The old man pulled out the gun before the altercation got physical. He escalated the situation.
The old man pulled out the gun before the altercation got physical. He escalated the situation.
none of which would have killed him, which was my point
And he better stop verbally harassing people over stupid stuff concerning his yard that nobody cares about but himself.
YAGTFAIATOT
Yet Another Guessing The Facts Argument In Anandtech Off Topic
Justification does not make a criminal use of force lawful; if the use of force is justified, it cannot be criminal at all. ... The defense of justification affirmatively permits the use of force under certain circumstances. ... The defense does not operate to 'excuse' a criminal act, nor does it negate a particular element of a crime. Rather, by recognizing the use of force to be privileged under certain circumstances, it renders such conduct entirely lawful.
The defense of justification would fail, for example, if a defendant deliberately killed a petty thief who did not commit robbery and who did not appear to be a physical threat. However, the owner or lawful possessor of property has a privilege to use any degree of non-deadly force necessary to protect his possession or recover his property, regardless of no physical threat to his person.
However, when an assailant ceases to be a threat (e.g. by being tackled and restrained, surrendering, or fleeing), the defense of justification will fail if the defending party presses on to attack or to punish beyond imposing physical restraint.
A somewhat less obvious application of this rule is that admitting the use of deadly force in an attempt to disable rather than kill the assailant can be construed as evidence that the defendant wasn't yet in enough danger to justify lethal force in the first place.
In some countries and U.S. states, the concept of "pre-emptive" self defense is limited by a requirement that the threat be imminent. Thus, lawful "pre-emptive" self defense is simply the act of landing the first-blow in a situation that has reached a point of no hope for de-escalation or escape.
Not true. Hit the femoral artery and there is a very good chance he will die
Just because you think no one cares doesn't make it legal or right
Originally Posted by FDF12389
YAGTFAIATOT
Yet Another Guessing The Facts Argument In Anandtech Off Topic
Why mess with tradition?
Originally Posted by guyver01 View Post
Hell.. he's a TRAINED MARINE. if he needed to shoot him... shoot him in the foot... the leg... the arm... ALL reasonable uses of force.
WHY did he need to shoot to kill. I haven't seen anything which indicated he was in mortal danger.
Deadly force is force capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. There is no legal distinction between "deadly force" and "less deadly but still deadly force."
Illinois is one of 2 states where there is no concealed carry. Our 2nd amendment is denied in this state.
nobody is taught to shoot to wound. where do you get this stupid shit?
it's called USING YOUR BRAIN...
or are you saying everyone who uses a gun is an automaton who automatically shoots for the heart and noone knows how to aim for anything else? when you get your gun.. do they implant "heart trackers" that let you instantly know where to shoot to hit the heart?
lol. concealed carry is not in the 2nd amendment, dingleberry.
No concealed carry, even with permit? That sucks.
Read it again, its there. Dinglebutt
So is the right to keep and bear flamethrowers, tanks, and RPGs.
Nick, you're wasting your time. But you already know that.No, it says "arms", not "ordnance". Big difference. 18th century definition of arms = pistols, rifles, shotguns, and knives. Ordnance = artillery, bombs, etc. There is a reason why they used the word "arms". Although I do get a kick out of the knee-jerk anti-gun "argument", "OMG YOU WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE RPG'S??!?!?!". lol no, thats ordnance, not a right given in the Constitution. Thanks for playing.
I hope you see how foolish that argument is, and you will never use it again to further your anti-gun agenda.
No, it says "arms", not "ordnance". Big difference. 18th century definition of arms = pistols, rifles, shotguns, and knives. Ordnance = artillery, bombs, etc. There is a reason why they used the word "arms". Although I do get a kick out of the knee-jerk anti-gun "argument", "OMG YOU WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE RPG'S??!?!?!". lol no, thats ordnance, not a right given in the Constitution. Thanks for playing.
I hope you see how foolish that argument is, and you will never use it again to further your anti-gun agenda.
No, it says "arms", not "ordnance". Big difference. 18th century definition of arms = pistols, rifles, shotguns, and knives. Ordnance = artillery, bombs, etc. There is a reason why they used the word "arms". Although I do get a kick out of the knee-jerk anti-gun "argument", "OMG YOU WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE RPG'S??!?!?!". lol no, thats ordnance, not a right given in the Constitution. Thanks for playing.
I hope you see how foolish that argument is, and you will never use it again to further your anti-gun agenda.
What if I aim for the other guy's bullet with my bullet, thereby cancelling his deadly force.No, you just have it drilled into your head in every type of firearm training in the world (I've been to concealed handgun classes, private handgun defense courses, law enforcement firearm courses, and military firearms courses) that if you shoot to wound you will go to jail.
Some people like to think you can shoot the gun out of someone's hand, but that's not reality. Reality is, if you're shooting to wound, it means you're not in a situation in which deadly force is authorized, and the use of a firearm, in any capacity, constitutes deadly force in all 50 states (and the military.) Deadly force is only permissible if you are in fear for your life (or the life of a third party.) If you shoot someone in the leg intentionally, you are by definition, automatically guilty of the illegal use of deadly force.
For what it's worth, even the military has done away with warning shots (that is, shots not meant to hit a person at all, but to deter through threat of deadly force.) The liability is just too great.
What part of my desire to own an RPG makes you falsly assume I have an anti-gun agenda?
What if I aim for the other guy's bullet with my bullet, thereby cancelling his deadly force.