If you dont care to watch it. There is an altercation between two males. One is sitting, the other, standing over him, pulls gun. Fistfight begins and the guy with a gun fails to retain it, and gets shot.
The other guy then loses it and apparently executes the agressor.
The legal aspect of shooting a man who is already down is clear. Maybe I am influenced by what I saw, but I cannot clearly process if initial shot is ok. I am thinking the a-hole is disarmed, and disparity of force is now on the other side. Is this “mutual combat” then? On the other hand, the man now disadvantaged a second ago showed unprovoked agression and intent to murder.
Opinions please.
Not getting the Reddit app just to watch, but from a legal standpoint, you can only shoot in self defense to stop the threat. Be ready to answer why you felt the need to make swiss cheese.
Seems the little guy grabbed the gun from him immediately and tripped the big guy to the floor. The fight seemed over- especially after the first shot. The next 8-9 bullets with the big guy down and immobile was an assassination! Guilty of murder in this country.
If someone pulls a firearm and points it at me, I believe I have a reasonable fear of imminent death and can fight back in self defense by any means necessary until the threat is stopped.
We talk about this in the hand to hand community a lot. Someone attackes me, I disarm them and use the weapon they brought to the fight against them. Are they “Stopped” when they loose control of their weapon or are they simply slightly less dangerous?
Nope, not stopped unless they immediately surrender and stop attacking.
In the few fights I have been in where I was attacked with a bat or club I was able to disarm them, and took at least one swing with it before they were actually stopped.
In the video in question, I’d say the first shot may not have been justified. Red shirt guy was down and disarmed, maybe if he was getting back up and charging the first shot would be more justified,… the mag dump to the back and head were definitely over the top
After the guy in the red shirt was knocked to the ground, looks like he was attempting to get back up when the other guy that disarmed the red shirt guy fired shot number one (self-defense? possibly) and as the red shirt guy started going down, threat should have ended right at that moment and not shoot anymore, the second shot and the rest thereafter were unjustifiable homicide. The slammer for sure!
It seems to me like the guy in the black shirt has some advanced hand to hand training because red shirt guy went over QUICK! It might have been a lucky shot. It also looks like alcohol may have been involved.
In my head, once red shirt was on the ground with no firearm, the LETHAL threat was over. True, adrenalin, heat of the moment, he pulled the gun first, yada, yada, yada…with all that I could forgive a single shot. Mag dump is excessive.
It took around 4 seconds for the little guy to take away the attackers gun, shoot him 7 or 8 times, possibly while turning into the new attacker. I can’t even say my first sentence in that amount of time! It is a scary thought to think that 4 seconds can go through so many changes and perhaps end two lives. Be careful, be smart, and be quick.
Too many things could happen in such a short period of time.
I play scenarios in my head a lot which I hope would prove helpful if, God forbid, I’m put in a situation like this particular case.
I’ve heard it said, “everyone has a plan until they’re punched in the mouth.”
I remember being in a fight and quickly getting the upper hand. However, when I saw I seriously hit the guy, I lowered my guard and allowed to be hit once so we’re even. Granted it’s not a life or death situation. What I learned about myself was I know when to stop.
And that’s why you should always wear ear pro to the minimart. This will be a very interesting trial, as will the impact on carry/defense going forward.