hypothetical math question

Threat is over. No reason to shoot. You are not LE.

Telling the judge "I thought he was seeking cover" is not likely to cut it at the trial.
 
The correct answer is DONT SHOOT! He is running perpendicular..not at you. He poses no threat and you cannot legally shoot now...because you are bound to get a bunch of anti gunners on the jury that will say that he was misunderstood as a child and that you...a gun toting trigger happy killer..are the real bad guy. Then you will spend the rest of your life in a cell with big leroy...learning not to sleep on your stomach!
Click to expand...

Bermo beat me to it. He's not running AT you and he's 60 FT away. I see no threat here.
Click to expand...

Threat is over. No reason to shoot. You are not LE.

Telling the judge "I thought he was seeking cover" is not likely to cut
Click to expand...

Just how did you all determine that a bad guy running perpendicular to a shooter is no longer a threat to the shooter? How did you all determine a bad guy running perpendicular to the shooter isn't a danger to some bystander? Just what is it about 60 feet and running perpendicular to the shooter that somehow magically transforms the situation into a no shoot situation?

jibjab's query was not about the legalities and circumstances for which to justify the shot. He asked specifically what sort of lead would be needed if YOU HAD TO TAKE THE SHOT. In other words, the person was still a threat, hence you need to take the shot or feel it most prudent to take the shot so as to mitigate the threat, be it to you or another person.

In Somalia, US forces dealt with this sort of scenario, only with rifles. There would be a Somali crossing the street from one building to another, running all out, and hosing down the street at the American soldiers. Was he a threat? Hell yes. But y'all's interepretation, he isn't because he is running perpendicular to the American forces.

I am just guessing here, but I am inclined to believe that y'all don't think you can shoot a person in the back as part of self defense. You would be wrong as there are most definitely situations where the bad guys end up shot in the back and the shootings are 100% justified and legal.
 
Tell you what...you shoot someone in the back..claim it was self defense in THIS country, and I will wish you the best of luck at your trial. But I would not count on being a free man for a long long time.

Case in point...man rapes a 70 year old woman in her home to unconsciousness. She wakes up and realizes that he is watching T.V. in the other room...she grabs a gun from her dresser and when the man comes in to rape her again she shoots and kills him.

Now this looks pretty open and shut right? Self defense! He had already committed a crime and was on his way back in for seconds.

The district attorney filed charges for murder...he felt she could have climbed out the window rather than shoot him. The fact that she was on the third floor and 70 years old is what saved her at the trial. The point is you NEVER EVER know what some jerry springer watching jury is going to do...CCW availability is a wonderful legislation...but people who are trigger happy are going to ruin it if there is not an imminent threat to their safety or someone else. No where in the scenario is there the mention that he is running perpendicular to attack and kill someone is there? The point I was making is that that scenario should make one think...should I shoot or not...legally, its not a very defensible situation.
 
And Jibjab had you added all the rest of the details to your scenario, it may have changed the responses!

From the information provided..which was not much...no imminent threat existed. To take a life without that is what fuels the anti-gun crowd.
 
Well I think that D.A. has more pressing issues, like job security. And if the judge and or jury swallowed that load of garbage, I would be surpised. :confused:
As far as this thread, it was a question of math, as to raise awareness to the possibility to leading your shot with a hand gun. bermo61 I suggest you read the entire thread, and then post.
 
Those of you arguing whether or not BG is still a threat in this scenario: good on you. BUT...you are missing the point of the thread. It wasn't about threat assessment, it was about leading, or identifying a need to lead. The question was mathematical in nature, not legal. Let's just assume for the sake of argument that since the situation is hypothetical that we're going to shoot said BG... let's not 'what-if' it to death, ok?

The compliance gods are happy, someone has posted the obligatory Legal Warning.

Now, let's just talk about whether or not to lead the moving target.
 
If a train left New York, heading west at 43 MPH, and had to stop for 12 minutes every 3 hours, how long...



:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top