testtest

Rule 4 isn’t only a suggestion!

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

ECS686

Professional
While this guy is not going to be so lucky in the presumed civil trial this is a good reminder just because you have a “legal” shot doesn’t mean you should!

People discount rule 4 issues and shouldn’t or they could be this guy!

www.theblaze.com

Concealed carrier who killed 2 with 1 shot at Detroit Lions fan tailgate acted in self-defense, won't be charged: Prosecutor | Blaze Media

Officials say the bullet exited the assailant's head, killing him, and then hit an innocent bystander in the head, and he also was killed.
www.theblaze.com www.theblaze.com
 
ECS686 said:
While this guy is not going to be so lucky in the presumed civil trial this is a good reminder just because you have a “legal” shot doesn’t mean you should!

People discount rule 4 issues and shouldn’t or they could be this guy!

www.theblaze.com

Concealed carrier who killed 2 with 1 shot at Detroit Lions fan tailgate acted in self-defense, won't be charged: Prosecutor | Blaze Media

Officials say the bullet exited the assailant's head, killing him, and then hit an innocent bystander in the head, and he also was killed.
www.theblaze.com www.theblaze.com
Click to expand...
He had a gun pulled on him.
No different than if the perp pulled a gun on a police officer.
Legal shoot and a civil trial will be a no bill .

You’re saying if a person pulled the gun on you, you wouldnt have ahot him if you were armed ? If you’re saying that, why are you carrying ???
 
ECS686 said:
While this guy is not going to be so lucky in the presumed civil trial this is a good reminder just because you have a “legal” shot doesn’t mean you should!

People discount rule 4 issues and shouldn’t or they could be this guy!

www.theblaze.com

Concealed carrier who killed 2 with 1 shot at Detroit Lions fan tailgate acted in self-defense, won't be charged: Prosecutor | Blaze Media

Officials say the bullet exited the assailant's head, killing him, and then hit an innocent bystander in the head, and he also was killed.
www.theblaze.com www.theblaze.com
Click to expand...
The defender shoots the aggressor in the head, which went through the aggressor and into an innocent bystander. Was the self defense shooter using FMJ?
 
I don’t think this is so cut-and-dry. I’ve taken training with guys who specialize in church defense and they would stress how if your shot did not hit the A box or bang in the head box you more than likely hit the person next to the perp or in the row behind. Same thing in a self defense situation in a mall or other crowded venue. You aren’t suddenly excused of liability for killing an innocent person.
 
SimonRL said:
I don’t think this is so cut-and-dry. I’ve taken training with guys who specialize in church defense and they would stress how if your shot did not hit the A box or bang in the head box you more than likely hit the person next to the perp or in the row behind. Same thing in a self defense situation in a mall or other crowded venue. You aren’t suddenly excused of liability for killing an innocent person.
Click to expand...
While there are many unknowns in this from the article so I don’t have specific comments in that. However generally head shots are hard to make as the perp unlike a failure to stop drill or when he is doing whatever that makes you say “I really need to shoot him” he is moving.

What they use to train in a crowd (not specifically head shots but could work there) is if possible take a squatting position and have an up angle shot so if passthrough happens it is “less” likely to hit an innocent. The issue is you have to be close proximity to do that and there are better ways if you are that close like grin and stick the muzzle in the clavicle going down then the whole torso absorbs the round. Again that’s if one is close enough.

Why Cognative decision making trainjng classes from time to time isn’t a bad idea!!!
 
Oaktree45 said:
I'm sure the family of the innocent bystander that was killed will at the very least filed a Civil Lawsuit.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about Michigan, but if it had happened in Missouri they wouldn't. They couldn't actually. Not in a justified SD shooting.

I'm surprised a Detroit prosecutor isn't filing charges though.

I really don't know the circumstances, but I would think it would have to be a somewhat extraordinary set of circumstances for me to take a head shot with other people around.
 
SimonRL said:
I don’t think this is so cut-and-dry. I’ve taken training with guys who specialize in church defense and they would stress how if your shot did not hit the A box or bang in the head box you more than likely hit the person next to the perp or in the row behind. Same thing in a self defense situation in a mall or other crowded venue. You aren’t suddenly excused of liability for killing an innocent person.
Click to expand...
He shot him in the head. 1 clean shot.
No miss. No errant rounds.
Defender hit his target “by the book”.

What if the perp shot the defender and then opened up on the rest of the crowd and killed many.
Folks would be pissed off the defender didnt pull his gun on the perp.

Just how they are when the cops dont go after an active shooter.
 
Bassbob said:
I'm not sure about Michigan, but if it had happened in Missouri they wouldn't. They couldn't actually. Not in a justified SD shooting.

I'm surprised a Detroit prosecutor isn't filing charges though.

I really don't know the circumstances, but I would think it would have to be a somewhat extraordinary set of circumstances for me to take a head shot with other people around.
Click to expand...
Indiana has a self defense immunity statute as well however I’m not sure it has any case law on an unintended victim. I forwarded the article to a prominent 2A attorney here to get his new. I will post his legal opinion on it as I am
Sure others might be curious too!
 
KillerFord1977 said:
He shot him in the head. 1 clean shot.
No miss. No errant rounds.
Defender hit his target “by the book”.

What if the perp shot the defender and then opened up on the rest of the crowd and killed many.
Folks would be pissed off the defender didnt pull his gun on the perp.

Just how they are when the cops dont go after an active shooter.
Click to expand...
Again, self defense does not give you carte blanche to do whatever you think is right. This guy didn’t take into consideration what was behind the target. Even he gets off on criminal charges, he’s not getting off of civil charges. If your daughter was the innocent victim you’d be singing a different song.
 
ECS686 said:
Indiana has a self defense immunity statute as well however I’m not sure it has any case law on an unintended victim. I forwarded the article to a prominent 2A attorney here to get his new. I will post his legal opinion on it as I am
Sure others might be curious too!
Click to expand...
In Mo. the language is plain. If the shooting is ruled justified you cannot be sued civily. In this instance the only hope they bystander would have even without a pre-emption law is to prove the defender was negligent. That's going to be pretty hard to do given the prosecutor's statements about why she didn't file any charges.
 
SimonRL said:
Again, self defense does not give you carte blanche to do whatever you think is right. This guy didn’t take into consideration what was behind the target. Even he gets off on criminal charges, he’s not getting off of civil charges. If your daughter was the innocent victim you’d be singing a different song.
Click to expand...
A gun was pulled on him. He was the response/victim not the threat.
You would have pulled the gun as well.

I would be upset, oh hell yeah, a family member passed. Doesnt mean you can sue and think it solves a lawful ruling.

Like it or not, this victim did nothing wrong.

Why own a gun if you wont defend yourself with a gun pulled on you.

The victim pulled off a perfect shot.
 
KillerFord1977 said:
A gun was pulled on him. He was the response/victim not the threat.
You would have pulled the gun as well.

I would be upset, oh hell yeah, a family member passed. Doesnt mean you can sue and think it solves a lawful ruling.

Like it or not, this victim did nothing wrong.

Why own a gun if you wont defend yourself with a gun pulled on you.

The victim pulled off a perfect shot.
Click to expand...
It would certainly have been different if he had missed the aggressor and hit an innocent bystander. It would be a hell of a feat to beat him in a civil trial.
 
KillerFord1977 said:
He shot him in the head. 1 clean shot.
No miss. No errant rounds.
Defender hit his target “by the book”.

What if the perp shot the defender and then opened up on the rest of the crowd and killed many.
Folks would be pissed off the defender didnt pull his gun on the perp.

Just how they are when the cops dont go after an active shooter.
Click to expand...
What ifs are pure speculation. What if that guy that looks like a thug was gonna rob people?

As far as hitting the target by the book not quite. Rule 4 I’d be aware of your target and what’s behind it so while he might have hit his target he didn’t do it by the book or nobody else would have been hit!

Again why Cognative training is imperative and can minimize incidents like these from going bad. And while we won’t find out these specifics how crowded was there time for the defender to move lateral for a better angled shot?, found he have simply escaped? Etc etc
 
ECS686 said:
What ifs are pure speculation. What if that guy that looks like a thug was gonna rob people?

As far as hitting the target by the book not quite. Rule 4 I’d be aware of your target and what’s behind it so while he might have hit his target he didn’t do it by the book or nobody else would have been hit!

Again why Cognative training is imperative and can minimize incidents like these from going bad. And while we won’t find out these specifics how crowded was there time for the defender to move lateral for a better angled shot?, found he have simply escaped? Etc etc
Click to expand...
No Speculation in the victim had a gun pulled on him and was threatened. Plain and simple

Clean shoot.

Rule #4.. extremely crowded space. You still have to take the shot.

Law enforcement would take the shot as well.

If any of you wouldn't take a shot with a gun at you, even in a crowded space, leave the gun home.

No one , not one person has said a complaint about the person who rang of rounds and killed a perp at 40 yards in a mall. With others around. Crowded space. Pure luck he didnt het anyone with the errant rounds . Everyone applauds him

This victim smokes an aggressor and folks cry foul. Super clean shot.
Massively unfortunate a bystander died. Sucks. Doesnt change the fact he is in the right
 
KillerFord1977 said:
A gun was pulled on him. He was the response/victim not the threat.
You would have pulled the gun as well.

I would be upset, oh hell yeah, a family member passed. Doesnt mean you can sue and think it solves a lawful ruling.

Like it or not, this victim did nothing wrong.

Why own a gun if you wont defend yourself with a gun pulled on you.

The victim pulled off a perfect shot.
Click to expand...
Dude, that was you that was with me when we were being trained to be aware of our shooting angles and where others are located wasn’t it! Why bother if it basically doesn’t matter who you kill as long as you are defending yourself? Any defensive handgun class worth its salt will warn you of the potential hazard of civil lawsuits for that exact reason. .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top