Author Topic: News lady loses it on live TV (Read 2059 times)

Lizking · « **Reply #15 on:** November 02, 2004, 04:40:18 PM »

Sheeit, that would be a 5 minute case, and they would give the driver a medal, espcially if it was taped.

jigsaw · « **Reply #16 on:** November 02, 2004, 04:42:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
True, but lethal force probably isn't necessary to protect ones car. If it was a CCW and the woman did shoot him, she would be in for a long haul in the court (especially because it's on tape).

To protect the car...no.
As soon as that tire iron started toward the drivers side window with my head on the other side of it...yes.

Forgot where I heard this originally...
"Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six."

I'd think the tape pretty self incriminating for the perp, with his lasts words nearly being "Hey ya'll, watchis."
But then again, I have no faith in our legal system.

Lizking · « **Reply #17 on:** November 02, 2004, 04:44:42 PM »

If you are in the car, you are protecting yourself. If you walk out of the store and see him bashing your car and shoot him, you are in trouble.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #18 on:** November 02, 2004, 04:45:15 PM »

I've heard people make some pretty wild noises when in pain and had the wind knocked out of em but those have to be the strangest sounds I ever heard LOL

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #19 on:** November 02, 2004, 04:57:52 PM »

LOL!!! "Ooowwww owww oooooo!!! Ooowwww oowwww oooooo!!!"

Lizking · « **Reply #20 on:** November 02, 2004, 04:59:34 PM »

I guess ya'll haven't heard the radio bit of that video put to rap? Pretty damn funny, once you get over the pain.

Octavius · « **Reply #21 on:** November 02, 2004, 05:00:14 PM »

wounded seal, LOL!!

Hawklore · « **Reply #22 on:** November 02, 2004, 05:05:34 PM »

See Rule #4

Octavius · « **Reply #23 on:** November 02, 2004, 05:06:58 PM »

I've had the wind knocked outta me plenty of times. The seal reaction was by far the best. I laugh at everything equally, piss off Hawk

J_A_B · « **Reply #24 on:** November 02, 2004, 05:14:02 PM »

"I put three holes in his head to stop him from killing me."

The opposing lawyer would eat that up--makes it look like you deliberately killed the guy.

Hint--if your intent is to KILL the other guy, even if in defence of your own life, you still will likely go to jail. You should NEVER be trying to kill the other guy; your goal when shooting in self-defence is ONLY to stop the aggression.

Deliberately putting three holes in somebody's head looks like a bit more than halting the aggression. That looks like....voluntary manslaughter. I'd give you a 50/50 chance in such a scenario. Depends on how good the respective lawyers are.

(A) No person, while under the influence of sudden passion or in a sudden fit of rage, either of which is brought on by serious provocation occasioned by the victim that is reasonably sufficient to incite the person into using deadly force, shall knowingly cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's pregnancy.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, a felony of the first degree.

--From the ORC. Granted we're talking about Nevada--for the purposes of discussion, I assume Nevada statutes are similar.

When you shoot in self-defence, aim for the center of mass. Larger area to hit, and somewhat less likely to be lethal than a head shot.

J_A_B

jigsaw · « **Reply #25 on:** November 02, 2004, 05:24:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by J_A_B

--From the ORC. Granted we're talking about Nevada--for the purposes of discussion, I assume Nevada statutes are similar.
J_A_B

In AZ you must shoot with intent to kill. If you shoot with intent to "maim", you get in deep poop. Their key phrase is "I was in fear for my life."

J_A_B · « **Reply #26 on:** November 02, 2004, 05:39:25 PM »

In Ohio, you're also in deep trouble if you shoot to wound. Reason being if you're shooting only to wound, that implies that you're in a situation that you didn't feel lethal force was justifiable--hence you shouldn't have been using the gun in the first place (a gun is by definition lethal force whether it actually kills or not).

You don't "shoot to maim", but don't deliberately try to kill either. There's a distinction in there. If the attacker dies of his wounds, it should only be an unfortunate by-product of your use of a last-resort option to protect your own life.

In the hypothetical case above, conviction would rest on whether the shooter was still fearful of his life when he put the second and third rounds into his attacker's head, or if he was trying to "make sure" the guy died.

J_A_B

Lizking · « **Reply #27 on:** November 02, 2004, 05:44:47 PM »

Me, I'm unloading in the general direction, while making rapid evasive retrograde movement.

Scootter · « **Reply #28 on:** November 02, 2004, 06:00:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by J_A_B
"I put three holes in his head to stop him from killing me."

The opposing lawyer would eat that up--makes it look like you deliberately killed the guy.

Hint--if your intent is to KILL the other guy, even if in defence of your own life, you still will likely go to jail. You should NEVER be trying to kill the other guy; your goal when shooting in self-defence is ONLY to stop the aggression.

Deliberately putting three holes in somebody's head looks like a bit more than halting the aggression. That looks like....voluntary manslaughter. I'd give you a 50/50 chance in such a scenario. Depends on how good the respective lawyers are.

(A) No person, while under the influence of sudden passion or in a sudden fit of rage, either of which is brought on by serious provocation occasioned by the victim that is reasonably sufficient to incite the person into using deadly force, shall knowingly cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's pregnancy.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, a felony of the first degree.

--From the ORC. Granted we're talking about Nevada--for the purposes of discussion, I assume Nevada statutes are similar.

When you shoot in self-defence, aim for the center of mass. Larger area to hit, and somewhat less likely to be lethal than a head shot.

J_A_B

JAB, slow down take a deep breath and go reread my post,..... done? ok.

I said I fired three times to "STOP HIM FROM KILLING ME" I was taught as the police are taught to fire several rounds "double tap "as it can take more then one to stop the perp. I never said I was trying to kill him just stop him, I can fire three rounds with my .45 in about 1.8 secs and that is how I train, this is how all law enforcement are taught.

As far as center of mass, I agree with you as that is the best aiming spot no doubt. In the scenario above however I would be siting in my car with this guy about 2 ft from me and as his head is above the horizon I would be much less likely to hit someone standing across the street by aiming high. I am fairly sure that at the range a through penetrating round would be likely. I have no problem hitting a target thet size at two ft.

My guess is he would be doing 60 mph to the next county if looking down the pipe, so to speak. I noticed he picked a car with a woman in it and not a jacked up Ford 4X4 350 diesel with some god old boys in it.

Friggen punk, will have a short life and no one will morn his passing.

Regards

Gunslinger · « **Reply #29 on:** November 02, 2004, 06:07:50 PM »

In most states if you tell the investigater that some crazy guy came out of the blue yelling at me and bashing my car obviously trying to bash me and I feared for my life you will not see any trouble. Especially with that video....the lady was traped, no were to go.

My first reaction would have been the wrong one. I would have ran the guy over as soon as he ran in front of my car. On the adrenyline rush of ridding society of scumb I probably would have blabbed that I ment to turn him into a speed bump and I'd go to jail for it.

I don't vision a jury though that's gonna make somone do serious time for ridding the world of that guy in that situation.