2018, What Armed Self Defense Looks Like

Nice dodge. Why does everyone avoid answering the question???

 

Some people hate the fact is it legal to shoot someone in self-defense.
They especially hate it when the shooter is white and the shootee is black.

 

Pray tell how was the above response a dodge rather than an answer?

 

"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."
Seems pretty direct to me.

 

Hands are great for jerking off but not great for forcing compliance with homeless doped up drunkards or biker gang leaders.

 

Telling me wrong doings by cops doesn't answer the question. Protocol is to warn the person with the gun to drop said gun or they will shoot. They aren't supposed to just shoot at someone who isn't a direct threat to them first.

 

Sometimes you @gamewell45 post intelligently but NOT today obviously.

 

Yup but Bozo-brains brought it up earlier.

 

Sorry you are disappointed.

 

And yet such is done regularly. If a warning is issued, it is done less than a second before shots are fired, leaving the suspect with no time to comply with the command before they are shot and killed. Therefore the question was indeed answered.

 

The only reason I do not iggy you right now is that sometimes you actually say something that is actually intelligent.

 

So you're saying cops regularly don't give suspects time to comply? What's the point in offering the choice? Cops might as well cut to the chase and just execute.

 

I suppose if you CC you need to find a way to justify it. After all, that's what this thread is about, self-justification.

 

The matter of the actions of law enforcement aside, the simple fact is that the rules of engagement for law enforcement officers differ from the rules of engagement for private citizens. Private citizens are not tasked with enforcing and upholding the laws of the united states against the accused, therefore they are under no legal obligation to give a potential threat the opportunity to surrender and escape with their life intact. Legally they can deploy deadly force against the threat immediately, without need to issue a warning of intent, or providing the assailant anymore courtesy than they themselves were provided in being targeted for victimization.

 

One need not justify their decision to exercise their constitutional rights.

 

They're not tasked being vigilantes either.

 

I'd say those who walk around CC better have a better reason than anything I've heard during this debate. For example, you're double amputee, disabled vet, and have to get to your car every night in an empty garage, in a dangerous neighborhood, etc.

 

Self defense, or defense of a third person, is not vigilantism.

 

Why?

 

What legal activity one chooses to engage in, and the underlying motivations for such, are entirely their own decision to make. Again, one need not justify their decision to exercise their constitutional rights. Legally the exercising of rights needs no more justification than simply being something the person wants to do.

 

And this is your idea of self-defense and not vigilantism?

 

Someone hates the fact black men can be legally shot by white men.
Pay these fools no heed.

 

So this is the reasoning behind CC? Interesting.

 

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

 

^^^ The CC says to go around playing parking lot police, and if you get shoved onto your backside for being nosy, shoot the SOB. And they wonder why some of us wonder what the motive behind CC really is?