When self defense stops being self-defense

[The Heretic]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/txzz26

Carolina, Puerto Rico

Cámara capta asesinato a plena luz del día en Carolina

Vea las impresionantes imágenes. Una cámara de seguridad de un establecimiento captó el momento en que un hombre fue baleado a plena luz del día en la avenida Sánchez Osorio, en la Urbanización Villa ...

www.noticel.com

Read More

 

[No_Regerts]

As a matter of principle, I'm ok with the whole thing. Legally, once the dude decided he'd over-extended himself and turned to run. That doesn't mean you give up on him. He may be creating space to draw and maneuver. But I'd quit shooting until I felt safe getting away or if he became a threat again.

 

[bradsteen]

I think its the several shots he fires into the dude after he's face down on the ground that a jury might have a problem with.

 

[Stomper]

As a matter of principle, I'm ok with the whole thing. Legally, once the dude decided he'd over-extended himself and turned to run. That doesn't mean you give up on him. He may be creating space to draw and maneuver. But I'd quit shooting until I felt safe getting away or if he became a threat again.

The event was so intense, it's preemptive self-defense.

-Johnny Cochran

 

[Jason999]

I see two idiots.

If you act like a piece of trash you just may get taken out like a piece of tradh.

 

[kmk1012]

The last several shots weren't needed but, in real time even that was super fast and easily was a mistake. Even a heavily trained person may have done the same thing. Avoidance is your best friend this day in age. I'd like to say I would never get out of the safety of my vehicle but that POS tried to trap him with his car. Dead dude got what he deserved, shooter went just a smidge too far.

 

[Xaevian]

:35 second video. Let the trial of public opinion begin...

 

[dangerranger60]

Its just 20 seconds from the time the guy swings the bat till the end of the video and the guy in the road is still moving. In PR that may still be self defense.
Unfortunately it will come down to who has or has friends with political pull! DR

 

[billdeserthills]

Like they say, don't piss off a guy with a gun

 

[308]

Probably didn't think he's be ded by mid day

 

[Provincial]

When reading this post, please consider that I am proposing a theory on how to describe self-defense in a way that would discourage violent confrontations. I believe that current "law" (which is based on case law) has twisted the concept of self-defense in a manner that encourages violent confrontations, and unreasonably increases the risk of violent confrontation to the general public. This case law is the result of "Monday-Morning-Quarterbacking" and often open attempts to undermine reasonable laws to get a desired result.

On a philosophic level, when the "aggressor" used his automobile in an attempt to trap the shooter, he started the aggressive interaction. He became the aggressor, regardless of any previous interaction. In a system based on reason, he would become responsible for any further escalation beyond that point, by himself or the other party. He didn't start to retreat until after he had swung the bat, which further established his status as the "aggressor." Once the shooter produced the firearm, he didn't turn away, and if he didn't have time to turn away, it was because he had closed the distance by his own actions.

The shooter exiting his vehicle was not an aggressive action. It is reasonable to expect the "victim" to position himself to better defend himself or create a path to flee the encounter.

If the first shot was taken while the shooter was within reach of the bat, it is reasonable self-defense. No exceptions or excuses.

Once the confrontation started, it is unreasonable to expect the participants to be thinking clearly or making reasonable judgements. The "aggressor" owns his actions and any resulting response. Any enforcement actions should have to take this into consideration. As an example, driving too fast for conditions makes the driver responsible for his actions.

If one of the participants is obviously unable or unwilling to continue the confrontation, they can retreat, but cannot expect the other participants to stop immediately, since it takes some seconds for a human to overcome the "fight or flight" mode programmed into our bodies. If the "victim" attempts to retreat, and the ''aggressor" continues to attack, it escalates the seriousness of the attack in the eye of the law.

During the disengagement part of the confrontation, the "aggressor" is still responsible for what happens, up until it becomes "unreasonable" to continue the confrontation.

I'll have to let people with more knowledge, experience, and philosophical training to determine just how to excuse actions taken during the disengagement part of the confrontation. In this case, the shooter pushed or exceeded reasonable limits, but circumstances may be a factor. It is unreasonable to sanction summary execution, but it is also unreasonable to expect immediate de-escalation.

 

[EHJ]

:35 second video. Let the trial of public opinion begin...

Sometimes I carry a tiny .32 acp.
It only shoots all 8 rounds at a time.

No matter what.

 

[Longwalkhome]

Did the batman die? Without the full story it's just speculation as to what the law does next. Shooter may have missed the last shots or just wounded batman some more.

 

[TTSX]

Meanwhile, everyone in the background is carrying on/not reacting like this is a normal daily occurrence. I'm pretty indifferent, myself.

 

[Jason999]

Probably didn't think he's be ded by mid day

No one ever does, makes them feel immortal and capable of doing anything to anyone.

 

[The Phamster]

Those last shots when the guy was on the ground was a bit excessive, but when you attack someone first, you get to deal with the consquences. If you are lucky, the defender might spare you. If you are unlucky, the defender will shoot until you are dead.

 

[Gunner3456]

I think the shooter just wants to be sure the bg is out of the fight.

Police are taught to triple tap for much the same reason. Considering mental reaction time, this looks almost continuous to me.

 

[CLT65]

I think you all might be assuming that the shooter is just some innocent, upstanding citizen defending himself. I don't have a clue who he is anymore than anyone, but consider the possibility that it's just two jerks with anger issues going off on each other. Or criminals, or even a gangland squabble.

Just throwing ideas out there, speculating. I know that I would be able to use lethal force to defend myself and my family if absolutely necessary, but I also know I would absolutely, positively never be able to walk up and shoot someone in the back of the head like that guy.

I watched the "Active Self Protection" episode on that video, and I have to agree with him. The dead guy started it, and that's on him, but the other guy, after legitimately defending himself, absolutely committed murder. It's hard for me to see any kind of justification for that.

 

[The Heretic]

Those last shots when the guy was on the ground was a bit excessive, but when you attack someone first, you get to deal with the consquences. If you are lucky, the defender might spare you. If you are unlucky, the defender will shoot until you are dead.

Depends on context.

If there are authorities/etc. to worry about, then yes. But if it was flat out WROL, then don't leave a threat like that alive - fact is, either way, I would have shot first as soon as he had a bat in his hand (I couldn't make out whether the shooter did/tried that or not).

 

[titsonritz]

Like they say, don't piss off a guy with a gun

They also say, "Don't a bring a bat to a gun fight."