For Your Consideration: Would You Shoot?

[Roadkill Bill]

Saying I'd shoot someone who is shooting at a police officer. Isn't setting me up to be convicted in civil court any more than the mere possession of a firearm would.
This second guessing of every decision you make or everything you do, because it could be used against you in civil court, makes the world mute and impotent.

 

[Defense Minister]

Strictly from what I can see in the video, I would not go on the offensive here. From the footage, I have no idea who he is shooting at or why. That said, I would definitely see a guy firing an AR in the street as a serious potential threat and take appropriate defensive action!

 

[Member 38805]

Saying I'd shoot someone who is shooting at a police officer. Isn't setting me up to be convicted in civil court any more than the mere possession of a firearm would.
This second guessing of every decision you make or everything you do, because it could be used against you in civil court, makes the world mute and impotent.

I didn't say that. But what you say in public, whether it's to acquaintances, or on an internet gun forum, can easily be turned against you in court of law by a good attorney.
I'm not talking about the state prosecutor bringing charges, although that could happen; I'm talking about a civil suit by the dead person's family. Civil suits have a lot more leeway as to what can be brought forth for evidence to prove their case, and win a settlement. So if you have a history of stating what you'd do, it can be made to appear you were anxious to get the chance to kill. That's not saying you ere, it's simply stating what a good lawyer can make it look like to a jury.
And mere possession of a firearm isn't the same as what you say. It's no different than keeping a fire extinguisher for a possible fire, or taking bear spray in the woods for a possible encounter. It doesn't mean you want a fire, or a bear attack. And carrying a gun doesn't mean you want to kill someone. It simply means you want to stop a threat and protect yourself or loved ones, not "shoot to kill".
And you're not making the world "mute and impotent" simply by not posting what you'd do on a public forum. That's just silly.

Here's some great advice everyone should watch and learn from. I really enjoy Ayoob's videos, and writings.

 

[Roadkill Bill]

I didn't say that. But what you say in public, whether it's to acquaintances, or on an internet gun forum, can easily be turned against you in court of law by a good attorney.
I'm not talking about the state prosecutor bringing charges, although that could happen; I'm talking about a civil suit by the dead person's family. Civil suits have a lot more leeway as to what can be brought forth for evidence to prove their case, and win a settlement. So if you have a history of stating what you'd do, it can be made to appear you were anxious to get the chance to kill. That's not saying you ere, it's simply stating what a good lawyer can make it look like to a jury.
And mere possession of a firearm isn't the same as what you say. It's no different than keeping a fire extinguisher for a possible fire, or taking bear spray in the woods for a possible encounter. It doesn't mean you want a fire, or a bear attack. And carrying a gun doesn't mean you want to kill someone. It simply means you want to stop a threat and protect yourself or loved ones, not "shoot to kill".
And you're not making the world "mute and impotent" simply by not posting what you'd do on a public forum. That's just silly.

Here's some great advice everyone should watch and learn from. I really enjoy Ayoob's videos, and writings.

You are suggesting that people not share their thoughts or opinions regarding a make believe scenario, on a firearms forum, because of the possibility that if you are involved in a use of force situation, a civil attorney might use your comments against you in a civil case.
My suggestion is that you provide a link to case law where someone actually used deadly force to defend a police officer and then that same person was successfully sued in civil court, after an attorney entered evidence of the civil defendant's online gun forum comments.
if You can't do that, playing the what if game, does nothing but discourage open dialogue or lawful action.

 

[Koda]

My suggestion is that you provide a link to case law where someone actually used deadly force to defend a police officer and then that same person was successfully sued in civil court, after an attorney entered evidence of the civil defendant's online gun forum comments.

the McMichaels were convicted of murder where the prosecutor did bring up their social media comments in the trial. Not exactly the same specific example that your asking but we do know any social media comments will be used in a case if it goes to trial. The point isnt if your lawfully defending a police officer, in itself nobody would prosecute for, but if you did wind up in court defending a police officer.... and yeah, in todays world that IS a possibility. People don't like the police these days.

Travis McMichael's pro-vigilantism Facebook posts come back to haunt him in Arbery murder trial cross-examination

This Thursday, prosecutor Linda Dunikoski cross examined the man who shot and killed 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery, and showed examples of past social media posts of his where he seemed to endorse vigilantism. Three white men are on trial for killing Arbery, a Black jogger, on February 23, 2020...

www.alternet.org

 

[Member 38805]

You are suggesting that people not share their thoughts or opinions regarding a make believe scenario, on a firearms forum, because of the possibility that if you are involved in a use of force situation, a civil attorney might use your comments against you in a civil case.
My suggestion is that you provide a link to case law where someone actually used deadly force to defend a police officer and then that same person was successfully sued in civil court, after an attorney entered evidence of the civil defendant's online gun forum comments.
if You can't do that, playing the what if game, does nothing but discourage open dialogue or lawful action.

That theory doesn't hold water. Simply because the technology of all the internet forums we have today, and the ability to dig up info on users, and who posted what is also not that old.
I'm not going to be one of those people whose in the situation because I didn't see or hear of a few others having internet posts used in a civil case against them. I don't care if nobody I know had it happen to them, or I've not heard of it yet. There's been plenty of people convicted for other things based on things they posted on the internet. So if it happened, or hasn't happened yet; it's only a matter of time until it will.
Go right ahead and say whatever you want. It's a free country, so have at it!