Same situation, this justified to defend your family?
http://www.startribune.com/local/25472764.html?location_refer=Local + Metro
http://www.startribune.com/local/25472764.html?location_refer=Local + Metro
Justified to Shoot?
- Thread starter Tabsr
- Start date
I have just deleted a couple of off-topic posts. If you wonder why, please go take a look at Bud Helms' comments in the following thread: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=302789
Stick to the topic, please.
pax
Stick to the topic, please.
pax
rampage841512
New member
Yes, for what they were trying to do to the girl and for what they did to the father. Very much justified.
Seems to me that, of course, the application of lethal force was called for. I know for sure, that, if I'm attacked as was the victim in this case, and I have the ability to stop the attack by using my concealed firearm, I'll do my best to do just that.
(Sure hope that's not construed as "chest thumping"!
)
(Sure hope that's not construed as "chest thumping"!
)That many young men molesting or attempting to sexually assault my daughter would certainly be justifiable grounds for shooting. That many physically assaulting my son would also be justified. One of the perps looked like he weighed in over 280 pounds.
Most states have statutes on the books that makes ganging up on a single victim a felony. Where a fist-fight between two men might only be a misdemeanor, two (or more) against one usually changes the charges, especially if the single victim is seriously injured.
These group-attacks have been increasing in frequency and in violence in the last few years. It reminds me of a pack of wild dogs. One member alone is usually afraid, but in a pack they're insanely viscious.
Most states have statutes on the books that makes ganging up on a single victim a felony. Where a fist-fight between two men might only be a misdemeanor, two (or more) against one usually changes the charges, especially if the single victim is seriously injured.
These group-attacks have been increasing in frequency and in violence in the last few years. It reminds me of a pack of wild dogs. One member alone is usually afraid, but in a pack they're insanely viscious.
MisterWilson
New member
AZ Med nailed it.
Groping your daughter is molestation and equal to rape as far as the step you may take to stop it.
Combine that with a large disparity of force and you've got your green light.
Furthermore, the law generally looks more favorably at older folks so if you're a man in your 40's that's another plus.
That being said, if he'd shot them before things got ugly, I have my doubts as to whether he would have beaten the ride.
Groping your daughter is molestation and equal to rape as far as the step you may take to stop it.
Combine that with a large disparity of force and you've got your green light.
Furthermore, the law generally looks more favorably at older folks so if you're a man in your 40's that's another plus.
That being said, if he'd shot them before things got ugly, I have my doubts as to whether he would have beaten the ride.
anythingshiny
New member
This is a tough one..i had posted up on a THR poll.
I believe CC is illegal at the park and he obviously didnt make it to his car. Without knowing the details of the 'molestation' physical, verbal or other, I'd have to say that IF I was armed and IF my daughter were being molested by 1 or 8 does not matter, it would be a very tense situation.
I'd like to think I'd have a few options to retreat or de-escalate..but I'm thinking nope. I'm protecting my family and self with everything I have at my disposal.
I believe CC is illegal at the park and he obviously didnt make it to his car. Without knowing the details of the 'molestation' physical, verbal or other, I'd have to say that IF I was armed and IF my daughter were being molested by 1 or 8 does not matter, it would be a very tense situation.
I'd like to think I'd have a few options to retreat or de-escalate..but I'm thinking nope. I'm protecting my family and self with everything I have at my disposal.
In SC
Yes!
PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY ACT
The stated intent of the legislation is to codify the common law castle doctrine, which recognizes that a person’s home is his castle, and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person’s place of business. This bill authorizes the lawful use of deadly force under certain circumstances against an intruder or attacker in a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. The bill provides that there is no duty to retreat if (1) the person is in a place where he has a right to be, including the person’s place of business, (2) the person is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and (3) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily injury, or the commission of a violent crime. A person who lawfully uses deadly force is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known the person is a law enforcement officer.
H.4301 (R412) was signed by the Governor on June 9, 2006.
Yes!
PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY ACT
The stated intent of the legislation is to codify the common law castle doctrine, which recognizes that a person’s home is his castle, and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person’s place of business. This bill authorizes the lawful use of deadly force under certain circumstances against an intruder or attacker in a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. The bill provides that there is no duty to retreat if (1) the person is in a place where he has a right to be, including the person’s place of business, (2) the person is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and (3) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily injury, or the commission of a violent crime. A person who lawfully uses deadly force is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known the person is a law enforcement officer.
H.4301 (R412) was signed by the Governor on June 9, 2006.
Considering that a person can use equal or slightly greater force to defend his/herself, the disparity of force in this attack, I believe that use of a deadly weapon would be justified.
However as a lone defender I would worry about being disarmed by a large group of attackers.
To me it may be justified and legal, but would be a tough call to make.
However as a lone defender I would worry about being disarmed by a large group of attackers.
To me it may be justified and legal, but would be a tough call to make.
Not just yes but heck yes.
There is no hesitation here for me. If my child was being molested and the bad guys refused to stop at my command there would be no further warning. If any one of them approached me they would be engaged.
As for it being illegal to have a gun on park grounds even with a CWP...........oh well. I take my punishment knowing that I saved my daughter and myself from harm. I would die for my kids so jail is nothing.
There is no hesitation here for me. If my child was being molested and the bad guys refused to stop at my command there would be no further warning. If any one of them approached me they would be engaged.
As for it being illegal to have a gun on park grounds even with a CWP...........oh well. I take my punishment knowing that I saved my daughter and myself from harm. I would die for my kids so jail is nothing.
Spade Cooley
Moderator
When you get jumped by a group you are justfied, period. Shoot the SOBS.
With or without a weapon my daughter is getting my help until I am physically unable to continue.
Exactly, just as the father did in this attack.
He was able to protect his family with no one getting shot and without presenting the BGs with the tool to kill him and his family outright.
Still think it would have been justified though.
Exactly, just as the father did in this attack.
He was able to protect his family with no one getting shot and without presenting the BGs with the tool to kill him and his family outright.
Still think it would have been justified though.
I don't know how far the molestation went. He got beaten to a pulp and his daughters and wife were traumatized by watching, almost helpless, while it happened. That's not much protection to me. Some of you are so sure he'd have come off the loser if he'd drawn a gun. I disagree. They MIGHT have got to him, but I'm betting the minute he drops one, the rest will take off running. Remember, these punks wanted an "easy" rape, not an armed confrontation with a mad father. If they'd had guns, they would have used them when they went after the father. They attacked him because he didn't show any weapon to prevent it.
"We'll all charge him together, he can't get all eight of us."
"OK, big mouth, YOU get it first! Make your move."
BTW, in this situation, I don't believe a warning ("Stop or I'll shoot!") is necessary, pull your piece and start blasting.