Man rhrows brick and pastor, pastor blows him away

GWguy

GWguy

*
Gilligan said:
Pffft. One thing I know for certain is that nobody is EVER taught to "Shoot to wound" or "shoot 'em one time and then wait and see what happens".... There is no such thing as "shooting to kill" either.

You aim for center mass and you squeeze the trigger until the threat is clearly stopped/down/ended.
Click to expand...

And in this case, the threat was a brick. Still not justified in my mind.
 
Gilligan

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
GWguy said:
And in this case, the threat was a brick. Still not justified in my mind.
Click to expand...

How do you it wasn't a semi-automatic brick! Or a high-capacity brick? A terminally-guided brick, even? Maybe the attacker has medals on his living room for his accuracy throwing bricks?
 
C

Chuckt

Guest
Gilligan said:
Neither of those is true. Not even close. You've never taken a defensive handgun class, ha ya?
Click to expand...

I'm dealing with another state where I am not familiar with the practices and the law.

Some states also consider instances where the person claiming self-defense provoked the attack as imperfect self-defense. For example, if a person creates a conflict that becomes violent then unintentionally kills the other party while defending himself, a claim of self-defense might reduce the charges or punishment, but would not excuse the killing entirely.

Proportional Response

The use of self-defense must also match the level of the threat in question. In other words, a person can only employ as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat. If, however, the threat involves only minor force and the person claiming self-defense uses force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, the claim of self-defense will fail.
Click to expand...

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html

Police have to investigate but the title of the news article is:

Cops probe whether affair was root of church shooting
Click to expand...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/10/19/church-shooting-possible-affair/74234900/


If you slapped my face and there were no witnesses around, would my face turn red? Yes.
The man got the other man's wife pregnant. If there were no witnesses around, would you believe there was fighting before? Yes or no?
Even if you don't have any evidence, is it okay to believe the probability of a fight existed before this incident?

The fact is that the pastor filed a police report on the man before so they have a history together.

You can believe anything you want but I'm waiting on the authorities to make a determination and for the legal system to play itself out.
 
Gilligan

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
What is the specific definition of what constitutes "minor force"?

Sounds intentionally nebulous and vague to me; The term "reasonableness" is what gets applied to the defense response..
 
Last edited:
b23hqb

b23hqb

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Chuckt said:
I'm dealing with another state where I am not familiar with the practices and the law.



http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html

Police have to investigate but the title of the news article is:



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/10/19/church-shooting-possible-affair/74234900/


If you slapped my face and there were no witnesses around, would my face turn red? Yes.
The man got the other man's wife pregnant. If there were no witnesses around, would you believe there was fighting before? Yes or no?
Even if you don't have any evidence, is it okay to believe the probability of a fight existed before this incident?

The fact is that the pastor filed a police report on the man before so they have a history together.

You can believe anything you want but I'm waiting on the authorities to make a determination and for the legal system to play itself out.
Click to expand...

So, what state do you live in, chuckt? That would give me a heads up on your local laws. It may bolster your stance. Or maybe not. It would help, though.
 
PsyOps

PsyOps

Pixelated
GWguy said:
That's not the event under discussion. That's a different scenario. Each different scenario will have a different response.

One bullet is self defense. 4 or 5 or 6 is intent to kill. In my mind, intent to kill is the same as murder, no longer just self defense.
Click to expand...

Yes, intent to kill... in self defense. You don't draw you weapon to maim. If someone breaks into my home I am not going to find ways to maim the intruder; I am going to find a way to eliminate the threat to my, family, my property, anyone else that may be around, and my property. This means I will kill the person that is threatening lives and property. I'm stunned you feel someone killing in self-defense is murder. You do realize you can kill someone with one bullet?
 
PsyOps

PsyOps

Pixelated
GWguy said:
And in this case, the threat was a brick. Still not justified in my mind.
Click to expand...

So, a guy is coming at you with a brick. He's not throwing it, he's coming at you. You have a gun. You do what to defend yourself and others around you? Try to consider all the possibilities: he may have other weapons, he may take that brick and smash into someone else's head...
 
GWguy

GWguy

*
PsyOps said:
So, a guy is coming at you with a brick. He's not throwing it, he's coming at you. You have a gun. You do what to defend yourself and others around you? Try to consider all the possibilities: he may have other weapons, he may take that brick and smash into someone else's head...
Click to expand...

Stop beating a dead horse and creating alternate scenarios. I told you what I'd do. Don't really care if you disagree.
 
GWguy

GWguy

*
PsyOps said:
So, a guy is coming at you with a brick. He's not throwing it, he's coming at you. You have a gun. You do what to defend yourself and others around you? Try to consider all the possibilities: he may have other weapons, he may take that brick and smash into someone else's head...
Click to expand...

Besides, if he had another, more deadly weapon than a brick, don't you think he'd be using that instead of carrying a brick with him??
 
PsyOps

PsyOps

Pixelated
GWguy said:
Besides, if he had another, more deadly weapon than a brick, don't you think he'd be using that instead of carrying a brick with him??
Click to expand...

I have no idea. This demands that I try to guess what's on a person's mind when doing something irrational. Why in the heck did he decide on a brick at all? Knives are much lighter, easier to wield, and more dangerous. I can only tell you what I might be thinking when someone is attacking me and threatening my life.

Important to note though... you didn't answer the question.
 
PsyOps

PsyOps

Pixelated
GWguy said:
Stop beating a dead horse and creating alternate scenarios. I told you what I'd do. Don't really care if you disagree.
Click to expand...

I'm not beating any dead horse, I'm trying to get you to come to a conclusion about how YOU would act in a similar situation (which, oddly enough, you refuse to answer). I'm trying to tell you what I might be thinking in that situation.

This is about people wanting to dictate how people decide to defend themselves; people that weren't there.
 
Gilligan

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
GWguy said:
Besides, if he had another, more deadly weapon than a brick, don't you think he'd be using that instead of carrying a brick with him??
Click to expand...

He could've had another brick concealed in a back holster and yet another brick in an ankle holster.
 
C

Chuckt

Guest
PsyOps said:
I'm not beating any dead horse, I'm trying to get you to come to a conclusion about how YOU would act in a similar situation (which, oddly enough, you refuse to answer). I'm trying to tell you what I might be thinking in that situation.

This is about people wanting to dictate how people decide to defend themselves; people that weren't there.
Click to expand...

I've worked in places where customers threatened others and the police said that you have to worry about the ones who don't say anything and that usually the ones who threaten are all bark and no bite which has been true in a lot of circumstances. If that was the case, the pastor allegedly wanted him.....
 
C

Chuckt

Guest
Gilligan said:
ahh..so you are a gambler too.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of people alive today who have threatened someone at some point in their life. There is a guy at work who has done it but hasn't harmed anyone.

The question is, should we give people who have at one point in their life threatened someone the death penalty because they could threaten someone else again at some point? If the answer is "no" then why should everyone be unquestioned in their right to pull the trigger in self defense?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top