If someone slashes your face with a knife, do you have the Right to shoot them?

[eagle1462010]

Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

 

[Alex.]

Yep and so have I several times in real life not a controlled environment like a boxing ring.. I had the presence of mind to go to the cops and not shoot the guy who did the cutting. Each person is different and that is why we have laws to fit society as a whole.

So have I. I served in the Army and have been in combat.

So blow it out your fucking ass dirtbag.

Hey whatever your problem is is entirely yours.

I served as well big deal.

However, I did not ask to be brought up in the neighborhood I was raised. Tough place who knows maybe you were the guy who did the cutting with all the aggression you are showing here.

Where did you serve......in the Navy?

Were you a paper-pusher? A grease-monkey? A cook?

I was a Green Beret. So don't talk to me about having it rough. You have no fucking clue how rough it can get.

Is that a threat or just a blow hard remark. Each instance you cited : boxing ring, Green beret was voluntary you knew the risks there were no surprise face slicers lurking about. The pissing contest you initiated is meritless compared to what a person who was jumped and cut, without their consent had to endure. Most people, would be in shock unable to actually carry out the act of aiming , taking a shot and making that shot effective enough to cause death, unless like you they were trained for the situation and then that is taken into account when they are on trial for killing another.

Basically......I'm trying to convey to you that I think you have your head up your ass.....and that you basically haven't a clue what it's like to be under attack, if you think that everybody has all of their faculties when they have just been assaulted. Being trained for it is one thing. Having to live through it is another.

Now you're claiming that they would be in shock.......which is exactly my point. So what you just did was change your position.....because you knew you couldn't win.


So quit talking out of your ass and spare me the lecture.

I changed no position you are an angry little man. No interested in your bullshit..

 

[MikeK]

You took what I said seriously so I will respond seriously: The shooter will be prosecuted as the original perpetrator was retreating based on the example. Defense of another will not stand to exculpate the shooter. This is as perfect example of "two wrongs do not make a right".

First, why shouldn't I take what you say seriously?

Next, are you saying if a police officer observed someone slash a woman's face, snatch her purse, knock her down, kick her and run away, and the officer commanded him to stop, and if the fleeing armed attacker refused to stop the officer is not lawfully authorized to shoot him?

 

[MikeK]

Yeah....you can't shoot someone running away.....if you do you are going to jail.

It depends on the circumstances.

Keep in mind the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, MO. Why was Patrolman Darren Wilson acquitted by the Grand Jury without trial? It was because Brown's action established him as a dangerously assaultive felon and it was in the (defensive) interest of society to apprehend him by whatever means necessary.

However, if a fleeing subject's offense does not establish him as a dangerously assaultive felon, such as Walter Scott who was shot in the back by Patrolman Michael Slager in South Carolina, there is no defensive cause to justify shooting him while fleeing. Scott hadn't done anything to mark him as a menace to society.

 

[Alex.]

You took what I said seriously so I will respond seriously: The shooter will be prosecuted as the original perpetrator was retreating based on the example. Defense of another will not stand to exculpate the shooter. This is as perfect example of "two wrongs do not make a right".

First, why shouldn't I take what you say seriously?

Next, are you saying if a police officer observed someone slash a woman's face, snatch her purse, knock her down, kick her and run away, and the officer commanded him to stop, and if the fleeing armed attacker refused to stop the officer is not lawfully authorized to shoot him?

You changed the entire hypothetical. If I were the police officer I would shoot as a last resort.

 

[MikeK]

According to what was posted the perp was running away who was being defended?

Society. You and yours. Me and mine. Do you really believe an armed and demonstratedly dangerous felon should be allowed to simply walk or run away to evade arrest?

 

[rdean]

Tit for tat is illegal. If they are coming at you with a knife, it's better to shoot them before they slash you.

 

[MikeK]

You changed the entire hypothetical. If I were the police officer I would shoot as a last resort.

I changed nothing.

Whether you are a police officer or an armed citizen effecting a citizen arrest you have a right to shoot a demonstratedly dangerous and armed felon who flees to evade arrest.

The only consideration is you'd better be sure you're right.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Of course you have the right to shoot them, in fact they deserve to be shot

But if not properly licensed to do so, isn't carrying a firearm a chargeable offense in NYC? So shooting the perp makes the victim liable to be charged also, no?

 

[Alex.]

You changed the entire hypothetical. If I were the police officer I would shoot as a last resort.

I changed nothing.

Whether you are a police officer or an armed citizen effecting a citizen arrest you have a right to shoot a demonstratedly dangerous and armed felon who flees to evade arrest.

Yeh read back you changed the facts

 

[Alex.]

According to what was posted the perp was running away who was being defended?

Society. You and yours. Me and mine. Do you really believe an armed and demonstratedly dangerous felon should be allowed to simply walk or run away to evade arrest?

Not what was presented. Otherwise nope.

 

[blackhawk]

I would.

 

[MikeK]

But if not properly licensed to do so, isn't carrying a firearm a chargeable offense in NYC? So shooting the perp makes the victim liable to be charged also, no?

If one who is carrying a concealed firearm in New York City uses that firearm to lawfully defend him/herself or another person against lethal threat or actual attack, and this individual has a clean record, it is likely the prosecutor will impose a minor unlawful possession charge and recommend dismissal. And it is very unlikely the court will not comply.

 

[MikeK]

But if not properly licensed to do so, isn't carrying a firearm a chargeable offense in NYC? So shooting the perp makes the victim liable to be charged also, no?

More on this issue:

Back in the 1970s a medical electronics repair technician named Bernhard Goetz often traveled by subway during the early morning hours with expensive test equipment. After being assaulted and robbed twice Goetz applied for a carry permit but was denied. So he took a pistol course, obtained and carried an illegal .38 revolver.

One night at 2AM, while riding on a deserted subway train, Goetz was approached and surrounded by five youths who menacingly demanded money from him. Goetz drew his illegal gun and shot three of them, paralyzing one, and the other two fled. Goetz then got off the train and disappeared.

This incident became a sensation and for several months Goetz was celebrated by New Yorkers as the "Mystery Shooter" -- a genuine folk hero.

Believing his celebrity would protect him from prosecution, Goetz surrendered after three months. He was tried and sentenced to a one year prison term. But all the detectives assigned to the shooting quietly agreed they really made no effort to find the "Mystery Shooter." And most insiders agree that Goetz's mistake was disappearing instead of just waiting for the police and surrendering himself -- because he surely would have been acquitted for the shooting and gotten a slap on the wrist for the illegal gun.

 

[gallantwarrior]

But if not properly licensed to do so, isn't carrying a firearm a chargeable offense in NYC? So shooting the perp makes the victim liable to be charged also, no?

More on this issue:

Back in the 1970s a medical electronics repair technician named Bernhard Goetz often traveled by subway during the early morning hours with expensive test equipment. After being assaulted and robbed twice Goetz applied for a carry permit but was denied. So he took a pistol course, obtained and carried an illegal .38 revolver.

One night at 2AM, while riding on a deserted subway train, Goetz was approached and surrounded by five youths who menacingly demanded money from him. Goetz drew his illegal gun and shot three of them, paralyzing one, and the other two fled. Goetz then got off the train and disappeared.

This incident became a sensation and for several months Goetz was celebrated by New Yorkers as the "Mystery Shooter" -- a genuine folk hero.

Believing his celebrity would protect him from prosecution, Goetz surrendered after three months. He was tried and sentenced to a one year prison term. But all the detectives assigned to the shooting quietly agreed they really made no effort to find the "Mystery Shooter." And most insiders agree that Goetz's mistake was disappearing instead of just waiting for the police and surrendering himself -- because he surely would have been acquitted for the shooting and gotten a slap on the wrist for the illegal gun.

I followed the Goetz issue. The shame is, too many are denied the ability to defend themselves and the police will agree that they are reactive, responding only after the fact. Personally, I would do everything within my power to shoot such an animal dead in his tracks and deal with the consequences later. Concealed carry is just that...no one should know you carry. Only the penultimate circumstances would reveal you violation and then circumstances should serve to mitigate your actions.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Most people, would be in shock unable to actually carry out the act of aiming , taking a shot and making that shot effective enough to cause death, unless like you they were trained for the situation and then that is taken into account when they are on trial for killing another.

To most if not all the gun nutters posting on here, simply having a gun on your person makes you fucking superman.

Surprise never happens. Shock from the ferocity of an attack never happens. Adrenaline never surges through your system and makes your hands shake and your pulse soar to 180 bpm.

On top of that, a citizen with a gun would never even MISS a target. Not possible.

So like I said, a citizen carrying a gun is virtually superman or superwoman. At least according to gun nutters on here.

 

[Alex.]

Most people, would be in shock unable to actually carry out the act of aiming , taking a shot and making that shot effective enough to cause death, unless like you they were trained for the situation and then that is taken into account when they are on trial for killing another.

To most if not all the gun nutters posting on here, simply having a gun on your person makes you fucking superman.

Surprise never happens. Shock from the ferocity of an attack never happens. Adrenaline never surges through your system and makes your hands shake and your pulse soar to 180 bpm.

On top of that, a citizen with a gun would never even MISS a target. Not possible.

So like I said, a citizen carrying a gun is virtually superman or superwoman. At least according to gun nutters on here.

and many of the internet tough guys.

 

[Likkmee]

That question would be something best considered by the courts. Some pay good money to have their face slashed

 

[M14 Shooter]

Presuming we aren't talking about an unusual circumstance -- s child, a wheelchair-bound invalid...

A knife is a deadly weapon; brandishing a knife implies intent to use.
At that point, in states that do not require you to retreat if possible, you can legally shoot in self-defense.

 

[2aguy]

But if not properly licensed to do so, isn't carrying a firearm a chargeable offense in NYC? So shooting the perp makes the victim liable to be charged also, no?

If one who is carrying a concealed firearm in New York City uses that firearm to lawfully defend him/herself or another person against lethal threat or actual attack, and this individual has a clean record, it is likely the prosecutor will impose a minor unlawful possession charge and recommend dismissal. And it is very unlikely the court will not comply.

Which NYC are you talking about....? Because it definitely isn't the one in the United States....