Paladin3
Diamond Member
- Mar 5, 2004
- 4,933
- 877
- 126
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.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.
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.
