Yeah tmoore is the real deal.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If somebody is in your yard that you don't no and ask toleave and he or she does not and you fill threatened you have the right to pull weathef you have a permit or not but if he turns around and tries to leave you can not shot if he is facing you and you fill threatened you have the right to shot on defense
Name for me a situation in which you absolutely HAVE to kill someone, please.
so, if you caught a man high on bath salts and Meth beating and choking and raping your mother, I think you (1) want to kill him and (2) have to kill him to stop him and save your mother.
Right or wrong. I would have dropped him in the yard. Nobody is going to chase me into my home. Two in the chest, one in the head, call the morge because that ****ers dead.
So Bear44 would say this is a BAD shoot because the guy was not actually threatened ?
There are lots of comments in this thread that are incorrect. I've tried to stay out of it as this is what I cover in my classes & have done so for a living fulltime for the last 4 or 5 years but one statement keeps popping up that needs to be addressed.
When using potentially lethal force to STOP a threat the intent is to shoot to STOP the threat... not to KILL.
Just because you shoot them you don't have to "absolutely kill them" That's called murder.
That phrase is being thrown around too much on here by those whose emotions & passion for their opinion is carrying them away but lets get it right.
This is an accepted basic premise taught at every school by every well known Instructor & legal adviser from Mas Ayoob to Marty Hayes.
(sidenote) There are quite a few relatively "new" guys (such as "tmoore912") who are making comments that are well thought out & right on the money based on my 25+ years of study/ training & corroboration from D.A.'s & Judges... thanks guys for such good input... you just might make a difference.
So if the OP had shot the guy, do you believe it would have been justified?
What if the exact same thing had happened, but the OP was standing in his kitchen and the guy walked into his living room?
"Bear", there are millions of possible scenarios & "what-if's" & as you know no precise answer for every situation.
As "tmoore" posted it all comes down to the occasions that deadly force is justified, disparity of force, & the other criteria that has been mentioned on here that needs to be met to justify the use of deadly force.
As Marty Hayes puts it, (and I agree w/ him on this) in most states/ cities, whatever the case must meet the "reasonable man" doctrine.
I usually agree w/ you in a lot of your posts and its not that I totally disagree w/ you on some of the ones on this thread.
The one instance in particular that comes to mind is that if someone tells me that he's going to burn down my house & my family is in the house, IF I NEED to use deadly force to prevent that from happening most juries I BELIEVE in our area would agree.
The courts give us more latitude in using deadly force to protect our homes than common property like lawnmowers, four wheelers, jewelry, etc. Although the laws on use of D.F. still apply.
You are very right in that the gun should not be employed unless all other options have been exhausted & that decision has to be made quickly.
People call all the time or relate instances during class & ask, "Should I have shot this person?"
My usual answer is, "If you have to ask, more than likely, no.... you shouldn't have".
If your or a loved ones life is REALLY in jeopardy.... you wouldn't normally have to ask, you would act.