could the guy in the background of this picture use deadly force?

[Guest Jamie]

Just my opinion but if I could prevent it I wouldnt wait for someone to be shot before I decided to act. I think that it is a moral obligation to protect others if it is within your ability to do so. Its part of what comes along with living this lifestyle. And if you arent prepared to call this a lifestyle then perhaps you should rethink your decision to carry a firearm. I am in total agreement with "family comes first" and if I can get them out thats priority. And I wont go back after I do because that could be argued against me in court but I could continue to help by being an intel source to police when they show up. Besides he meets the deadly force triangle. He has opportunity, capability, and intent. I say drop him like a toilet seat.

There. You can have your soap box back. Lol

So it's a moral obligation, but only if it's not gonna get you in trouble with the law?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

I do love how morals are defined these days....

J.

[Guest Navygunner]

Its the world we live in bro. Its governed by laws and we have to make decisions based on that. It can be argued many different ways but it boils down to what can be more useful at that time. If the situation warrents deadly force at that moment then thats what you do, but if it doesnt you find your way out. If you get your family to safety and you go back in to shoot a guy instead of seeking safety yourself its no longer self defense its murder. This isnt die hard and im not bruce willis lol. I do believe its a moral obligation but it still has to fall within the confines of the law or we are selves are the bad guys.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[Guest Jamie]

Its the world we live in bro. Its governed by laws and we have to make decisions based on that. It can be argued many different ways but it boils down to what can be more useful at that time. If the situation warrents deadly force at that moment then thats what you do, but if it doesnt you find your way out. If you get your family to safety and you go back in to shoot a guy instead of seeking safety yourself its no longer self defense its murder. This isnt die hard and im not bruce willis lol. I do believe its a moral obligation but it still has to fall within the confines of the law or we are selves are the bad guys.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Sorry, but if it's truly a moral obligation, then legal ramifications wouldn't enter into the decision-making process.

Simply put, you'd get your family or friends out of harms way, then you would have to go back in and do what you could. You wouldn't have a choice.

J.

[Guest Navygunner]

I think I would be more inclined to agree with you in an active shooter scenario but I see where your coming from. I love these intelligent discussions ;-)

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[gnmwilliams]

Thise is not the money you are looking for....move along.

[Guest Jamie]

I think I would be more inclined to agree with you in an active shooter scenario but I see where your coming from. I love these intelligent discussions ;-)

In your first post it apparently didn't make any difference whether or not ol' Darth was actively shooting people... you said you'd cap him before he got the chance.

How does that change, simply because you took other people outside? Will the fellow be any more or less of a threat to the ones still inside, just because of your change of location?

The point I'm trying to make here is that you wouldn't be any more or less justified one way or the other. Hell, you leaving might piss him off enough that he decides to shoot a few people just so nobody else tries to get out. Would that mean that you were obligated to stay so nobody got hurt because of your actions?

Starting to see where this gets complicated real fast, and why I don't accept defending others as being my obligation?

J.

[Guest Navygunner]

Well I certainly agree this is a difficult situation with so many different ways to play out. I think it can be agreed upon that each situation will be different and each one of those can be handled in hundreds of different ways. Which is why guys like us hate having our decisions in the field questioned by the guy behind a desk I just hope our duscussion here with our oppossing ideas will inspire others to educate themselves with the deadly force laws and decide how far they are willing to go and how much they are willing to sacrafice.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[Trekbike]

Hate to disappoint you, but as I've said before, legal or not, I don't get involved in other people's fights. When I quit wearing a badge, I quit defending anybody other than me and mine.

Self defense or home defense... yeah, I'll debate. Defending other people, their property, or worse yet, their money? Forget it.

J.

What happened to, "I'm your huckleberry"?

Edited July 24, 2010 by Trekbike

[Guest Jamie]

What happened to, "I'm your huckleberry"?

Nothing about the statement "only me and mine" is inconsistent with that.

J.

[jay1313g]

If the bank would agree to pay the $50K for the attorney to argue it for me in court, I'd neutralize the threat immediately. Otherwise, I'd have to waid for the robber to do something a little more provoking than point a gun at the teller.

[DaveTN]

could the guy laying on the floor with his hands up use deadly force on this guy robbing the bank at gunpoint

Certainly. He could legally execute the armed robber. (Probably in all 50 States, although I don’t pretend to know that for sure.) Short of someone actually shooting at you that is as clear-cut as it gets.

Would I do it? Not unless I had some reason to think he was going to start shooting. I would be putting the teller and everyone in the bank in danger.

Tennessee allows you to kill prowlers; I don’t think they will get real upset over an armed robber.

Just kidding… don’t shoot the neighborhood kids; it won’t turn out good for you in most Counties.

[Guest milkman]

Could you shoot Darth?

I have no idea, I can see both sides.

Would I shoot Darth?

No, but if Darth fires one shot we would find out if the force was with him. The way I look at it Darth is very likely to take the money and run. I am in danger but no more danger than I would be crossing a busy street. I am in no position to defend a criminal action or a civil action after the shooting. I don't have the $50,000+ it would cost, and I do not want to put my life in the hands of a public defender. Make no mistake this will end in at least one if not two trials. This would be national news, many DA's would feel they had to bring charges.

[Guest Jamie]

Just kidding… don’t shoot the neighborhood kids; it won’t turn out good for you in most Counties.

Unless of course the neighborhood kids are robbing banks while wearing star wars costumes. Then ya need to plug the lil' stormtroopers.

J.

Edited July 24, 2010 by Jamie

[Guest Navygunner]

Unless of course the neighborhood kids are robbing banks while wearing star wars costumes. Then ya need to plug the lil' stormtroopers.

Roflmfao!! Lil' stormtroopers.. Thats f'ing funny

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk