When To Pull and or Shoot - Page 2
Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 151

Thread: When To Pull and or Shoot

  1. Quote Originally Posted by Eidolon View Post
    Really, this is the best answer you're going to get.
    Well, would you have had to under those circumstances?

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by SkippySanchez View Post
    "Brandishing" in a situation where one would otherwise be justified in a self-defense shooting is not illegal in Kansas. If showing the handgun stops the life-or-limb attack, that is legal.
    Read what he wrote: "to show the gun while the biker was walking up". There has to be a threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to justify the use of lethal force. Once that threat exists, one may point the gun at the threat and one may choose to shoot. Otherwise "pulling your weapon as a deterrent or deescalator" is illegal.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    You could be charged with murder. Once you show your gun, you applied lethal force without justification.

    Stupid is as stupid does!
    This makes no sense at all. The biker is clearly attacking the car. I would had the gun ready to shoot anyway. Showing it could have deterred the attack.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    Read what he wrote: "to show the gun while the biker was walking up". There has to be a threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to justify the use of lethal force. Once that threat exists, one may point the gun at the threat and one may choose to shoot. Otherwise "pulling your weapon as a deterrent or deescalator" is illegal.
    A biker walking up with a helmet in the manner he did clearly shows intent to harm.

  6. Quote Originally Posted by SkippySanchez View Post
    Charged with murder? Maybe. Convicted? Probably not. Depends on what lead up to the situation before the camera started rolling. Did the driver initiate the confrontation? Did he injure or kill the guy on the bike that he ran over? As much as we'd like this to change in this era of protesters blocking highways, it's illegal to intentionally hit someone with a motor vehicle. Some states are now crafting laws along these lines.
    IMO, the driver had plenty of reason to believe he was being attacked before he ran over the biker to flee.

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by SkippySanchez View Post
    Charged with murder? Maybe. Convicted? Probably not. Depends on what lead up to the situation before the camera started rolling. Did the driver initiate the confrontation? Did he injure or kill the guy on the bike that he ran over? As much as we'd like this to change in this era of protesters blocking highways, it's illegal to intentionally hit someone with a motor vehicle. Some states are now crafting laws along these lines.
    As I said, could. The post that I was replying to included changing the situation to showing the gun first, when there is no justification for it, then if that doesn't help shoot. Once you show your gun without justification as a threat, the biker has a right to self defense using lethal force.

    This is why these discussion threads are useless. The complete situation, as it evolves, defines which actions one has to take and which actions are legal. Changing a part of the situation, changes everything, making everything hypothetical and guess work.

    It is also generally not illegal to intentionally hit someone with a motor vehicle. The circumstances dictate if it is or not. The driver in the OP's video was not charged for running over the bikers. There is even an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to the Hollywood Stuntz gang assault.

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by maat View Post
    A biker walking up with a helmet in the manner he did clearly shows intent to harm.
    You clearly do not understand the law then. What threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to justify the use of lethal force exists here? Good luck with that jury.

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by maat View Post
    IMO, the driver had plenty of reason to believe he was being attacked before he ran over the biker to flee.
    That wasn't the justification for using lethal force. The driver was boxed in and surrounded by the bikers. That's false imprisonment.

  10. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by maat View Post
    This makes no sense at all. The biker is clearly attacking the car. I would had the gun ready to shoot anyway. Showing it could have deterred the attack.
    As I said, you clearly do not understand the law then.

    Once the window is broken, there is no barrier between you and the attacker. That's usually when the justification for using lethal force applies. By that time, showing the gun to the biker is the same as pointing it at him. If he complies, good if he doesn't then you may lawfully use deadly force.

    If the window is not broken and the biker is hammering at the car, you are not in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Hence, displaying your gun is illegal and stupid.

  11. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Gondor
    Posts
    1,897
    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    You could be charged with murder. Once you show your gun, you applied lethal force without justification.

    Stupid is as stupid does!
    Winning hearts and minds
    In an emergency individuals do not rise to the occasion, they fall to the level of their MASTERED training
    Barrett Tillman

Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast