This country is going to hell in a hand basket. When we were kids we carries 22 rifles and shotguns and nobody batted an eye.
Not even when we shot them out.
Lost an eye, sure, but batted, never.
ETA: sorta ninja’d by Czarcasm
Family Of Dead Burglar Complains About Homeowner’s Son Using AR-15
I suppose if someone breaks into my home I’m supposed to ask what they’re armed with so I can gear up for a fair fight.
Which I take to mean he was supposed to only shoot one of them as an example, to convince the other two to run. :rolleyes:
It really depends on where you lived. AFAICT all the places where you could have done that as a kid are still fairly pro-gun places.
Depends. If the other two were running, then that does change things a bit.
Nothing in the article about how they were shot, but if they were shot in the back while trying to escape, does that change things for you at all?
My own ROE is that if someone is trying to escape me I’m going to let them. I would only have been in a position to shoot them if I perceived them to be a threat to me or mine in the first place. If they’re running, they’re no longer a threat.
If they’re running? Sure. But break violently into my house, and I’m going to use the most effective weapon I can lay my hand on, and contiue using it so long as you’re scaring me. I’m too young to die, and too old to take a beating.
QFT.
If an intruder armed with brass knuckles or a knife runs, I’d let him run. If he has a gun in his hand, I’d treat him as a threat as long as it remains in his hand. There is a reason the po-po are so unyielding about their “drop the gun” policies.
Now, how about if someone who doesn’t recognize you feels scared when he sees *you *with a gun? Is the rule the same?
The discussion is of armed intruders.
I can’t think of any jurisdiction that would excuse the use of deadly force in self-defense by a home intruder.
“Your honor, I wasn’t hurtin’ anybody! And then that mofo comes out the back room with a gun? I tell ya, that dude was crazy!”
There is no legal right to self-defense whilst in the midst of committing a crime.
Welllll… Kinda sorta.
Prosecutors say drug dealer who killed acted in self-defense
So customer plans to rob drug dealer and gets dead for his trouble. Drug dealer slides on self defense.
Bizarre situation.
That said, the ruling is consistent with my statement; granting that both parties were in the wrong, one was more in the wrong than the other, consistent with robbery statutes.
Also worth noting that the homicide charges were dropped as part of a plea and that the shooter is still facing other felony charges. Both parties were in the wrong but not the same set of wrongs.
Bizarre, but not as uncommon as you might expect. Searching ‘drug dealer self defense’ returns several pages of unique hits. Some of which where self defense is successfully applied.
And not so much more wrong as two different crimes were being committed. The drug deal, and then the robbery. I think I remember another story where the dealer decided to rob the customer and wound up dead and the customer used self defense as his defense.
That would be consistent.