Then I Dialed 911.

[M118LR]

So you kicked down my door. Then in order to protect my handicapped spouse I grabbed the Glock 21 beside my lazy boy and emptied it into you. Then in my panick I stabbed you a couple of times with my KaBar.

So now I've got to recall what phone is closest to the front door. Oops, I still have to retrieve my Reading glasses in order to dial 911 and report the incident.

Somewhere along the way you might have bleed out long before an armed response could arrive and call for an emergency response team.

Gosh it sucks to be Old. Hope the jury is lenient?

Perhaps there are softer targets?

What say Y'all?

 

[3manfan]

God forbid anything close to what you wrote ever comes to pass for you. I'm guessing you've never actually shot anyone, not as a civilian anyways. The aftermath is at a minimum, a legal nightmare that you want no part of, not unless you're a masochist.


The shooter in every use of deadly force case is looked at closely by the homicide investigatiors and/or prosecutor's office after the incident to see if there's anything for them to be concerned about regarding the shooter, as well as the decedent, to include their social media footprints. The shooter's posting history can play a direct role in deciding how closely they look at them while deciding whether they find that the incident was justified, or not. If anyone thinks that they won't discover their social media activities during that investigation, they should think again. Should you ever be unfortunate enough to be the shooter in a case, it's highly probable that they'll find your above post as well as everything else you've ever posted on every media platform that you've ever posted on & if there's anything about the case that gave them pause concerning your justification in using deadly force, your post & any like it could certainly come back to bite you in your keester.

Making light about using deadly force in the past certainly doesn't help your case in the future when trying to convince the investigating agency that your shooting was unavoidable & 100% on the up & up.

Whether who you shoot does or doesn't die, expect to be sued in civil court where your above post could doom you. In the jurisdictions where you might otherwise be free from civil liability as long as the shooting was deemed justified by the investigating agency, your post could possibly be argued in civil court to substantiate allegations that you were predisposed to shoot their client, then intentionally let him die or allow his injuries to become more severe, since you inferred in your post that you would do so by delaying obtaining him medical care.

Everyone has to be very careful what they put out to the world these days, even when joking, because it stays out there forever & could be used in the future to hang you.

 

[txramfan]

SSS

 

[Cholo]

How's your headache?

 

[xTopGun]

God forbid anything close to what you wrote ever comes to pass for you. I'm guessing you've never actually shot anyone, not as a civilian anyways. The aftermath is at a minimum, a legal nightmare that you want no part of, not unless you're a masochist.


The shooter in every use of deadly force case is looked at closely by the homicide investigatiors and/or prosecutor's office after the incident to see if there's anything for them to be concerned about regarding the shooter, as well as the decedent, to include their social media footprints. The shooter's posting history can play a direct role in deciding how closely they look at them while deciding whether they find that the incident was justified, or not. If anyone thinks that they won't discover their social media activities during that investigation, they should think again. Should you ever be unfortunate enough to be the shooter in a case, it's highly probable that they'll find your above post as well as everything else you've ever posted on every media platform that you've ever posted on & if there's anything about the case that gave them pause concerning your justification in using deadly force, your post & any like it could certainly come back to bite you in your keester.

Making light about using deadly force in the past certainly doesn't help your case in the future when trying to convince the investigating agency that your shooting was unavoidable & 100% on the up & up.

Whether who you shoot does or doesn't die, expect to be sued in civil court where your above post could doom you. In the jurisdictions where you might otherwise be free from civil liability as long as the shooting was deemed justified by the investigating agency, your post could possibly be argued in civil court to substantiate allegations that you were predisposed to shoot their client, then intentionally let him die or allow his injuries to become more severe, since you inferred in your post that you would do so by delaying obtaining him medical care.

Everyone has to be very careful what they put out to the world these days, even when joking, because it stays out there forever & could be used in the future to hang you.

hmmm, your post closely resembles the lectures I give to folks trying to obtain their permit. It basically informs them that regardless of how justified and legal their use of their firearm was that their legal fight is just beginning and will probably continue for several years.

 

[MaxMan]

In Florida? Pretty good laws about stand your ground. Some of the northern counties are more tolerant and defender friendly than some of the southern counties. Remember in Florida no criminal charges and you can't be sued civilly. What you have to be careful of is once the threat is done, you don't continue to shoot/stab as that will get you a murder charge. There was a case of a pharmacist who had been robbed in his store a few times. A robber came in and he shot him and the robber went down, he then went over a administered a fatal shot out of frustration, He was charged with murder,
But there is this danger
https://mynews13.com/fl/orlando/new...ooting-victim-of-home-invasion--officials-say

 

[Joe Chartreuse]

If you emptied a .45 into someone I am pretty sure time bleeding out would not be an issue. Also once you added blade damage the police would not only see that as excessive, but consider the possibility that it was not defense but a crime of anger or hatred. The amount of force used against different situations is taken into consideration as well.

 

[Jakeintexas]

God forbid anything close to what you wrote ever comes to pass for you. I'm guessing you've never actually shot anyone, not as a civilian anyways. The aftermath is at a minimum, a legal nightmare that you want no part of, not unless you're a masochist.


The shooter in every use of deadly force case is looked at closely by the homicide investigatiors and/or prosecutor's office after the incident to see if there's anything for them to be concerned about regarding the shooter, as well as the decedent, to include their social media footprints. The shooter's posting history can play a direct role in deciding how closely they look at them while deciding whether they find that the incident was justified, or not. If anyone thinks that they won't discover their social media activities during that investigation, they should think again. Should you ever be unfortunate enough to be the shooter in a case, it's highly probable that they'll find your above post as well as everything else you've ever posted on every media platform that you've ever posted on & if there's anything about the case that gave them pause concerning your justification in using deadly force, your post & any like it could certainly come back to bite you in your keester.

Making light about using deadly force in the past certainly doesn't help your case in the future when trying to convince the investigating agency that your shooting was unavoidable & 100% on the up & up.

Whether who you shoot does or doesn't die, expect to be sued in civil court where your above post could doom you. In the jurisdictions where you might otherwise be free from civil liability as long as the shooting was deemed justified by the investigating agency, your post could possibly be argued in civil court to substantiate allegations that you were predisposed to shoot their client, then intentionally let him die or allow his injuries to become more severe, since you inferred in your post that you would do so by delaying obtaining him medical care.

Everyone has to be very careful what they put out to the world these days, even when joking, because it stays out there forever & could be used in the future to hang you.

Well the good thing is if that were to come to pass, given the posting history an insanity plea might definitely be in the cards.

 

[GSP7]

funny how interneter forumers take everything so seriously

 

[Paul B]

Things for situations like this can be confusing regardless of the outcome.

Let's say someone has broken into my house and I've barricaded myself in the bedroom. I'm on the phone with 911 and I'm yelling at the perp to leave, that I'm on the phone with 911 and will shoot if you come into the room. Let'say comes on in anyway and I'm forced to shoot. Now the perp is down and bleedng out with what appears to be a sucking chest wound. If nothing is done he will die before cops and EMTs arrive. You're stuck with two choices. Let him bleed out or do first aid.

Now here is where the confusion comes in. M first instinct is to render ffirst aid. However, one of Massad Ayoob's videos say you should not do that for two reasons that I recall. One is the very real possibility the the perp is still potentially able to harm you. The second is if you shot the man, why are you now trying to save him? The prosecutor and jury may think that trying to help him after shooting him makes them think you should not have shot hm at all.

Then again, and this is my thought on the matter, if I did not try and save him then I killed him in cold blood and will treat the charges as such.

Like I said, it's confusing as hell.
PJ

 

[3manfan]

funny how interneter forumers take everything so seriously

Not me, I love to yuck it up!....but not when it comes to putting something on social media that could later be retrieved & misconstrued if ever put in front of a judge or jury, resulting in my criminal prosecution and/or civil trial.

 

[Jakeintexas]

Things for situations like this can be confusing regardless of the outcome.

Let's say someone has broken into my house and I've barricaded myself in the bedroom. I'm on the phone with 911 and I'm yelling at the perp to leave, that I'm on the phone with 911 and will shoot if you come into the room. Let'say comes on in anyway and I'm forced to shoot. Now the perp is down and bleedng out with what appears to be a sucking chest wound. If nothing is done he will die before cops and EMTs arrive. You're stuck with two choices. Let him bleed out or do first aid.

Now here is where the confusion comes in. M first instinct is to render ffirst aid. However, one of Massad Ayoob's videos say you should not do that for two reasons that I recall. One is the very real possibility the the perp is still potentially able to harm you. The second is if you shot the man, why are you now trying to save him? The prosecutor and jury may think that trying to help him after shooting him makes them think you should not have shot hm at all.

Then again, and this is my thought on the matter, if I did not try and save him then I killed him in cold blood and will treat the charges as such.

Like I said, it's confusing as hell.
PJ

For me it’s not that hard. Someone has presented me with a situation where I was forced to stop him using deadly force. I didn’t want or invite this in any way.

My priority is in stopping the threat. That might mean shooting him and clearing a weapon from his immediate reach.

While I might be trained in basic first aid I’m not an EMT and have no duty to try to save him. Just make the scene safe. He might still be a threat and require more force to stop regardless of his seeming condition. Needlessly placing myself at contact distance to me doesn’t tactically make sense.

I’ve also just been through an Adrenalin fueled tactical situation. The first priority is in taking care of myself and family. Not an intruder who required deadly force to stop. To me that’s easily justifiable morally or legally.

 

[xTopGun]

Things for situations like this can be confusing regardless of the outcome.

Let's say someone has broken into my house and I've barricaded myself in the bedroom. I'm on the phone with 911 and I'm yelling at the perp to leave, that I'm on the phone with 911 and will shoot if you come into the room. Let'say comes on in anyway and I'm forced to shoot. Now the perp is down and bleedng out with what appears to be a sucking chest wound. If nothing is done he will die before cops and EMTs arrive. You're stuck with two choices. Let him bleed out or do first aid.

Now here is where the confusion comes in. M first instinct is to render ffirst aid. However, one of Massad Ayoob's videos say you should not do that for two reasons that I recall. One is the very real possibility the the perp is still potentially able to harm you. The second is if you shot the man, why are you now trying to save him? The prosecutor and jury may think that trying to help him after shooting him makes them think you should not have shot hm at all.

Then again, and this is my thought on the matter, if I did not try and save him then I killed him in cold blood and will treat the charges as such.

Like I said, it's confusing as hell.
PJ

I once heard about a guy who was involved in a similar situation out in public. After being forced to shoot the perp he then knelled down and appeared to be applying chest compressions and alternately breathing into the guy's mouth, but the shooter's friend who was right next to them overheard the shooter whisper to the perp, "you're going to die you pos....."

 

[Josh Smith]

"
Sec. 2. (a) In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen's home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant. By reaffirming the long standing right of a citizen to protect his or her home against unlawful intrusion, however, the general assembly does not intend to diminish in any way the other robust self-defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed. Accordingly, the general assembly also finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime. The purpose of this section is to provide the citizens of this state with a lawful means of carrying out this policy. Provisions concerning civil immunity for the justified use of force as defined in this section are codified under IC 34-30-31 .

(b) As used in this section, "public servant" means a person described in IC 35-31.5-2-129 or IC 35-31.5-2-185 .

(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:

(1) is justified in using deadly force; and

(2) does not have a duty to retreat;

if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person, employer, or estate of a person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary. "

-----

Where I live, if I'm justified in using force, then I'm not required to render aid.

The only question I have is this: If I shoot the assailant and then stab him, has he ceased hostility by the time I stab him?? I better be able to tell the responding officers that he was still reaching for a gun, or something.

People, especially those who are methed up, can often absorb a surprising amount of lead.

Regards,

Josh

 

[M118LR]

If you emptied a .45 into someone I am pretty sure time bleeding out would not be an issue. Also once you added blade damage the police would not only see that as excessive, but consider the possibility that it was not defense but a crime of anger or hatred. The amount of force used against different situations is taken into consideration as well.

One of the most common things I hear about having an AR with 30 round mags is most every shot fired ends up as a clean miss. So hopefully at 20 feet I can at least score one hit out of 13? If the intruder is still standing at 20 feet I'm not going to start grappling without a knife. I'm way to Old for H-H without a blade. I might even require a sword?