It's why you have to study criminal behavior and the criminal justice system, it's no different than any other type of study. If you study you will learn, if you don't study you won't learn. I get that most don't want to spend their spare time doing things that aren't fun or interesting so most don't study and never will prior to an incident and just hope for a positive outcome. It is unfortunate that most aquire their knowledge after the incident, when it's too late to learn how to not be injured, killed, sued into poverty or stay out of prison. Employing deadly force at the right time saves your life, employing deadly force at the wrong time destroys your life. It behooves the armed self defender to know which is which.
It's why you have to study criminal behavior and the criminal justice system, it's no different than any other type of study. If you study you will learn, if you don't study you won't learn. I get that most don't want to spend their spare time doing things that aren't fun or interesting so most don't study and never will prior to an incident and just hope for a positive outcome. It is unfortunate that most aquire their knowledge after the incident, when it's too late to learn how to not be injured, killed, sued into poverty or stay out of prison. Employing deadly force at the right time saves your life, employing deadly force at the wrong time destroys your life. It behooves the armed self defender to know which is which.
So many incorrect statements in this post. Let’s just start by being arrested and held while the police sort things out. You are wrong, especially in Oklahoma and other stand your ground states. Most good shoots do not result in any arrest. You are also immune to lawsuits from the bad guys families.
The 70% is a national stat. Oklahomas LEOS hit ratio Is reversed. It’s like comparing the guy in LA that has a gun he only shot once when he bought it 12 years ago to an okie that goes blasting once a month.
Shooting someone in justified self defense would suck. Laying down in the back room and waiting your turn to be shot as they go down the line would be worse.
For someone who is passively playing like you are smarter than everyone else, you sure are wrong about a lot. Seems like you are spouting anti gun/self defense rhetoric to me.
So how would have you responded to the incident in the video.
Remember the five elements required for justifiable self defense: innocence, imminence, proportionality, reasonableness and avoidance.
We can discard innocence and avoidence
In the eye's of the law, not your eye's but the eyes's of the law, (it's not really a win if you end up locked in a cage with worse people than you were attempting defend against) was imminence, proportionality and reasonableness present to justify a deadly force response.
What am I wrong about, educate me.
Being anti gun and anti self defense is pretty funny, let's talk about guns and self defense, I'll try to keep up with you.
I'll admit that my own point of view on this has some immediate differences to Ricco's, which obviously effects my attitude about it. I do believe that over-thinking a possible scenario is unhealthy for a defensive mindset, and a defensive mindset is what protects society from predators. Speaking of human predators...I DO have experience, and if you believe that you'll have time to psychoanalyze a violent criminal.... You've already watched too many videos.
Assuming ANYTHING other than the worst during a violent encounter is a huge mistake.
Assuming ANYTHING other than the worst during a violent encounter is a huge mistake.
It's mental masturbation to sit here and talk about how I would respond, as I would not be in a position to be completely unarmed if I owned a dispensary.
Look you want to get into coulda, shoulda, woulda, on a scenario where it fits your argument. You're not getting it. How do you know when someone is just there to rob you? or even then, how do you know they won't take an opportunity to assault your wife? Are you going to dig out some books and studies and show them how wrong they are?
Either way, I'm talking about your mentality. The notion that you can completely rely upon whatever intuition you believe you have, that you can tell when someone is just there to rob you, is ignorant, with regards to how the real world works anyways.
Well, first of all robbery by force or fear is considered a violent crime in the eyes of the law, so there's that.
And that is the point to this conversation.
In the video the victims showed nothing in the way of preparation. They didn't over-think it, they didn't think about it at all. The incident didn't turn violent until they made it violent and the criminals responded with more violence. The victims showed no indication of any self defense skills, they temporarily bought into the right makes might fallacy. Once the unarmed criminals had made their intentions clear the victims could have reasonably and proportionality responded with empty hand skills or OC and been legally justified. The right to protect property exists but not with deadly force.
"Assuming ANYTHING other than the worst during a violent encounter is a huge mistake"
The criminal dictates the level of violence, your response has to be proportional to be legal. Simply assuming the criminal will use deadly force is dangerous legally, your deadly force response to what may be a non deadly force attack may not be legally justified. If you initiate deadly force prior to the attack you could put yourself in legal jeopardy.
Similar threads
