I’ve seen that video. Neither suspect died, if I remember correctly.
The only thing I could see justifying the old man’s actions are to ensure that the suspects didn’t regroup at the door. I believe he pegged one of them in the butt, though. Again, there was no audio on that video, so there’s no way to verify that the suspects weren’t firing as they ran. But I think he would have been better justified to withhold fire and get behind cover.
I’m strongly against things like “stand your ground,” but if I were on a jury, I would vote to acquit. I don’t see that there was any moment in which a an average person could reasonably decide that things had gone from “holy crap my life is in danger” to “the threat has ended and I am now safe.”
In fact, I’m rather amazed that considering the speed of the attack and the fact that the assailant clearly had the drop on the guy in the car, that the guy in the car had his wits about him to respond at all.
Honestly, and I can’t see in the car, but I think he was able to move the assailant’s gun away from him. No idea if the assailant fired into the car. But the person in the car seemed to move fairly professionally.
As for the whole “stand your ground” idea. The problem arises when not standing your ground could cause injury to others. For example, if you find the potential moment to flee, but doing so may leave other victims in the immediate area then what choice do you have? You can flee, and obey the letter of “duty to retreat” states or you can stand your ground to ensure the safety of others.
But I agree with your assessment of this particular situation. He was never in a good position to flee before the engagement ended.
I believe that even in places where there is a duty to retreat, one can use deadly force to defend others. I have never heard anyone seriously state that a duty to retreat is actually a legal requirement of “every man for himself.”
It depends on the letter of the law, and the prosecutor. I’m not familiar with every state’s laws.
Also, you can open yourself up to law suit, if you fail in your “duty to retreat” and further injure even the assailant. So… it’s sticky, at best.
The guy is shooting backwards out of a car without looking into a street, that is just a horrible horrible idea. I am fine with a criminal dying in the process of committing a crime, but what he did put a whole lot of other people in danger. There were people and cars on that street, hell there was someone else right behind the robber a second before the shots started going off.
Can you show me one state where a person does not have a right to use deadly force in defense of another? Just one will do.
New York State Law
I’ll quote the relevant portion.
The next portion specifies if they’re a cop, residing in their home (so called Castle Doctrine), or certain egregious crimes (not including murder).
I’m currently trying to find a case involving it. But there could be an argument made, if you are shooting at a “fleeing” aggressor, that they are actually fleeing, and you have a duty to retreat.
I deplore the fact that access to guns is so easy and that this sort of situation is sometimes unavoidable, but I support the above assessment of the event in the video.
Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Human beings don’t come with on/off switches. From the time the robber made contact until the last shot was fired only six seconds passed. Six seconds isn’t a lot of time to collect your thoughts during an extremely stressful situation. After it was clear the robber was no threat the driver stopped firing. When he got out of his vehicle he didn’t continue to fire because it was clear the threat had ended.
Morally and ethically the driver is in the clear. If this happened in the United States I think it would be difficult to find a jury willing to convict him.
Does anyone have a news story to accompany this?
Eight months before the date on the video, this was in the news:
Venezuela prohibits sales of guns, ammunition
I don’t know whether the above is relevant, but throw it out for anyone to find more current sources.
As for the rightness or wrongness, it was all very fast. It wouldn’t be realistic to expect the victim to so quickly process that the assailant was running away, so I don’t blame him for the shooting. And there may be other relevant facts we don’t have.
Venezuela has a homicide rate 9.4 times that of the US, and 45 times that of Sweden, Australia, and China, as can be calculated from here:
The homicide to suicide ratio in Venezuela is 14.1. This compares to 0.4 in the US and 0.1 in Australia.
I have posted, in other threads, many links to studies showing that owning a gun for defensive use is harmful to the the safety of the gunowner and his or her family. None of this applies to the radically different conditions in Venuzuela.
I feel like you should join this other thread. Folks, gun owners do not have to wear yellow stars in public. - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board
Because we’re rehashed a lot of what you’ve stated here already.
But to this particular point. Those studies provide truthful statistics. I will not argue that. However, they do not provide a valid argument.
Anything in my possession is more likely to hurt myself or my family than anything I’ve never seen before. My kitchen knives are more likely to cut me than your kitchen knives would. My iPhone is more likely to fall and hit my foot than yours is to me.
It’s statistically true of every object I own.
If you are still armed you are just looking for cover.
I might, MIGHT be convinced if I were on the jury that this guy is somewhat in the wrong. But it would take a lot of convincing. From what I see in the video, I think what he did was justified.
Your reading of the law is poor. The full two sections:
Your interpretation misses the part bolded–you only have a duty to retreat if you know that doing so can be done with complete personal safety to oneself and others. If your child is about to be cleaved in two by a madman with a machete then retreating can only be done with complete personal safety for yourself not for the other person.
A little bit of logical reading would have avoided this misinterpretation in the first place. Why would the first section (justifying physical force to protect another from deadly harm) specify that you could use deadly force to protect another person but then say you can only do that if you yourself cannot escape? So you can protect another person, but if you have the opportunity your duty is to behave in an “every man for himself” mentality? Common sense should tell you the law is not written that way, that would be a legal requirement that a parent or spouse leave their child/partner to be murdered as long as they have a clear route of escape–a law that would be so offensive to the public conscience it would never exist in the United States.
UK, gun-hater here, so I’m going to ignore the fact that guns were used by both parties in this conflict and focus on what actually happened.
A man violently attacked another man - who then responded with matching force - and the force continued until the threat had fully subsided - Gun or no gun, once you make an overtly aggressive move against someone, there is no guarantee of a quick and easy ‘undo’, short of something that defeats your capacity to be any kind of continued threat.
So, whilst we don’t have guns here, and I don’t want them, I don’t see how the victim in this incident did anything particularly wrong - the attacker changed the game by waving his own gun around, and a reasonable backout plan for that is to stop him being able to do that by shooting him.
He shot backwards without looking into a busy street, that’s pretty obviously “wrong” in my opinion.
It looks to me like the first shot is before he was fleeing, while he was still right at the driver’s door. The rest of the shots were to make sure he’s dead. And that’s what you’re supposed to be doing. You don’t shoot someone and then just leave him maimed and armed otherwise you’ll be sure to end up dead too. Notice how he continues to stand over the body with his gun drawn.
Considering how quickly that guy pulled his gun out of his holster, dropped the carjacker (and didn’t appear to miss, even while shooting backwards over his shoulder) and then stood over the body, I’m guessing he’s got quite a bit of training. It wouldn’t surprise me if he was a cop.
ETA, I take that back, at least one shot did miss, you can see if hit the building.
I don’t know about Venezuela, but in the US, if the driver hit and killed anyone, the carjacker or any accomplice he had with him would have been the one charged with murder.
it’s hard to tell, but that other guy could very well be an accomplice; he had the same stance - one hand in his jacket holding something, then pulling it out and holding what could be a gun with both hands. the driver’s shot hitting the wall spooked him and he ran. i’m leaning towards gun as i can’t picture what else would require such a two-handed posture when you were taken by surprise.
What would have been “right” in your opinion?
This is true, at least, in Florida. I’m sure other states are similar, but I don’t think that can be categorical stated for every state.