Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Felix said:

The base defense of pussies everywhere. The fucking military doesn't even believe this.  If your fear gets to be the deciding factor in taking someones life, then there are no rules.  I don't get how you guys can't see that?  

 

I'm not debating the morality here, just saying how the laws around this work. You may not like that, but it doesn't make it less so. Had the guy not stopped and got out of his car, we wouldn't have had a video of anything at all. Also, the military rules of engagement are a completely different concept entirely, and are not relatable to civilian self defense.

This isn't the wild west. You can't just say, "It's comin right for us!" and go blasting away. There are lawful considerations which must be accounted for in order for it to be lawful self defense, and they vary by state, but most are similar and being in immediate danger of death or sever bodily harm is just one of those parts. I've never seen any self defense laws which require using a defensive response that is "equal or less" in strength than the attack.

Whether that is morally right or wrong is a completely different discussion for other places.

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, thunderlounge said:

 

I'm not debating the morality here, just saying how the laws around this work. You may not like that, but it doesn't make it less so. Had the guy not stopped and got out of his car, we wouldn't have had a video of anything at all. Also, the military rules of engagement are a completely different concept entirely, and are not relatable to civilian self defense.

This isn't the wild west. You can't just say, "It's comin right for us!" and go blasting away. There are lawful considerations which must be accounted for in order for it to be lawful self defense, and they vary by state, but most are similar and being in immediate danger of death or sever bodily harm is just one of those parts. I've never seen any self defense laws which require using a defensive response that is "equal or less" in strength than the attack.

Whether that is morally right or wrong is a completely different discussion for other places.

 

Why is it a discussion for other places? My exact point is that the law is immoral in this case.  It's based on a morally indefensible argument put forth by people who are frightened by their own shadows who secretly yearn to shoot someone.  I was in the army.  I know exactly what the rules of engagement are based on, and my point stands.  How can you be in fear for your life from an unarmed person on the outside of steel door, tempered glass window, in a vehicle that could have easily pushed the vehicle in front of it aside enough to go around it?  The shooter made a choice to kill someone they didn't have to. Murder.

  • Hook 'Em 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...