From Self Defense to Murder/Manslaughter in 3 seconds.

Watch the video (Facebook):

My very legally uneducated opinion: First shot could be ruled justified. The second shot would be iffy, it could go either way. The third shot? Pure revenge, it was bruised Ego issuing payback. This guy will end up enjoying an extended stay at the State’s Resort for Felons.

One more lesson: There is no such thing as a referee in a gun fight. The old man is damned lucky.

Hat tip Eddie C.

 

14 Replies to “From Self Defense to Murder/Manslaughter in 3 seconds.”

      1. I know that using Firefox (version 42 and above, IIRC), you have to disable the Tracking Protection in order to see facebook videos and such.




        0



        0
  1. It is indeed going to be a tough sell.

    I still don’t understand why the f*ck people get out of their vehicles in road rage incidents!

    Why the hell did he park and let himself get boxed in?!

    If you catch a tail, keep driving. If the rager won’t let go, try to find a cop car or cop station.




    0



    0
    1. Agreed on all points. Unless I’m a sitting duck in my vehicle, I’m staying in. Your points about not letting yourself get boxed in and keeping driving if you’re being tailed are possibly even more important.




      0



      0
  2. Once force is initiated by one party, all actions of the defending party should be legally protected. Nobody can know what’s going through the head of an attackee, particularly in the space of a few seconds. Reminds me of the guy in MN (or somewhere up north) who was in his basement at killed the two home-invading kids. The media characterized it as an execution and that dude’s going to spend the rest of his life in jail for reacting to trespassing criminals.

    Does it look bad? Sure. But nobody bats an eye when LE dumps 20 rounds into a guy who dropped after the first shot if the shooting was even remotely justified. Is it improper to make sure a stopped threat stays stopped? No extra round just to make sure? That seems unreasonable to me.

    Perhaps I can be convinced otherwise, but I doubt it. Once an aggressor aggresses, whatever bad things happen to him/her is just desserts. Does the state deserve to make a few million dollars and jail a guy for years because he “reacted poorly” to a life-threatening situation? Hard sell.




    0



    0
    1. “Once force is initiated by one party, all actions of the defending party should be legally protected.”
      While the threat is ongoing.

      “Nobody can know what’s going through the head of an attackee, particularly in the space of a few seconds.”

      Don’t worry, the DA will cover that hole for the Jury.

      “Does it look bad? Sure. But nobody bats an eye when LE dumps 20 rounds into a guy who dropped after the first shot if the shooting was even remotely justified.”
      I don’t care about cops since I am not one nor will I have the resources available a cop will have.

      Perhaps I can be convinced otherwise, but I doubt it. Once an aggressor aggresses, whatever bad things happen to him/her is just desserts.”
      Again While the threat is ongoing. After that, you are just applying revenge for making you drop your coffee, How dare he?!?!

      Word of advice : “he had it coming because…” is a bad defense strategy.




      0



      0
      1. Definitely bad to do it, but only because society’s unjust laws make it so. I’m not sure I could tell from just looking at downed attacker whether or not he was out as well. A gun can be wielded from the ground.

        I dont advocate “shoot to kill,” I advocate “shoot to stop.” But not because of morality, ONLY because of the unjust burden the state invariably puts on private citizens defending themselves.

        There is no better way to end a threat than to remove its biological capacity for conscious action.

        It seems that anything worth shooting once in defense is worth shooting twice in defense. Again, I’d just like to see fair enforcement of whatever law this runs afoul. If it’s OK for LE to put a few extra shots into a dropped target, it’s OK for you or me.

        The real thing to remember is that once you pause or stop shooting and there’s a recording, you’ll have to “reset” and basically wait to be attacked again before you can get away with shooting again.

        It would be nice if the state didn’t care whether or not criminals survive their violent acts. But a dead criminal is lost revenue, and govt can’t have that.

        That’s how I see it, at least.

        As for revenge being a dirty word, I dont think it’s necessarily all that ignoble. Vengeance can be morally valid. That’s all real justice is (not the state’s perverse version of third-party “justice” for profit).

        Dont do what this guy did. That much is obvious. In this world it’s even wise. It’s just not particulatly compelling to me personally.




        0



        0
  3. If I were on the jury, and this was the only evidence presented, I’d have let him go with the 1st and 2nd shot. I’d vote guilty of assault with a deadly weapon with the 3rd, because if we’re going to be honest, Baseball Bat guy was going to be dead after the 2nd shot. The 3rd just made it at the scene instead of the hospital.




    0



    0
  4. Everyone seems to be missing the fact that this happened in Israel, and was not a road rage incident. (Follow the links.) The two had a long-running dispute and this isn’t the first incident. The shooter is the mayor of the town, and the dead guy was a contractor. What is Israeli law on this?




    0



    0

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .