Zone1 If someone attempts to rob you At knife or gunpoint do you believe you have a right to shoot them in response?

[protectionist]

He was not within his rights. That is why he dropped the Taser next to the body. To make it look better for the investigators.

Try reading the link in post # 196 (SLOWLY). When you get a basic knowledge of what's going in here, THEN we can talk.

 

[FranklinRoosevelt_FTW]

He was within his rights and DUTY, to shoot Scott to prevent a fleeing felon from escaping out into the community, and endangering it..

He also was a perfect example of white cops in majority black voting districts (N.Charlotte, SC), being railroaded, so the politicians can keep getting re-elected (in addition to avoiding race riots, spurred on by race hustlers)

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

PS -in plea deals, nobody "acknowledges" anything. They just strive for the reduced sentence.

One thing that might be said is if a police officer is dealing with somebody who is mentally deficient.. even then common sense would tell us that in a country like America where all sorts of drug dealers and gangbangers have guns that if a police officer is dealing with a suspect running away it is a very dangerous situation. Even if the suspect is mentally ill and has the IQ of a child, the cop doesn’t know if that person will turn around at any point and shoot at them.

The point is that the left and race hustling BLM people have got to do a lot better. They need to show respect for the dangerous job that police officers are having an America. When a police officer is running after a suspect they don’t know who they are dealing with. It could be anybody armed with any number of weapons …that is a fact that the left-wing attempts to dismiss with a smirk on their face.

 

[Batcat]

Yes good point

That reminds me of the situation I saw on video where a robber came into a restaurant and demanded at gunpoint that everybody empty their wallets… they did so but as the robber went to leave the store he was shot from behind by a customer…It turned out the robber had a fake gun.

Should the shooter face legal repercussions?

Even though the robber had a fake gun, nobody would’ve known that. Frankly, I think if somebody with a weapon goes into a store or restaurant you name it and demands money, they shd expect they might die doing so in the process.

The morale to that story is Don’t point a fake gun at someone you intend to rob.

 

[leftwinger]

He was not within his rights. That is why he dropped the Taser next to the body. To make it look better for the investigators.

Many Police will quit or move under mountains of PC hogwash or ROE that are not clear or changing depending on which DemWitted Policital hack just became Town Mayor. CHI is down....short 2000 Police officers going into your DNC riots of 2024. Another Cop killed in Ohio over the weekend. Armed Black hiding in a bush shot him as they took a look in the backyard for the suspect who had ran off. It never ends....everyday everywhere. I posted it early AM in my running tally thread.//

 

[Batcat]

That’s the situation you’re walking down the street and somebody approaches you and pulls out a knife or gun and attempts to rob you saying “give me what you have”. Do you then have a right to shoot that person?

I have read reports where a person was the victim of an armed street thug. After he turned over his money, the thug shot him.

 

[AZrailwhale]

but they would first have to put a gun on you or a knife and then demand your money.

All though you bring up another point if you see somebody get robbed at knife or gunpoint and the robber is running away, does somebody have a right to shoot them morally speaking?

No, neither legally or morally. Even cops can't shoot a fleeing felon unless he is an immediate danger to the officer or bystanders. Given the lack of accuracy displayed by the average cop, any fire directed at the fleeing felon would be more threat to bystanders than it would be to the criminal anyway.

 

[AZrailwhale]

What if a innocent bystander gets hurt. Are you responsible and should he or she be able to sue you?

Legally the criminal is responsible for anyone injured or killed during the commission of his crime even if the injury is done by someone else.

 

[AZrailwhale]

So you’re packing. You’re walking down the street and some asshole puts a gun in your face and tells you to hand over your money.

How do you whip out your piece and blow his brains out before he does you?

If a criminal is stupid enough to get within arm's reach, it's pretty easy to knock his gun out of line. Guns are a distance weapon and sticking one in someone's face eliminates all the advantages a gun gives the criminal. When I took Criminal Justice classes in college, we were trained to do that. You don't try to grab the gun, you just arm sweep it out of line, then do whatever else you have to do to the criminal.

 

[AZrailwhale]

A number of questions.

1) Has that happened to you?

2) Does a mugger give you warning or time to react?

3) If you're stood there with a gun or knife pointing at you, do you have the reaction time to get your gun out before he/she stabs or shoots you?

Just trying to inject some reality into the thread.

I've had it happen to me. When I was in the Army Reserves, I was guarding our vehicles in a bad part of Los Angeles when a gang banger/chollo/ poor misunderstood member of the lower class pulled a switchblade on me and demanded my money. Instead, I pulled my Buck folding knife that I always carried on my belt in uniform and flipped it open. He immediately backed down saying "put the knife away man, I don't want no trouble" and as they say; exited rapidly stage left. Criminals look for victims, NOT people willing and able to defend themselves.

I have a concealed carry permit, but usually don't carry a pistol, but I ALWAYS carry a folding knife in my pocket for emergencies. Unless you carry a knife, you have no idea how often one comes in handy in everyday life.

 

[leftwinger]

1) What the fuck are you talking about?
2) Attack on family reported.

Snitch. I meant nothing bad. It seemed you were "coming around" to common sense on a few incidents. No Mas' Karl.

 

[SavannahMann]

Try reading the link in post # 196 (SLOWLY). When you get a basic knowledge of what's going in here, THEN we can talk.

I read it. I followed the case. The problem is that Slager started out lying. He did a drop to make the shooting look good. After that claiming fleeing felon isn’t going to work.

If you use lethal force your first story has to be the truth. It needs to be backed up by the evidence. If you say the Baddie had a gun, they better find a gun near him.

Salver’s story was destroyed by the video. He started out lying. It is never going to be ruled a justifiable shooting if you are caught lying.

 

[JohnDB]

I had to laugh at this one...

 

[protectionist]

I read it. I followed the case. The problem is that Slager started out lying. He did a drop to make the shooting look good. After that claiming fleeing felon isn’t going to work.

If you use lethal force your first story has to be the truth. It needs to be backed up by the evidence. If you say the Baddie had a gun, they better find a gun near him.

Salver’s story was destroyed by the video. He started out lying. It is never going to be ruled a justifiable shooting if you are caught lying.

Fleeing Felon is why the murder case failed. Ho hum. Lying had nothing to do with that part of it.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

That said, if somebody has to do that, they quite likely will have law troubles in addition to the trauma.

I might would just give them money and let them go away vs. dealing with the alternative.

Plus, if someone already has a gun on you, the chances of you being able to draw and fire before

they squeeze the trigger is not good. Really not good.

Absolutely. Make stupid decisions win stupid prizes

 

[Persuader]

Of course you have a right to self defense.

The concept of self defense once iron clad has eroded due to the wokeness b.s.

If you have a gun you should study up on the laws on self defense...particuarly in the state where you live.

You should also be aware of our two tiered justice system....if you dont know what that means ....I am sure some of the more astute might help you.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

He was within his rights and DUTY, to shoot Scott to prevent a fleeing felon from escaping out into the community, and endangering it..
"f
He also was a perfect example of white cops in majority black voting districts (N.Charlotte, SC), being railroaded, so the politicians can keep getting re-elected (in addition to avoiding race riots, spurred on by race hustlers)

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

PS -in plea deals, nobody "acknowledges" anything. They just strive for the reduced sentence.

You're switching back to the "fleeing felon" doctrine as it relates to law enforcement. If you have details regarding where it's been successfully employed by a civilian I'd be interested in seeing it.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

In theory, if somebody is stopped by the police and they run away, they are a clear and present danger to the community.

This isn't even close to being true. If you're stopped by the police for violating a traffic law, the punishment for that violation, if found guilty, isn't even jail time, it's just a fine.

So wanting and having the right to shoot someone in the back simply because they're running away from you because they don't want to be taken into custody, for whatever reason, borders insanity:

The Supreme Court has ruled that officers can use deadly force against an escaping suspect only if they believe the person poses “a significant threat of death or serious physical injury” to the officers or someone else. Use of less-than-lethal force also requires officers to determine the seriousness of the suspected crime, and whether the suspect poses a safety threat or is attempting to evade arrest.
https://www.police1.com/legal/articles/can-you-run-from-police-us-courts-apply-a-double-standard-VjzrhBYOzYybjQHe/​

​

 

[FranklinRoosevelt_FTW]

This isn't even close to being true. If you're stopped by the police for violating a traffic law, the punishment for that violation, if found guilty, isn't even jail time, it's just a fine.

So wanting and having the right to shoot someone in the back simply because they're running away from you because they don't want to be taken into custody, for whatever reason, borders insanity:

The Supreme Court has ruled that officers can use deadly force against an escaping suspect only if they believe the person poses “a significant threat of death or serious physical injury” to the officers or someone else. Use of less-than-lethal force also requires officers to determine the seriousness of the suspected crime, and whether the suspect poses a safety threat or is attempting to evade arrest.​

https://www.police1.com/legal/articles/can-you-run-from-police-us-courts-apply-a-double-standard-VjzrhBYOzYybjQHe/​

​

Common sense says running from the police in the USA constitutes a danger to society.

Considering the many armed drug dealers in the country with little to lose.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Common sense says running from the police in the USA constitutes a danger to society.

Considering the many armed drug dealers in the country with little to lose.

That doesn't make your statement any more correct. And just because person A is an armed drug dealer doesn't mean that everyone else gets to shoot person B in the back for running away from the police.

I understand wanting to retaliate against someone who has committed a crime against you, but some of you sound like you're just itching to shoot someone. Or have someone shot.

 

[Lastamender]

I'd say pack your bags and move. Not sure why some people are so afraid. Fear. Simple solution. Move.

You need money to move. No one has any.