Not in New York, where both concealed-carry and self-defense are illegal.

But in any Red state, pulling out a lighter, holding it up to someone’s chest, and threatening to light them on fire is sufficient justification to shoot them in self-defense.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

17 thoughts on “I’m pretty sure this would justify a self-defense shooting”
  1. no different than the moron with the gas can threatening to burn a guys vehicle..the dumbing down of America is complete. grab me and threaten to set me on fire…. it won’t be pretty… not a brag, just a statement..
    liberals encourage this behavior, promote this behavior… then they act surprised when it blows up …. more need to do this, defend yourself.. don’t back down .

    1. Yeah, the “prankster” who filled a gas can full of water and splashed on a guy’s truck nearly met his just reward.

  2. A punch in the face would be sufficient. Maybe not as satisfying, but less likely to result in jail time.

  3. Someone trying to light my shirt would be much more likely to get a spicy treat than shot. Much easier action to defend.

    1. That was my reaction as well, well into the “in between a harsh word and a gun” territory. And the POM spicy treat dispenser isn’t much bigger than a Duke Cannon chapstick, a very handy little option.

  4. Well, Bob Crawford, when you liberally season (DYSWIDT?) sumdood, and sumdood’s homies assemble, well, the disparity of numbers approaches lethal threat levels of disparity of force.

    THEN ballistic logic might be seen by disinterested citizens (read: Jury) as reasonable and prudent.

  5. “Pretty sure” this would NOT justify defense with a deadly weapon. Unless the shirt has been doused with flammables, the act is extremely unlikely to be a danger. I know of no fabric in any sort of common use that would burst into flames with just a lighter held up to it. Shooting Sumdood at that point would likely, and likely justifiably, land one in the pokey.

    1. Um, I’m pretty sure that cotton will burn quite nicely when lit with a lighter. And besides, it’s perfectly reasonable for the victim to assume that “set it on fire” is meant as a real threat. I see no duty on the part of the intended victim to have a detailed understanding of the flammability properties of his various garments.
      If this were to happen in NH (unlikely, of course) and I was asked to sit on the jury, I would certainly vote “not guilty” for all these reasons. That assumes of course that a DA would be stupid enough to bring charges in the first place, given the NH laws related to “justification” (NH RSA 627:4).
      Of course, as we know the story is quite different in benighted places like NY and MA.

  6. It is an attack using fire. Fire causes burns that are both painful and may cause death or disabling injury. The use of proportional force, deadly force, in defense of self in New York State would be justified. Blessing the woman with hot sauce is a perfectly acceptable actiln; I’d do it without hesitation. The only question is: did the wearer of the sweatshirt do anything to iovertly provoke the woman?

    1. Tom, that’s an interesting question. He apparently did something: put on that shirt. Whether he did anything else, particularly any threat of force, is not clear. The normal rule of self defense is that your right to self defense doesn’t exist if you started the fight — but that means throwing the first punch. Words, including insults, are not a factor. Threats might be, if they take a form that credibly implies actual force will follow momentarily.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.