Armed-Shopper-Opens-Fire-on-Walgreens-Bandits

[M. Sage]

I'm thinking of an illegal carrier who loses his presumption because he is committing a crime at the time force is used, and then a jury decides his belief is unreasonable. Or, an illegal carrier loses his right to "stand his ground" because he is committing a crime at the time force is used and a jury decides he should have retreated. Unlikely but possible, according to my understanding.

I'll do some digging. I don't see how you could lose your right to stand your ground because you're committing an unrelated crime. The way Castle is set up, you have the right to stand your ground in any place you have the right to be as long as you aren't the aggressor.

 

[Bithabus]

The way Castle is set up, you have the right to stand your ground in any place you have the right to be as long as you aren't the aggressor.

That just isn't true. Did you read the part of Chapter 9 that I quoted? The right to stand your ground created by "castle doctrine" doesn't apply to people in the process of committing crimes.

 

[Wolfwood]

am i the only one who wonders where those rounds end up that dont connect with BGs in these scenarios?

 

[Medic218]

not justified at all, he'd be a world of trouble if he had done that here

 

[Texas1911]

Lmao....so he was walking out of a store and saw them hit his vehicle, then went Rambo? Negative, I wouldn't have shot.

Depends ... if the cars are coming at me and ramming my car then I'm considering that unlawful use of deadly force. You could very easily articulate that a motor vehicle is deadly force if you are a pedestrian.

You know how these ghetto people drive ... they think it's funny to swerve at people, and quite frankly I'm not trusting of a news report. It could be Rambo or situational self-defense.

 

[Bithabus]

Depends ... if the cars are coming at me and ramming my car then I'm considering that unlawful use of deadly force. You could very easily articulate that a motor vehicle is deadly force if you are a pedestrian.

You know how these ghetto people drive ... they think it's funny to swerve at people, and quite frankly I'm not trusting of a news report. It could be Rambo or situational self-defense.

I agree, if the report is completely wrong he could have been justified.

 

[tweek]

No wonder the law profession is in so much trouble these days - look at all these lawyers we got here on guntalk. Everybody all snapped in and ready to go Perry Mason on this fella with little more than a few paragraphs of poorly written newsspeak. If I ever need legal help I know where I'm running first.

Until I see an s-load of raw video from multiple angles I think I'll go somewhere else.

 

[ChunkyMonkey]

See ya later, lol

 

[Bithabus]

No wonder the law profession is in so much trouble these days - look at all these lawyers we got here on guntalk. Everybody all snapped in and ready to go Perry Mason on this fella with little more than a few paragraphs of poorly written newsspeak. If I ever need legal help I know where I'm running first.

Until I see an s-load of raw video from multiple angles I think I'll go somewhere else.

The OP asked whether the shooting described in the article is justified. The actual shooting, obviously, may have occurred differently. Reporters have been known to make things up. I hope you never seriously considered resorting to the internet for "legal help".

 

[tweek]

The OP asked whether the shooting described in the article is justified. The actual shooting, obviously, may have occurred differently. Reporters have been known to make things up. I hope you never seriously considered resorting to the internet for "legal help".

I can't respond to this thread b/c still don't see video of the actual event so I don't know enough to answer anything. The OP was rather like posting up asking "what would the legal ramifications be if I did this thing I'm thinking about doing?" and the responses are interpreting law without having any idea what it is the OP is thinking about doing. But then again, I expect too much, like people actually having facts before rendering opinions.

 

[ChunkyMonkey]

I thought you said you couldn't respond to this thread? That's your second post in here, lol.

BUT, there is nothing wrong with interpreting events based as if the occurred as presented in the article.....just like the original poster requested. We can speculate....it's not like there's a lynching party being formed.

 

[Bithabus]

I can't respond to this thread b/c still don't see video of the actual event so I don't know enough to answer anything. The OP was rather like posting up asking "what would the legal ramifications be if I did this thing I'm thinking about doing?" and the responses are interpreting law without having any idea what it is the OP is thinking about doing. But then again, I expect too much, like people actually having facts before rendering opinions.

No, as I said in my previous post the OP was referring to information as presented in an article. Obviously that information could be wrong, but as a fictional account it can still be used as a learning tool. You're reading way too much into this.

 

[tweek]

I'm also screwing around. Too much work lately and not enough mindless fun.

Havent even made it to the range in over a month.