Wasn’t Flaka what that dude was on that ate the guys face off in Florida a few years back. The zombie drug.
Stand Your Ground
- Thread starter padtigers
- Start date
If you did it for good legitimate purposes, start a Go Fund Me and there are PLENTY of people that would support you to help you not go bankrupt defending yourself.
This guy was about to be fired by Pizza Hut because he carried a weapon against company policy. He resigned instead of getting fired or getting killed. https://www.wistv.com/story/9994259/statement-from-pizza-delivery-driver-involved-in-fatal-shooting/
Easy to say here. In that split second situation you have pause. Which is sad because it could result in an innocent life being taken.
Rule of thumb is that you may use force commensurate with the amount of force being used against you. If you use greater force you have become the aggressor. You can step into the shoes of someone else to help them but the same force logic applies. Where your situation is particularly interesting is a woman has a straight-faced argument to feel more threatened by a man then another man does (based upon traditional size and strength discrepancies between the sexes). You, a man, were stepping into the shoes of a woman, but you would have been held to a different standard, arguably, then she would have been if she used deadly force herself.
Glad you did what you did. Rattled or not you and those that helped are good humans and should be proud.
Glad you did what you did. Rattled or not you and those that helped are good humans and should be proud.
Which is why one should not pause.
Innocents do not accost people. People that do accost people need to be exterminated.
I’ve been in similar situations and had no gun for protection and had to use my wits to defuse the situation.
I’d rather have had a firearm.
If you think your life or someone else’s is in danger, you’re good to engage with deadly force. Not sure on exact semantics of law
If your life is at risk or if you could be inflicted with great bodily harm you can use deadly force. You only want to use as much force as necessary. That’s why a strong spray is a great option.
If someone assaults you or shows a gun etc you have every right to defend yourself by any means necessary.
If someone assaults you or shows a gun etc you have every right to defend yourself by any means necessary.
This is a great channel if you’re interested in self defense scenarios
You actually didn't just pull out your camera phone and begin posting live to FB? You horrible example of a 2020 human.
Was told in cwp class if you are in bank and guy is robbing teller you cannot shoot him unless he threatens you. Sounds like your guy came at you in a threatening manner so you can certainly defend yourself. Taking a life is another level response that, while it may be legal, will leave residual mental scars. IMHO your course of action was right. Kudos as well to you for taking action.
You make a good point.
Seriously good.
If you pull a gun, you better be prepared to use it.
Standing there shaking, sorta pointing it at someone (like in the movies) will certainly result in the 'bad' guy shooting first, if he has a gun.
Like it or not, you have escalated the confrontation. What additional aggression that might provoke is hard to say.
Trying to figure out the right thing in that kind of situation is something I pray that none of us ever have to do.
But, you should still carry.
All the time.
And practice, practice, practice.
Fascinating.
Scary to see what I have long preached, and been attacked for, in other threads.
This COP's Pistol jammed, stovepiped. HE had the training to clear the gun, even though somewhat clumsily.
Had his first shot missed and the assailant had a gun, the COP (at that range) would have been in a bad way, possibly getting shot while he fumbled around with his Pistol that jammed on him.
Had it been a Revolver?
That jam couldn't have happened. And, no, he didn't need the other 12-15+ rounds in his weapon.
The first round he shot could have gotten him killed.
PErFECT example of why untrained people should not carry a Pistol without hours and hours and days and days of hard, disciplined training so that you react properly to these type situations without having to think.
You're not likely to be thinking clearly in such a dire situation.
Props to you and the others for lending a helping hand instead of whipping out your phones and videoing the incident
If someone is armed and robbing a bank or store etc and you are there, then you are at risk and you have every right to shoot them.
Wrong on the lawyers in St Louis. That was brandishing, not stand your ground.
Good for y'all, we need more people like us in the world right now!
But from a legal standpoint, that'd probably be under the Good Samaritan law, vs stand your ground. Stand your ground is what those lawyers in St. Louis did, IINM.
I am a retired soldier but still took the CWP. Did they offer you the insurance through Law Shield ?. What a lot of people don't understand is if you shoot someone you don't have to kill them. Don't know where you went to get your CWP, but me personally I would not do it on line. I dodged a bullet four times in Bosnia, just from soldiers who were tired and not paying attention to detail when clearing their weapons. Weapons are made to kill and don't care who they kill.
Of course you do, but as I said above, when firearms are involved, there's no such thing as an easy explanation.
In general, you have the right to defend yourself with the same level of force that the threat is capable of. That does not mean that just because someone is unarmed, that you can't use a gun to defend yourself. If the attacker is 6'8" 280 and runs a 4.2 40, because I'm sure that you're 6'4" 220 with a 4.4 40 (attempted comic relief), then that person would obviously be able to end your life with their bare hands. However, it's not up to you, and it's not up to the police, it's going to be left up to a judge and jury. It might be difficult to convince them that your life was in danger if you have not even been punched one time.
If you're really curious, you should speak to a lawyer who specializes in gun laws. I know one if you'd like a recommendation.
Last edited by a moderator:
I texted a buddy that is a Major with Lexington County last night. He gave me some info BUT he stated that he is merely looking at the situation through the lens of a law officer. Not a lawyer nor a judge. That is my main concern. Luckily this was resolved with no one having to use any unnecessary force but it could have gone South quick.
Simple explanation is that when you are threatened you have no duty to try to run away before engaging in deadly force.
It's still a good idea to try to leave the area peacefully if you can. For many reasons.
Nice.
I think you would have been okay to shoot him. But that does present more issues.
Good for y'all, we need more people like us in the world right now!
But from a legal standpoint, that'd probably be under the Good Samaritan law, vs stand your ground. Stand your ground is what those lawyers in St. Louis did, IINM.
IIRC the lawyers in St Louis are 'under fire' because there was question as to whether the mob actually threatened their house (because we ALL know that EVERY protest is peaceful). Plus they looked stupid. Standing out in full view of the crowd, with a .380? Are you fookin' kidding me? The AR was a fine choice.
Better move would have been a high position - second story window or something - and back a bit so that they can't be seen. Then you a) don't draw attention and b) are in a better spot if they do attack the house. Open-sight AR wouldn't be ideal but it should work.
And the more research I do, the more I'm coming around to the idea that a HD rifle should have a supressor. Not only for noise but muzzle flash.
Fire a few rounds off - even misses - and the mob will probably run anyway.
The standard is "a reasonable person." Personally I hate that since what is the standard for a reasonable person? In SC? In California? Portland?
There is something called "disparity of force" where if the bad guy is a lot bigger/stronger/more athletic/whatever, you can use a firearm against an unarmed person.
That is part of the Zimmerman defense I think. But that case also shows something else - if there is any doubt of whether you were right or wrong, you will not get the benefit of the doubt in certain situations. My understanding is that Zimmerman (and I have no idea if he could have avoided the confrontation, if he was right or wrong, etc) was a fairly normal, perhaps a little bit overzealous about neighborhood watch, guy, but the stress of the trial made him go nuts. That's why he's made the news a few more times.
Last edited by a moderator:
Completely agree with all of that. Me and my suppressed 300 blackout SBR shooting hand loaded subsonic projectiles would not have been outside. However, I'm glad they did what they did, showed 'em they weren't scared and who was really boss in that situation.
Hell, the pistol was just a prop gun that was used as a display in court is the story I heard. But when someone points a gun at you, 99.99% of people are going to assume it's loaded and ready to go.
Sounds like a formidable weapon. 300 BO supposedly suppresses really, really well. One issue with 5.56 is that in order to really perform it has to be supersonic. Muzzle Energy =MV^2, and there ain't much M so you need a lot of V.
My "dream" AR for HD would be something like a SBR in 300 BO, suppressed. Probably around a 10" barrel. Only issues are a) that requires a tax stamp for the SBR AND one for the can, and b) my one issue with .300BO is that it will chamber and fire in a rifle chambered for 5.56. The results are typically.......not good. Some guys who have both put red followers in the .300BO mags and a red ejection port cover on the rifle/upper.
The gun used by the lawyers was a presumably working gun that was turned into a non-working court prop before the incident.
What's worse was that supposedly the DA (?) actually modified it to actually work (ie fixed it) at some point. There were shenanigans there. I can see them doing that if it were for ballistics tests, but they have evidence that the gun was non-working before and after the incident. And they never fired the damn thing. I think the DA was also less-than-forthcoming about that.