The subsequent information clarifies that the robber had a gun, clearly posing a threat that justifies deadly force. I have no problem with this particular case.
However, your comment made before that information was available suggests that when someone’s “actions [are] clearly unlawful” that deadly force is automatically justified based on what we imagine they might do. Merely performing an unlawful act does not justify carrying out an immediate death sentence determined by a person whose only qualification to make that decision is that they are carrying a gun.
I appreciate that this thread is cherry-picking “good guy with a gun” anecdotes to make a point, and it does not surprise me that such cases exist. But these anecdotes are a small fraction of the tens of thousands of cases of death by gun violence each year in the U.S. and the issue persists as to what can be done to lower those numbers.
Actually, the law says that a person is justified in using deadly force to defend themselves if they have a reasonable fear of great bodily injury or death, during the commission of a felony. CA PC 197:
Robbery is a felony. It can totally be justified based on what a person might do, as long as that imagination is reasonable.
DGU with no deaths. Here is a clear example of a person needing greater magazine capacity. Her injuries would likely be avoided if she had more rounds available. In any event, 2v1 and the 1 survived and the two were arrested.
Apparently he got the go ahead from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to shoot the eagle free when they determined there was no safe way to attempt a rescue.
I don’t dispute that. I was responding specifically to a post by Bullitt, which is its entirety said
Had this post instead said, “His action would clearly be interpreted as a threat to a reasonable person” then I would not have responded to it. Perhaps that was implied but I am not in the habit of making other people’s implications for them.
I think we could play the “likely” game without end. With two attackers we could also envision a situation where one attacker grabs her weapon and uses it on her, like this case.
Turns out that since the gunman didn’t plan to go on a shooting spree before he left home it can’t be considered a mass shooting. Ergo, no need for national coverage.
DGU with no injuries or shots fired. I think there’s a good argument to be made about carrying on your person rather than having the firearm somewhere that it needs to be retrieved.
DGU with no deaths. I’m not sure how the people were able to gain entry, but this is another example where carrying on your person may have been better.
With a .22 at that range and the gun was probably just a plinker rather than a match grade competition rifle. I’d classify that as well above average shooting.
Of course everyone needs to make their own choices. But you seem to insinuate that people in their own homes should be carrying their guns around with them as they are making dinner or going to the bathroom, just in case there is a home invasion. ARE you advocating that? If somebody asked you “Should I carry my gun around when I’m in my home?” would you say “Yes. Yes you should”