!". He could have done nothing. He could have turned and run. And on the rare even that a robber is using a fake gun, those might have been better solutions. You've had days to ponder this. He had seconds.

The school solution is to draw and fire on the threat.

 

Why would you think it was a rhetorical question? A cop would yell out to put the gun down first. We all know this. Why should it be different for a civilian who was not directly threatened? That's all I'm saying.

 

Because the cop is required by law to do so, to put his or her life at risk to stop a criminal. A citizen is not required to put their life at risk to stop a crime.

 

I didn't realize there were different laws for cops and civilians. My bad.

 

I say they are credible.

 

You mean so you can just shoot someone for parking in a handicapped parking space?

 

I suggest, stop being so trigger happy, stop playing vigilante like Drejka.

 

So, let the clerk die? What percentage of robberies are done with fake weapons? If they make the threat, my response is on them. I should only be responsible for stray bullets.

 

Probably more than you'd think.

 

The robber only need -state- he has a gun to justify legally shooting him in self-defense.

 

When they fish from a moving boat...

 

Going by what news reports from the united states indicate, as in the case of Tamir Rice, the person with the imitation firearm would have been shot outright the moment law enforcement officers arrived at the scene. Law enforcement officers have killed individuals for simply holding a fork.

Which means nothing whatsoever. Lethal force is allowed for the purpose of protecting a third person from death or great bodily harm.

 

Do not commit assault, do not get shot in the process. Pray tell, why is such a simple concept ultimately proving so difficult for so many in the united states to comprehend?