If they are no longer an active threat, do not shoot

[Bear44]

But...then i read articles/watch videos where someone shoots someone fleeing and "no longer a threat" and they are justified and its a clean shot. So...? the subway worker here in ga recently is one of many examples (she shot him while fleeing into woods). The guy had done an attempted robbery and struck the subway workers son with a blunt object. Is this case different because there was no known weapon pulled on homeowner?

It can get complicated when you take into account that deadly force can also be used to protect a third party. There is also the possibility that the shooter simply gets a pass from the authorities, but relying on that to stay out of prison is a very bad idea. As is relying on jury nullification.

 

[Sigo]

You do not understand, ..."shall not be infringed upon".. do you?

Of the entire Constitution that's all you got? Look at it as a whole and you will understand that it can be legally infringed. SC decisions provide all kinds of justification for infringement and since that is in accordance to the Constitution, it is legal. The key to exercising our rights to fight the illegal infringment and not get wrapped around the axle over five words at the cost of losing sight of the entire document.

 

[Sigo]

But...then i read articles/watch videos where someone shoots someone fleeing and "no longer a threat" and they are justified and its a clean shot. So...? the subway worker here in ga recently is one of many examples (she shot him while fleeing into woods). The guy had done an attempted robbery and struck the subway workers son with a blunt object. Is this case different because there was no known weapon pulled on homeowner?

I think the difference is in the jurisdiction. Some DA's won't go after a Mom protecting her kids (even after the fact like the case you mention). The point we must remember is... They can and the results can be extremely costly for us.

 

[Sigo]

That's why you need to pass a simple written test about deadly force laws in order to get a carry permit. I'd like to see them even require you to hit a pie plate at 5-7 yards. That's not me being a liberal constitution hater, that's me not wanting people who can't do the above tasks to have firearms in the public near me. I'm controversially with Ayoob on this one, sometimes you have to sacrifice a little bit in order to keep a right long into the future. *ducks and covers *

I wish everyone who carried trained with it and actually read the laws.Unfortunately, look at the number of times someone asks a question about GA Gun laws when they are easily found on line and seem easy to understand. Folks would rather do something because someone told them so. That'll hold up in court.

I used to think the same thing as you, but when you see what some jurisdictions deem as "simple" you see the potential for abuse (see history of literacy tests). The minimum training required by some jurisdictions is neither simple or affordable and thus denies the right to legal self defense because of economic standing. Simple mandated gun training becomes unaffordable (like healthcare) or non-existent (Extremely limited in DC).

With the exercise of any right, comes the responsibility in the exercise of that right. If you are going to carry, learn how to shoot and know the laws. If you fail at either task, be ready to pay the consequences. Personal responsibility walks hand in hand with liberty. Good comment, though.

 

[poopdaddy]

That would have made no difference at all legally. They can say anything they want, but if they do not appear to have both ability and opportunity, their intent means nothing.

i think anyone has the ability to kill anyone else.. even a 3 year old could stab you with a steak knife when your sleeping. so thats ability..
then we have opportunity, they know where you live,they have or have tried to rob you,they have shown criminal intent by trying to rob you, so a threat from an assailant is a credible one....
you always run a risk with a jury, but the criminal has showed themselves to be a criminal...

 

[Sigo]

....
you always run a risk with a jury...

Gamblin man? I'd rather try to stay within the law and increase my odds. I'm too pretty for prison...

 

[gh1950]

Another man ignorant of the law going to jail.

I wonder when was the last time he said something stupid, like: "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6." Looks like he got his wish.

We have a local who was quoted as saying that, he is now doing a life sentence.

Similar situation

Seldom are you going to be legally justified in shooting someone in the back.

 

[paliknight]

That's why you need to pass a simple written test about deadly force laws in order to get a carry permit. I'd like to see them even require you to hit a pie plate at 5-7 yards. That's not me being a liberal constitution hater, that's me not wanting people who can't do the above tasks to have firearms in the public near me. I'm controversially with Ayoob on this one, sometimes you have to sacrifice a little bit in order to keep a right long into the future. *ducks and covers *

I agree. I think all states should impose mandatory firearms training course requirements. Just as they do with driving. I have seen so many idiots unaware of how dangerous they are with a weapon simply because they're unaware. Muzzle violations, trigger violations, and more ****. Moreover, I've seen guys at the range with an AR-15 just looking at their rifle wondering how to use it. I help them out to avoid getting shot by accident while at the range, and to help prevent them shooting others. It's like buying a car then learning how to drive. It'll be a disaster.

 

[Bear44]

i think anyone has the ability to kill anyone else.. even a 3 year old could stab you with a steak knife when your sleeping. so thats ability..
then we have opportunity, they know where you live,they have or have tried to rob you,they have shown criminal intent by trying to rob you, so a threat from an assailant is a credible one....
you always run a risk with a jury, but the criminal has showed themselves to be a criminal...

Please see post #8.

The way you think about it has absolutely nothing to do with how the law is interpreted.

Reasonable cause to believe is a real thing. That same 3 year old with a steak knife could also have the intent (How would you know what they are thinking?) and opportunity (Could they get within knife range before you draw and get off a couple of shots?) So I guess the thing to do is just blow away any 3 year old that is anywhere near you, right? Not a reasonable conclusion. Or do you think it is?

 

[troutman]

I agree. I think all states should impose mandatory firearms training course requirements. Just as they do with driving. I have seen so many idiots unaware of how dangerous they are with a weapon simply because they're unaware. Muzzle violations, trigger violations, and more ****. Moreover, I've seen guys at the range with an AR-15 just looking at their rifle wondering how to use it. I help them out to avoid getting shot by accident while at the range, and to help prevent them shooting others. It's like buying a car then learning how to drive. It'll be a disaster.[/QUOT

I'm with you man. Except, let's make it a federal mandate that everyone needs to pay for a mandatory training course. Then, let's pass MORE gun laws that say we have to register every gun we have, on a federal level.. Then, lets regulate It that we can only buy 1 gun a month! Then,every round of ammo is registered with the buyers I'D number on it.

How about you read this and get back with me, http://constitutionus.com