Video comment was under for reference:

Video comment was under for reference:

At what point are you not allowed to defend yourself for fear of your rounds hitting something other than your target?

Seems to me that would preclude any and all self-defense situations that occur without your attacker being in front of a solid brick wall.

What are your thoughts, /k/?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >moral duty
      that's not a legal argument

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Firing without knowing your backdrop or without having a good backdrop isn't auto-magically illegal (or immoral), but knowing what's out there and doing your best to get a clear field of fire is a best practice.

        In an emergency, frick yeah, if some guy is dumping automatic AR fire into a crowd, absolutely I will risk hitting Little Timmy behind him with my 9mm if there's no other choice.

        But if I can move a couple steps to the left and clear Timmy, then yeah, why not?

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    "Allowed" to defend yourself? This is America you Jeet homosexual kys.
    All the comments are DARPA chat gpt bots or dying out boomers who still screech how they don't "need" assault weapons and 2nd is actually about hunting.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >**The Criminal Recklessness with a Deadly Weapon charge against the shooter was dismissed by the judge.

      Why'd you forget this part OP

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >why did you start a discussion about guns and self-defense on a board for discussing guns
      There are plenty of other threads for you to shit up if you don't like this one

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I have not been able to find a single citizen involved defensive shooting that caused an unintended person to get shot by the defender.
    cops do it all the time, but people are much better shots.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      > cops
      > but people
      > implying cops are not people

      I lol'd

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I know what I said.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    If its life or death situation I'm not pausing to evaluate my backstop. In this case, I would have just driven away/over them

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The bigger issue for the shooter is that he played a part in escalating the situation when he struck the blue sedan. Legally, this could open him up an attempted voluntary manslaughter charge. Situations where a person holds an actual but unreasonable belief that deadly force in self-defense is justified result in such a charge. And if you play a role in escalating the dispute, this is often how the situation is described legally.

    Assuming, however, that the shooting was unprovoked, it really becomes a question for the jury whether the shooter's actions were reasonable given the circumstances. In many jurisdictions, the attacker could be guilty of first-degree murder for any homicide that is a foreseeable result of attempting or committing a felony.

    Here, the shooter could very likely have charges brought against him because he escalated the situation by attempting a retaliatory cut-off, striking the attacker's car in the process. He then fired shots inside his vehicle when there was no immediate danger while an innocent third party was behind the attacker. A jury could very well find him reckless and attach liability.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >He then fired shots inside his vehicle when there was no immediate danger
      >no immediate danger
      they broke his window and were actively assaulting him.
      >duty to retreat
      is not the standard in that state and shouldn't be the standard anywhere imo

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I think he broke his window with the shooting not the punch but it's hard to tell from the video. Even if we can have reasonable disagreements about whether he was in immediate danger, his self-defense justification claim is very likely fatally weakened by the fact he struck the blue car which is also assault. He can't escalate the situation like that and then claim self-defense.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >youtube thread
    have a nice day

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    how much do you want to have killing an innocent bystander on your conscience for the rest of your life

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It would bother me, but it wouldn't be my fault if they were killed because I shot some guy who was trying to kill me and the bullet went through them. I wasn't aiming for the bystander and wouldn't have shot at all if the attacker hadn't forced me to.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        how much do you want to have killing an innocent bystander on your conscience for the rest of your life

        Some people are shitty, other's aren,t thats why we have laws.

        You absolutely shold not fire unless there was an immediate threat to life I.E. the assailant was pointi ng a weapon at YOU at that moment

        still you should have just hit the gas pedal.

        if he missed and the bullet hit someone you cared for how would you feel? The first point of shooting is knowing your backdrop, but also knowing when is appiorpriate to fire.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Lawgay here: the first question is whether the shooting was actually justified by self-defense. Based on the video, there's a strong argument that this was not a perfectly justified shooting. If that's the case, the shooter's liability could actually be heightened on the bystanders (e.g. voluntary manslaughter against the dude he meant to shoot, but 2nd degree murder for anyone in the vehicle that died).

    However, assuming a situation that was self-defense, jurisdictions are split as to whether the shooter is liable for third party injuries. In a minority of states, the self-defense claim will transfer as an absolute bar to any criminal liability relating to the shooting of third-party bystanders.
    The majority rule requires looking at the mental state of the person shooting in self-defense. If the shooter was negligent or reckless, then criminal liability could attach. Basically the jury is going to ask whether given all the circumstances the shooter knew or should have known pulling the trigger created an unacceptable risk of ham to others. This is going to be a highly fact-specific question that is ultimately a question for the jury. So if you think 6-12 people in your community selected at random would not have taken the shot, that's a good indication there could be liability.

    This blogpost is a pretty decent summation of the law: https://www.colorado-violent-assault-crimes-criminal-lawyer.com/understanding-the-fight-mutual-combat-and-colorado-self-defense-law/colorado-self-defense-law-when-innocent-third-parties-are-injured

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Wanna know how we know you aren't a lawyer?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I said something you don't like/disagree with even though it's an accurate statement of law.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It isn't, which is how we know you're a larper.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The MPC and Fowlin would disagree, but where exactly am I wrong?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *