I doubt that also with such a clear video. The family of the deceased would be hard pressed to find a jury lacking at least one person who sees that video and says "justified".
Justified or not justified?
- Thread starter Cureforcancer
- Start date
spat
.950 JDJ
Justified, but not how I would handle it.
Shut your door, throw it in reverse and floor it. You should be able to shove his car far enough out of the way to pull out.
Call 911 and let the cops deal with him.
Shut your door, throw it in reverse and floor it. You should be able to shove his car far enough out of the way to pull out.
Call 911 and let the cops deal with him.
First shot was absolutely justified, any others, in the view of the law, are probably not. Personally, Mr club got what he deserved.
Last edited:
Robin
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Depends on what county and how much political pressure (co-ersion) Albany applies.
Robin
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
His back may have been turned, but the proximity of the attacker to the victim is still very close. When is the threat over? When the attacker no longer has the mindset AND ability to inflict harm on you. Need to satisfy both conditions. If he's still at arms length, he's still a threat. Even if his back is turned. That makes it even worse as you can't see what his hands are doing, and a reasonable assumption can be made that he still can harm you. I would 100% support the victim based purely on this video.
Can anyone actually find a case where the whole incident lasted a few seconds, did not involve and obvious "finishing shot", yet still ended with "shot #2 wasn't justified"? I've never seen one.
Justified 100% as far as I am concerned.
carpediem
.338 Win Mag
My initial response was more toward would he be justified in court. I really doubt in this climate in the US right now he would be justified. Especially in NY. From the reality standpoint, 100% justified for all the reasons stated above. Unfortunately, as we have seen with the police shootings lately, where most if not all were justified, the media and the public don't look at the reality of a shooting.
pseudonymity
.38 Special
From a legal standpoint if this was NY I would say it is a close call. Outside your home you have a duty to retreat, but even after the bystander intervened, there was not necessarily a clear way to retreat since the car was parked very close to that metal fence in front and the attacker was blocking the path to retreat to the rear of the car. I think a lot would depend on the actions that happened before the tape caught this action - did either person act with deadly force (including using a car as a weapon), was there some type of mutual combat agreement (seems unlikely).
For anybody interested in the legal details of the use of deadly force for self defense I recommend the book 'The Law of Self Defense' by Andrew Branca. I have no relationship to the book or its author, but I own a copy myself and think it was well worth the price.
For anybody interested in the legal details of the use of deadly force for self defense I recommend the book 'The Law of Self Defense' by Andrew Branca. I have no relationship to the book or its author, but I own a copy myself and think it was well worth the price.
Absolutely 100% Justified. If this happened in the US, I know of NO State that this would be considered Un-Justified.
For those who think that in NY State you would be charged, tried and convicted, I really suggest you do some re-reading of our Use of Force documents.
The man attacked with a deadly weapon, what else do you think you need to use your gun?
Why carry for protection if you have no idea when and where to use it.
For those who think that in NY State you would be charged, tried and convicted, I really suggest you do some re-reading of our Use of Force documents.
The man attacked with a deadly weapon, what else do you think you need to use your gun?
Why carry for protection if you have no idea when and where to use it.
WHAT????
Where is it written that you, being a resident of NY, cannot defend yourself? Where does it say you have to run away/
You have a duty to retreat only if you can assure your own safety,
No way you could assure it in this case.
Small reminder of some very important words...
S 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use
physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she
reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a
third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to
cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the
use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has
withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such
withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing
the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical
force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by
agreement not specifically authorized by law.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating;
There was no way for the shooter to retreat!
S 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use
physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she
reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a
third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to
cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the
use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has
withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such
withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing
the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical
force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by
agreement not specifically authorized by law.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating;
There was no way for the shooter to retreat!
The misinformation that people have is going the get them hurt. You absolutely have the right and the ability to protect yourself. Even in NY State. We have conversations all the time about training. Seriously, some really should spend the time and possibly a bit of money and get some real training and understanding about the laws.
Judged by 12 NOT carried by 6!
Ok I'll chime in...
First, we have no idea what was the reason for the assault. The shooter could've just raped the victims wife and he (victim) was trying to apprehend him... Yet you all sit and judge.
Second, he was in his car, and reasonably safe. Could have attampted to flee while still inside the vehicle.
Third, although he was not the aggressor, he opened the car door to shoot the attacker, here who becomes the victim.
Fourth, he endangers another person while discharging the gun.
Fifth, he shoots the victim multiple times when shooting the object out of his hand would've sufficed.
Hahaha, flame on!
This post was performed while that song NY State of Mind was playing in the background... Sorry!
First, we have no idea what was the reason for the assault. The shooter could've just raped the victims wife and he (victim) was trying to apprehend him... Yet you all sit and judge.
Second, he was in his car, and reasonably safe. Could have attampted to flee while still inside the vehicle.
Third, although he was not the aggressor, he opened the car door to shoot the attacker, here who becomes the victim.
Fourth, he endangers another person while discharging the gun.
Fifth, he shoots the victim multiple times when shooting the object out of his hand would've sufficed.
Hahaha, flame on!
This post was performed while that song NY State of Mind was playing in the background... Sorry!
Don't forget sixth.
The fine lad with the pipe could have been the embodiment of God and the guy in the car the embodiment of Satan. Having one more spat, as they do.
spat
.950 JDJ
I have no doubt that a good lawyer could deal with any charge an overzealous prosecutor might bring in this case, for a price.
I even believe that most prosectors, even in NY (upstate at least) wouldn't be "that guy".
I have no doubt a good lawyer could beat whatever suit the scumbags next of kin brought either, for a price.
I still think it's cheaper and easier to let the cops deal with him if possible.
I pay the garbage man so that I don't have to deal with taking trash to the dump myself, cops are just the garbage men for human refuse.
And when they're picking your body up off the ground to toss it in the dumpster, at least your wife will get to enjoy a nice steak dinner after the funeral.
spat
.950 JDJ
The guy had a club, and the victim managed to get back into the car. You probably have even odds whether the gun or the gas pedal was a safer bet.
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
He had no where to go. Fence in front, and the attackers car parked behind.
The duty to retreat is not in play here, the victim was boxed in tighter than a ducks arse
spat
.950 JDJ
He was completely justified, I never claimed otherwise.
He also had enough space to build up the necessary momentum to shove the other car out of the way. Just because you are armed doesn't mean the gun is the best way out of a fight, justified or not.
OTOH, this guy isn't going to come looking for you when he gets out of jail in 6 months either, so a case can be made either way.
But, and it is a HUGE but, the cops were not there. Cops are almost never there when one is really needed. Trust me, I know. I carry a gun everyday and everywhere I because it is my responsibility to protect my self and my family.
It is indeed the job of the garbage man to haul away my trash; it is not the job of the police to protect all in society.
I don't have garbage men in my neck of the woods.
Seriously, it's all self serve here.
We take care of ourselves around here.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
spat
.950 JDJ
It isn't even really the job of the police to protect anyone in society. Like the garbage man, their job is to take the trash and sequester it in a place it won't bother the rest of us. By definition, they can't really do anything until the mess is already made, then they are just clean up.
But, I stand by my comment, that just because force is legally and morally justified, doesn't necessarily mean it is the best course of action.
spat
.950 JDJ
If your far enough in the boonies that the garbage man won't show up, you will indeed need to be far more prepared to handle the 2 legged refuse yourself too.