Sorry guys but more information is needed. No injuries for Moose, 1 blow to the back of the head from an unarmed man. If the perpetrator was that close then 3 in the gut would be more like it. You trying to tell me that the man wasn't far enough away to simply pull the gun and not shoot----3 times but not far enough away to miss on 1 and way low on the rest. Again this is based on what Moose said. Do you really think that Moose was in a life threatening situation vs an unarmed man? If he didn't have a gun then he would be dead? The size argument could go both ways however. If the perpetrator was much larger then justification would be easier. If there wasn't anymore to this story then it would be moot at this point, the fact that he thinks they might clear him says there may be more. It's amazing to me that simply based on what you read from Moose that you can assertain that he had the right to shoot this guy(over money) 3 times and endanger anyone near the area who may have been hit by a stray. He's damn lucky nobody else was hit or he would be in deep trouble in a situation where once the gun was pulled the "situation" for all intents and purposes was over without having to fire-----3 times!
Had to use mine Wednesday Night
- Thread starter MooseRLP
- Start date
- Status
novus collectus
Moderator
Have you ever been mugged? Been in a situation where you had no idea if the person was going to homosexually rape you after he knocked you out? Ever been attacked and feared for your life? Don't answer these questions to us, just think about the fear. It wasn't the possible loss of money (IMO).
As far as the missed shot, let me mention an incident in Md where the 2 trained LEO's were responding to the report of a kid with a gun and went to the front door of the kids house. The kid opened the door with the (toy) gun. At 8' there were 26 shots fired at the kid. Just three hit.
Unless the bad guy in Moose's situation was a crippled midget, he has nothing to worry about the persons size. Even a young girl can disable a large man if she "gets the drop" on him like this bad guy did. IMO if the bad guy threatened him with harm, then there may (or may not) be a question about the use of deadly force. However, this bad guy showed him the need to defend himself by actual battery and THEN followed up with further threatenning actions.
Go up to any cop from behind, nearly knock him out and then threaten his life further. If he shot you, do you think they would question the justification of risking bystanders with missed shots in a trial to convict the LEO? (or for that matter, even take it to court in the first place?). IMO this is no different and he did what was right.
Assaulting an officer is much different. Next, if you are 5 or more feet away from me and I have a gun pointed at you then the situation is over for all intent. If at that point you come at me then I guarantee you will get hit by every shot in the upper torso---no misses at that range.
Hence my questioning(Moose didn't say) how far away the perpetrator was---1 miss and 2 low sound farther away then 2-3 feet. If not then he's justified but scenario as laid out leaves questions.
Hence my questioning(Moose didn't say) how far away the perpetrator was---1 miss and 2 low sound farther away then 2-3 feet. If not then he's justified but scenario as laid out leaves questions.
MoW wether hes right or wrong in this you dont need to belittle him...espically in the state im sure hes in.
and the fact that he shot him 3 times probably means little...what about the cops who dump a whole 13 round clip...and miss 13 times?...
so MoW what would you do in the situation taht your opening your truck door and get wacked in the back of the head and then be demanded to hand over your wallet and when you do BG doesnt leave...he then asks to empty your pockets...you instruct him you have nothng on you.... and how in the hell do you know he was unarmed? were you there?
i just think your being critical as well...if not more so than anyone else here. your belittling a man who just had to do damn near the hardest thing i could ever think of...shoot another person.
and what does it matter about him missing one shot? thats a moot point considering that the shot didnt hurt anyone...i think your just over zealous in your analysis...and a bit rude.
so give the guy some ****ing credit... and lay off his case.
that is all
Chad
and the fact that he shot him 3 times probably means little...what about the cops who dump a whole 13 round clip...and miss 13 times?...
so MoW what would you do in the situation taht your opening your truck door and get wacked in the back of the head and then be demanded to hand over your wallet and when you do BG doesnt leave...he then asks to empty your pockets...you instruct him you have nothng on you.... and how in the hell do you know he was unarmed? were you there?
i just think your being critical as well...if not more so than anyone else here. your belittling a man who just had to do damn near the hardest thing i could ever think of...shoot another person.
and what does it matter about him missing one shot? thats a moot point considering that the shot didnt hurt anyone...i think your just over zealous in your analysis...and a bit rude.
so give the guy some ****ing credit... and lay off his case.
that is all
Chad
Mow, don't you think you've beat this poor sob up enough.
Jeez, moose didn't shoot the guy over money, 3 shots is nothing when your life is danger, and under a threat most people outside of Hollywood will not have the steel nerves you claim you have, and they just might miss.
"Next, if you are 5 or more feet away from me and I have a gun pointed at you then the situation is over for all intent. If at that point you come at me then I guarantee you will get hit by every shot in the upper torso---no misses at that range."
Good luck with that.
Is a way I wish you could see the folly of your statements, but I wouldn't wish that situation on anyone.
Jeez, moose didn't shoot the guy over money, 3 shots is nothing when your life is danger, and under a threat most people outside of Hollywood will not have the steel nerves you claim you have, and they just might miss.
"Next, if you are 5 or more feet away from me and I have a gun pointed at you then the situation is over for all intent. If at that point you come at me then I guarantee you will get hit by every shot in the upper torso---no misses at that range."
Good luck with that.
Is a way I wish you could see the folly of your statements, but I wouldn't wish that situation on anyone.
I don't expect anymore is coming.
There is no justification in SC to "pull the gun and not shoot".
Yes, I 100% without a doubt believe that he was in a life threatening situation. He had already been assulted and robbed of an empty wallet. The bad guy then wanted money from his truck. Who's to say he would have been happy to take the money and leave a witness behind. It is insane to think that the mugger would have just taken his money and said, "Have a nice day, it has been my pleasure robbing you this evening."
In situations of self defense, facts that come out after the fact may not matter at all. What matters is basicially this.
Notice the "Or" in the middle of point 3. The first part of that says that you don't have to be in "actual" danger if your belief in the danger is reasonable. I believe that he was both in actual danger and reasonable in his belief that he was. His attacker could have been armed or unarmed, a body builder or a 98lb weakling. The point is that the attacker had the advantage of surprise and was on the offensive, controlling the situation up until the point he got shot. It is perfectly reasonable for anyone in Moose's positions to believe that he is in serious danger. It is asking too much to expect him to believe that the mugger would be content at only robbing him.
Point 4 deal with duty to retreat, which can easily be countered by..
First, let me answer this by saying that I'm sure we are all glad that no bystander was shot by the one round that got away. Sounds like he was shooting at a downward angle, maybe this was to avoid having a round "get away" or maybe he has a tall truck. Either way it doesn't matter, no one else was shot.
Second, why do you seem to insist that Moose shot this guy over Money? Is it impossible for you to believe that he was actually afraid for his life? I sure as heck know I would be.
Third, what is your hang up with the number 3? He fired 3 times. So what? I admire his restraint. I can't say how many I'd shoot in such a situation, and I pray to God I never find out, but when I try to put myself in his shoes it's not hard to imagine firing more than that.
Fourth and finially, What do you mean when you said "the "situation" for all intents and purposes was over"? What can you possibly base that assumption on?
Do you really think this through, or are you just arguing this for your enjoyment? I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you are starting to remind of a Monty Pyton sketch.
novus collectus
Moderator
How is afflicting an officer any different? They are subject to the same laws as us. Wearng a badge does not justify taking a life unnecessarily like you may have the impression Moose did. The law has to be applied equally and if the cop can do it in the similar situation, then we can do it in the similar situation. If you feel that the LEO had a right to defend himself with shooting, then my scenario has done it's purpose and made you think that it is o.k. in certain situations. You may disagree with who has the right to do it, but you would at least see a possible parallel.
As far as your guarantee that you would hit every shot in a very close quaters situation with your adrenaline pumping, you can't know until it happens, but Moose does know because it hapenned to him (and not us).
I have been in situations that scared me about the loss of my life before (a couple of muggings, couple of attempted muggings by a group of people, pistol whipped, shot at, etc.) and from my experience I can say that Moose did very well in his situation (IMHO) and the missed shot as far as we know may have happened before he had his stance set (assuming he even had time and space to assume a stance of some kind), or maybe his arm was hit while shooting, or maybe we shouldn't question someone who has a whole lot of personal things to think about after a possibly traumatic experience
Last edited:
so assualting a civllian (cop) the same way is much different? what if he was off duty?
so getting hit in the BACK of the head (which could easily knock you out...)
the guy could of easily punched, kicked, stabbed, moose after being stunned by being hit in the back of his head...
you under estimate the badguys out there....hope it wont bring a tragedy to you...
Chad
so getting hit in the BACK of the head (which could easily knock you out...)
the guy could of easily punched, kicked, stabbed, moose after being stunned by being hit in the back of his head...
you under estimate the badguys out there....hope it wont bring a tragedy to you...
Chad
btw its "shoot to stop" that means if the guy doesnt fall after 6 keep shooting....cops from what i have seen "shoot to kill" which is empty magazine, reload and empty again....
so 3 shots is little.
i know if i had a revolver it would be empty and clicking most likely...
Chad
so 3 shots is little.
i know if i had a revolver it would be empty and clicking most likely...
Chad
and what does it matter about him missing one shot? thats a moot point considering that the shot didnt hurt anyone
You're playing the result of the incident instead of the intent. The reason you are sooo restricted in firing your weapon is for the fact that you COULD shoot or kill an innocent. The fact that he didn't(in this case) doesn't change the fact that he could have. If you leave your pool gate open and a kid falls in but doesn't drown---does that make it moot that you left the gate open? No.
Half of you are missing my point---you all say he's justified simply on what he stated---I'm saying he may very well be---BUT---there are things in his statement that doesn't leave it open and shut. I'm not belittling him, I need more to go on but firing your weapon should be a last resort. As for me, I would have pulled the gun for sure but firing would be a different matter---I would never value a car, truck monet etc...over any human life or risk endangering another possible innocent. It all comes down to distance IMO, as I said 5 ft. in I ain't missing anytrhing farther and the situation is under control.
You're playing the result of the incident instead of the intent. The reason you are sooo restricted in firing your weapon is for the fact that you COULD shoot or kill an innocent. The fact that he didn't(in this case) doesn't change the fact that he could have. If you leave your pool gate open and a kid falls in but doesn't drown---does that make it moot that you left the gate open? No.
Half of you are missing my point---you all say he's justified simply on what he stated---I'm saying he may very well be---BUT---there are things in his statement that doesn't leave it open and shut. I'm not belittling him, I need more to go on but firing your weapon should be a last resort. As for me, I would have pulled the gun for sure but firing would be a different matter---I would never value a car, truck monet etc...over any human life or risk endangering another possible innocent. It all comes down to distance IMO, as I said 5 ft. in I ain't missing anytrhing farther and the situation is under control.
i know if i had a revolver it would be empty and clicking most likely...
and if there were any witnesses you would end up in jail. Emptying your firearm like that would show anger, not self defense. Please quit trying to compare what LEO's do and get away with with the common public---alltogether different.
and if there were any witnesses you would end up in jail. Emptying your firearm like that would show anger, not self defense. Please quit trying to compare what LEO's do and get away with with the common public---alltogether different.
novus collectus
Moderator
Yes it also has something to do with distance. Try this, have a friend who is standing so close to you that his leg is touching yours, thengoforyourgun. Will you even have enough room for you to get your gun to a point you can even see the sight before you would figure you would fire the first shot? Prevent the person from grabbing your gun while you line up the perfect "one shot one kill"?
We don't know what his exact situation was, and maybe we should leave this one alone until his legal troubles are behind him and he wants to talk about it.
no MoW it wouldnt...sorry its shoot to stop...not shoot to wheni think it wont kill him but maybe stop him.
oh and the guy wasnt protecting his ****ing TRUCK...i'd love to see you in this situation,...calm, cool, collected...yeah right
MoW about the shot missing...so whats he suppose to do to not have a chance of missing? put the muzzle to the guy? again your logic is just wrong...
what he did was more than most i would say...im sure if the guy picked up his wallet and left moose wouldnt grab his gun and shoot the guy. moose did use other ways out and they failed...he felt (as would i) that the gun was his only choice after being attacked, and robbed.
oh and your "i'll just take the gun out and wave it around" approach is illegal where moose lives...called brandishing a weapon.
you should never draw unless you need to shoot...IMHO.
like i said give the guy a break....I for one applaud him on the way he handled things.
Chad
oh and the guy wasnt protecting his ****ing TRUCK...i'd love to see you in this situation,...calm, cool, collected...yeah right
MoW about the shot missing...so whats he suppose to do to not have a chance of missing? put the muzzle to the guy? again your logic is just wrong...
what he did was more than most i would say...im sure if the guy picked up his wallet and left moose wouldnt grab his gun and shoot the guy. moose did use other ways out and they failed...he felt (as would i) that the gun was his only choice after being attacked, and robbed.
oh and your "i'll just take the gun out and wave it around" approach is illegal where moose lives...called brandishing a weapon.
you should never draw unless you need to shoot...IMHO.
like i said give the guy a break....I for one applaud him on the way he handled things.
Chad
FallenPhoenix
New member
Being hit from behind, I would count myself lucky he didn't use a pipe or crow bar, etc and make it permenant.
I'd say that emptying a firearm like that would show fear of imminent bodily harm or death, which would not be an unjustified feeling at all. How many shots do you think would be appropriate? Can you decide this before an encounter? 3 shots in this case was enough to stop the assailant, and in no way seems excessive, stop trying to crucify a man who successfully defended himself from someone who very well may have killed him otherwise.
MoW said:
I'd say that emptying a firearm like that would show fear of imminent bodily harm or death, which would not be an unjustified feeling at all. How many shots do you think would be appropriate? Can you decide this before an encounter? 3 shots in this case was enough to stop the assailant, and in no way seems excessive, stop trying to crucify a man who successfully defended himself from someone who very well may have killed him otherwise.
what is the difference if this is a off duty policemen? hell on duty even.
if the guy has his back turned as moose told us he did gets hit in the head and then demanded to hand over his wallet and when he does the BG doesnt leave...what elese do you want him to do?...
and when i said "shooting my revolver until it clicked" that meant as if the guy is stll standing....
if i shot him twice and he fell im not going to to stand over him and "empty my gun"...DUH...
so no it wouldnt show "anger"
where do you live where you have to worry about this stuff?
Chad
if the guy has his back turned as moose told us he did gets hit in the head and then demanded to hand over his wallet and when he does the BG doesnt leave...what elese do you want him to do?...
and when i said "shooting my revolver until it clicked" that meant as if the guy is stll standing....
if i shot him twice and he fell im not going to to stand over him and "empty my gun"...DUH...
so no it wouldnt show "anger"
where do you live where you have to worry about this stuff?
Chad
univtxattorney
New member
This is one of the points that MoW doesn't get. HE thinks that this was a shooting over property. WE realize that it was a shooting over life.
Just not so.
So MoW... tell all of us.... What exactly was Moose's intent? Was it to take out his gun on a Wednesday night and lay someone to waste? Was it to make a lot of noise? Was it to fire off rounds indiscriminately and see what he could hit? We all seem to understand that he [justifiably] feared for his life.
What is really disturbing about you is that you genuinely seem to have something against Moose and those of us who would defend ourselves in this situation. God forbid it ever happens to anyone else, I think Moose has set a great example.
Also, the result of the incident is what matters. Results count in our legal system. Results ARE the difference.
YES!!! IT DOES!!! There is absolutely NO case against you without results--without damages. You can act as negligently as you want, but if you don't cause damage, then there is no case. That's our system of justice. Damages are a component of negligence... without showing them, you go home...
It was. "Last resort" doesn't mean that you are wounded or dead. He was hit in the back of the head and under the control of and at the mercy of the bad guy. This was his last resort.
As I said before, the next time you are mugged or taken advantage of by someone, by all means bend over and take it. The next time you think that someone who will assault you and rob you without provocation will just leave you alone after, go ahead and take that chance. If you want to place your LIFE in the hands of a criminal and trust that he will take care of it, do it. But don't show such contempt for those of us who would defend ourselves. And you certainly shouldn't show contempt for a man who came here for support after doing one of the hardest things he will ever do.
Here's my take on the situation. A common sense perspective for ya.
Moose, good job on defending yourself.
As for "oh, boohoo, you can't defend your property!", civilized Western society is based on the ownership of property and the respect of that property by others. If somebody want's MY stuff, they're gonna have to work damn hard for it, because I'll MAKE them endanger my damn life to take it!
As for this dude being unarmed, Moose had already been hit, IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD. I don't know about you, but I've heard of cases of people dying from that alone. That assault proves intent to do bodily harm, and in my humble opinion justifies a response of equal or greater force. Then again, people try to say I'm a bit old school when it comes to these things. The classic "I've kicked people's butts for less" type, I guess. Not to mention, at night, there's no telling what someone could be carrying.
And then comes the classic addage "Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six." I'll take time in jail over time in the ground any day.
Moose, good job on defending yourself.
As for "oh, boohoo, you can't defend your property!", civilized Western society is based on the ownership of property and the respect of that property by others. If somebody want's MY stuff, they're gonna have to work damn hard for it, because I'll MAKE them endanger my damn life to take it!
As for this dude being unarmed, Moose had already been hit, IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD. I don't know about you, but I've heard of cases of people dying from that alone. That assault proves intent to do bodily harm, and in my humble opinion justifies a response of equal or greater force. Then again, people try to say I'm a bit old school when it comes to these things. The classic "I've kicked people's butts for less" type, I guess. Not to mention, at night, there's no telling what someone could be carrying.
And then comes the classic addage "Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six." I'll take time in jail over time in the ground any day.
MoW,
I also notice that you glossed right over my question, so I’ll ask it again:
“My understanding of your assertion is that an otherwise justified self-defense situation, when the individual using self-defense is larger than the assailant, will change that situation to one where the victim is no longer justified. Is that a correct interpretation? If so, prove it. You are making a radical assertion, it is incumbent on you to provide the justification. Shouldn’t be too hard, if what you say is true. Right?”
Again, pure-dee idiocy. Take a look at the law. If you were to actually do that, you would notice that the law specifies the circumstances under which you can use lethal force. It does not say anything about using a gun. The fact of the matter is that when circumstances allow for the use of deadly/lethal force, the instrument used to inflict that force is immaterial. In fact, deadly force can be used without the use of any weapon at all and the exact same restriction apply whether the victim uses his hands, a baseball bat he left in the cab of his truck, or a pistol he kept in the center console. The weapon used has zero bearing and your continual references to Moose’s use of a gun only further illustrate how poorly you grasp the law.
I also notice that you glossed right over my question, so I’ll ask it again:
“My understanding of your assertion is that an otherwise justified self-defense situation, when the individual using self-defense is larger than the assailant, will change that situation to one where the victim is no longer justified. Is that a correct interpretation? If so, prove it. You are making a radical assertion, it is incumbent on you to provide the justification. Shouldn’t be too hard, if what you say is true. Right?”
univtxattorney
New member
John Locke on Thieves...
"This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than by the use of force, so to get him in his power as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose that he who would take away my liberty would not, when he had me in his power, take away everything else. And, therefore, it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me - i.e., kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it."
John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government Chapter 3, Section 17
It has long been held that one who would take your property by force would not hesitate to take your life. As you know, Locke's philosophy was probably the biggest influence on our Founding Fathers. This passage is as meaningful today as it was when he wrote it.
"This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than by the use of force, so to get him in his power as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose that he who would take away my liberty would not, when he had me in his power, take away everything else. And, therefore, it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me - i.e., kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it."
John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government Chapter 3, Section 17
It has long been held that one who would take your property by force would not hesitate to take your life. As you know, Locke's philosophy was probably the biggest influence on our Founding Fathers. This passage is as meaningful today as it was when he wrote it.
Last edited:
XavierBreath
New member
Moose,
Consider this thread to be an example of why you really don't want to discuss your experience, even among your friends three years from now. Imagine it being the topic of discussion at a bowling tournament you are attending. Being second guessed by close friends on a matter that has affected your life this much is the best way to loose a friend. Seeing them on the stand repeating thier version of what you said is unimaginable, but very possible.
Lawyer up, keep your trap shut, and get a phone number for a BTDT counselor to use in the future. Trust me, you will eventually make the call.
BigBoreKindaGuy, you are wrong to instruct the man to avoid conseling. Even if you speak from personal experience you are wrong. Your opinion will not prevent any of Moose's repercussions.
Consider this thread to be an example of why you really don't want to discuss your experience, even among your friends three years from now. Imagine it being the topic of discussion at a bowling tournament you are attending. Being second guessed by close friends on a matter that has affected your life this much is the best way to loose a friend. Seeing them on the stand repeating thier version of what you said is unimaginable, but very possible.
Lawyer up, keep your trap shut, and get a phone number for a BTDT counselor to use in the future. Trust me, you will eventually make the call.
BigBoreKindaGuy, you are wrong to instruct the man to avoid conseling. Even if you speak from personal experience you are wrong. Your opinion will not prevent any of Moose's repercussions.
- Status