Interesting concealed carry case.
@SirWarriant @snejdarek @TheDivineInfidel
that is an interesting one indeed part of me thinks he was in the right to use his weapon to defend himself but then another part of me is thinking .
did he need to use it ? was it a life threatening situation ? or one that could of been ended with his own strength , fists etc .
if an officer shot someone in the same circumstances would he be deemed reasonable force or not ?
Personally I don’t think the situation warranted it, but I also didn’t experience it so I can’t say he wasn’t justified in feeling threatened enough to use lethal force.
Honestly I think if it was a cop in place of the black gentleman it would have probably ended the same way, whether or not it would be deemed reasonable force i think it wouldn’t have.
Police have more non-lethal defense training then the average citizen. An officer would have more means to resolve the situation with drawing a firearm.
When you get your concealed carry permit there is no extensive training on not using your gun.
Putin shot 8 goals! 18:6! Putin’s enemies have no chance!!! RUSSIA IS THE BESTEST!!!
1 Like
Gentlemen, you are failing to understand that this was ongoing attack of 2 attackers with one more person that was clearly with them and was highly probable to join in.
The second attacker was very much aware of the fact that a threat of use of deadly force for the purposes of self defense has already been made and yet decided to continue with the attack.
Only the fact that there are multiple attackers put stakes extremly high for the victim. Moreover, the victim clearly shot to stop not shot to kill, since he fired only one shot instead of emptying the gun into him. The fact that the attacker blead out is entirely his own fault.
In my eyes, this was clear as the light of a day. I might not be of the same opinion had the defender not shown the gun before the second phase of the attack and shot him “by surprise” immediately after drawing.
Not to mention that the attacker charged the victim with the clear intent of taking/thrusting the gun away from him. Once the attack is at phase “loose the gun or loose a bullet”, you let the bullet loose no matter what.
1 Like
Yeah except when our young collage kids beat their pros 
@snejdarek @McWonderBeast @TheDivineInfidel i think we all learned a valuable lesson from this. Had alcohol been banned those men would have never have gotten drunk and started a fight. Something seriously needs to be done about this. Also if Waffle House never existed that man wouldn’t have died. Its time to ban Waffle house too.
Please elaborate how did I demonstrate a failed understanding of the situation?
Even with all those factors I do not believe the situation required him to shoot the attacker, nor do I believe he was in the wrong for doing so.
Actually they clearly state in the video the attacker was shot three times (1:40).
My bad, I didn’t watch the entire video, my information was based on one of the first articles covering this when it happened.
What exactly was he supposed to do then in situation where he was attacked by 2 men out of group of 3 when one of them has charged with intent to thrust away his gun?
1 Like
shot him 3 times .
this is one of my problems with guns on the streets . people go out get drunk and start a fight someone pulls a gun and now instead of a punch up where both parties go home with a few cuts we now have someone shot 3 times .
now is he wrong for shooting …ermm no not really but was it the best approach no . that was never in a million years going further than a punch up . it was 2 v 3 2 sober men v 3 drunks . so personally i wouldnt of pulled the gun if i had it or not .
the way i see it is , threaten me with lethal force and i will come back at you with lethal force . come at me with fits and i will go at you with fists
not pull the gun in the first place . he was hit , he should hit back . no need to take the situation up 10 notches
2 (with high possibility that 3rd one would immediately join in) on 1, preceded by racist rant. How exactly you came to conclusion there was no serious threat is beyond me.
There was similar case in the Czech Republic. 4 Azerbaijanis on one Armenian. He stabbed one of them into leg in self defense, the guy bled out.
The first instance court argued that nothing would have happened to him to warrant lethal defense, the worst would be a couple of bruises. The Supreme Court made very clear that it was legitimate defense and basically said that the first instance court judge is an idiot (without actually saying he is idiot) for concluding that there was no real threat to the person attacked.
There have been too many cases where a single blow to head ends up in fall backwards, broken skull and death.
So in situation where a group of 3 racists proceed together and one of the becomes physical, he should have fought back with fists? What are you, ninja academy graduate?
Let’s say we would use your logic.
The 3 would ultimately get upper hand. He would be on floor and had to shoot anyways.
This way he gave them all the possibility to back the fuck down.
had his friend with him sitting at the bar
[quote=“snejdarek, post:3290, topic:21032”]
no serious threat is beyond me.
[/quote] no more than a punch up
[quote=“snejdarek, post:3291, topic:21032”]
So in situation where a group of 3 racists proceed together and one of the becomes physical, he should have fought back with fists? What are you, ninja academy graduate?
[/quote] no im someone that has been brought up with the attitude of hit me and i will hit you back harder not hit me and i will stab or shoot you thats cowardly and uncalled for .
[quote=“snejdarek, post:3291, topic:21032”]
The 3 would ultimately get upper hand. He would be on floor and had to shoot anyways.
This way he gave them all the possibility to back the fuck down.
[/quote] his friend was with him at the bar they were all big blokes . wouldnt of went any further than a punch up
Well if you are the kind of guy who decides to put his life in the belief that the guy who just started punching you in face is in fact a fair bloke who doesn’t mean to do you serious harm, then I can wish you all the best to your life, and I honestly hope you will only be meeting a good-hearted criminals.
1 Like
yes because legally speaking he is in his right to do so .
lets say he shot a killed the man . he later finds out the bloke has a family , kids a wife he was drunk and acting stupid .
id put my life on that guy who acted in self defence spending the rest of his life replaying that moment and think "what if i just shook his hand " "what if i just used my hands " so when you use your gun you need to be compelty sure that its the only option and you are in real danger , not danger of a black eye but danger of being killed other wise quite simply it will haunt you . and anyone that says it wouldnt is a damn right lier
i wouldnt say these men are criminals there drunks .
fuck me find me a bloke over 20 who has never been in a fight when drunk or started one when drunk
I agree with @TheDivineInfidel that flashing his gun was a needless display that escalated the situation.
He could have easily defended himself with his hands, there was not one instance in the video evidence shown that there was ever more then a 1 on 1 confrontation.
There was only three active participants in the altercation and the two attackers never acted at the same instance.
Once again I don’t think he was wrong I just believe it could have been handled with out anyone getting shot.
1 Like
So a man who assaults another man isn’t a criminal just because he was drunk. Is it okay for me to shoot someone because hey I’m not a real criminal I’m just drunk.
So by that logic alcohol is too dangerous for civilian hands and should be banned due to the number of fights because of it.
There is nothing easy about defending bent on harming you. Ive gotten ganged up on in fights before it it always ended with me getting the shit kicked out of me on the ground.
I don’t agree with the notion that a man has to armed. More people are killed each year by being beat to death than those scary ar-15s.
If you attack someone after learning they have a gun on them then you’re either the stupidest fucking person in the world or you really want to hurt the guy. I have no sympathy for this guy just like i have no sympathy for the guy who was shot playing the knock out game (he didn’t die in that case though).
Once again we see this attitude that being drunk makes it okay to assault people. Did the man who died have a family? Probably but I’m sure the defendant did too.
So pretty much that guy had several options. Take the beating (lets be honest he had already been punched full in the face so he was already at a disadvantage and would have lost.) Not to mention he was moving back wards which put him at another disadvantage. He was out numbered.
So he has to either trust this guy won’t kill or beat him half to death or take his life into his own hands and guarantee his survival.
This experience has no value to this discussion you say it yourself you were “ganged up on”, suggesting you were attacked by multiple people.
This man was attacked by two people separately. They may have been together and both assaulted him but they never acted simultaneously.
Did I ever suggest he needed to be armed? this argument is assuming and has zero relevance to what you quoted.