warning or bullet?

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Skiluvr03

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
448
Reaction score
3
Location
SW Oklahoma
If you look at the video posted in this thread, the guy who shot the robber wasnt in "immediate" danger according to some of you yahoos. The clerk w/ the ccw was actually the farthest person away from the robber yet he was easily in just as much danger as anyone in that lobby.

A robber doesnt endanger life on a person by person basis. When they occupy a space with the intent to harm anyone in their path, individuals in that space have reason to be in fear of their life and thus protect it.
I'm not getting in the middle of the on-going argument because I think there needs to be more clarification with the law, but, regarding the video, I don't remember anything in the video stating rather the CC'er was charged, sued, or whatever might have happened to him, did it? Personally, I feel he put the Woman and her baby in a bad situation; it's a good thing he didn't miss the first couple of shots as the Woman and Baby were in-between them at first.
 

LightningCrash

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
11,886
Reaction score
105
Location
OKC
The Dawkins case was BS (he was carrying an illegal gun)....try again. Your the one that was saying it's illegal to defend an innocent person from a deadly attack (other than yourself....and to do so YOU must be under attack). I still don't buy your version and never will unless you can show case law that backs it up. Nuff said.

Well at least you've backpedaled on the CCW and SDA and some of the ridiculous stuff. The illegal gun meant he didn't get SYG protection, but they didn't say that he couldn't meet justifiable homicide clauses. Why do you suppose it was not ruled a justifiable homicide? He was "defending an innocent person from a deadly attack." Why didn't the jury acquit him?
Come up with a case where someone shoots a robber in the back of the head and isn't convicted.
and I never said it was illegal to defend an innocent person... such lies are not befitting a man of your good esteem.
I showed you the law. I showed you the jury instructions, which are also plain. What is unclear about those two?
 

HMCS(FMF)Ret.

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
2,853
Reaction score
1,717
Location
Norman, Oklahoma
I haven't backpedaled on anything. YOU were the one that said a CC couldn't defend an innocent person under SDA unless you yourself are being attacked. That's where I don't agree. If you can....show me case law where someone shoots a robber in the back of the head (while defending someones life....like a clerk) an IS convicted. There is absolutely no way you can convince me your correct without case law to back it up. I still believe that a person who is not acting unlawfully, and is in a place they have a right to be....also has the right to protect himself (if he's under attack) or another (if they are under attack) or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
 

LightningCrash

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
11,886
Reaction score
105
Location
OKC
I haven't backpedaled on anything. YOU were the one that said a CC couldn't defend an innocent person under SDA unless you yourself are being attacked. That's where I don't agree. If you can....show me case law where someone shoots a robber in the back of the head (while defending someones life....like a clerk) an IS convicted. There is absolutely no way you can convince me your correct without case law to back it up. I still believe that a person who is not acting unlawfully, and is in a place they have a right to be....also has the right to protect himself (if he's under attack) or another (if they are under attack) or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

More backpedaling. I don't believe I've said those things. Would you be so kind as to point out where I have said these things about the SDA and CCW? (beyond saying that they aren't germane, that is.)
Do you have any case law, or codified law that supports your theory in any way?
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom