Well, it seems switching to Target won't save us from random violence.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
The article said it was a hit a run. I havent seen the footage, but it doesnt sound like the use of deadly force would be justified unless he was continuously beating the children or other people. He was apprehended behind an electrical box. Maybe it's a good thing nobody followed him and shot at him, lol.
You cannot shoot someone who is running away because they are no longer a direct and immediate threat. I'm not sure anyone here has advocated for that, in fact, I specifically said such was illegal several posts ago.

But, since he is a former felon, this isn't his first rodeo. I would have no compulsions about shooting the guy dead if he was in the act or about to attack a child. I wouldn't wait to see exactly how much damage he was intending to do, and would ALWAYS default to protecting the innocent at the expense of the attacker.

And I do NOT sit around dreaming of the day when I can gun my way to the rescue, as you seem to think. I hope and do everything possible to never be in such a situation, but I would hope I would be ready to act if such did occur. Just like I own a fire extinguisher but don't want my house to catch on fire so I can use it.

But, you are correct, after the attack you can no longer pursue and shoot him and then claim it was self-defense or to protect another. He has to be in the act of attacking for that to be legal. This is self-defense law 101. And you need to understand that, and know that we understand that fact, and stop lying that we want to "shoot first and ask questions later."

You can twist facts and lie all you want to try and demonize us, but it just proves that you have no moral, logical or legal way to debate our position. You are just so damn anti-gun that you wouldn't even want to see one use to potentially save a child from injury or death.

I hope you feel good about yourself.
 
  • Love
Reactions: whm1974

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,200
18,670
146
You cannot shoot someone who is running away because they are no longer a direct and immediate threat. I'm not sure anyone here has advocated for that, in fact, I specifically said such was illegal several posts ago.

But, since he is a former felon, this isn't his first rodeo. I would have no compulsions about shooting the guy dead if he was in the act or about to attack a child. I wouldn't wait to see exactly how much damage he was intending to do, and would ALWAYS default to protecting the innocent at the expense of the attacker.

And I do NOT sit around dreaming of the day when I can gun my way to the rescue, as you seem to think. I hope and do everything possible to never be in such a situation, but I would hope I would be ready to act if such did occur. Just like I own a fire extinguisher but don't want my house to catch on fire so I can use it.

But, you are correct, after the attack you can no longer pursue and shoot him and then claim it was self-defense or to protect another. He has to be in the act of attacking for that to be legal. This is self-defense law 101. And you need to understand that, and know that we understand that fact, and stop lying that we want to "shoot first and ask questions later."

You can twist facts and lie all you want to try and demonize us, but it just proves that you have no moral, logical or legal way to debate our position. You are just so damn anti-gun that you wouldn't even want to see one use to potentially save a child from injury or death.

I hope you feel good about yourself.

Tell me more about those assumptions you so love,. I made no assertions about what you do all day. Try not to confuse posters.

If you can point to where I twisted facts or lied, by all means...show me.

I will say that it's a bit unnerving that someone with your proclivity to emotionally charged posts is also a gun lover.

I seriously think you confused Yoda and myself in this post

And btw guys, laws like you're saying vary from state to state afaik.

My state is a duty to retreat state. You better be damn sure the imminent threat is immediately happening to someone close to you (proximity-wise) or yourself when you open fire. A.d that you dont hit anyone but the attacker.

P s.. - in case I wasn't clear, your post is chock full of bs assumptions about me, lol...dat irony doh
 
Last edited:

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,200
18,670
146
Well I wasn't there and only read what was in the article.

That's all I'm saying. You claimed shooting him was justified, i was saying that we really dont have enough information to make that claim, it appears we agree.
 
Last edited:

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
O give me a break.....kill the dude!! But I bet you won`t get off scott free!!


This is a full grown man assailing a five year old. A weapon is not required for that to become a deadly threat, for the possibility of great bodily harm to the five year old.

If the guy punched the kid and ran away, sure, shooting him in the back or something would not fly. But, if that guy is actively attacking a child, fire way CCW holder. Just make sure your aim is true.

With that said, I wish this guy was shot in the head. Would have saved tax payers a lot of money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whm1974

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
This is a full grown man assailing a five year old. A weapon is not required for that to become a deadly threat, for the possibility of great bodily harm to the five year old.

If the guy punched the kid and ran away, sure, shooting him in the back or something would not fly. But, if that guy is actively attacking a child, fire way CCW holder. Just make sure your aim is true.

With that said, I wish this guy was shot in the head. Would have saved tax payers a lot of money.
h Boo Hoo you gun nutters just looking for excuses to use your gun......regardless if it is warranted or not!