I would suggest not framing any response in terms of “punishing” anyone. It is self defense not Law & Order!
2 Likes
I think the Vet. did the right thing, he could have shot this Idiot in the head!!!
Hi @Doyle8, Welcome to the Community…
Yes, he did what seemed for him to be correct… but shooting in the head would be the worst idea ever… and every responsible firearm owner should know that.
… but it’s only word. Definitely he did not punished the attacker.
What I meant some action generates reaction.
If the action was a bad behavior, the reaction was a punishment. We can call it - penalty or chastisement… I will call it punishment.
I am glad the veteran did not suffer criminal charges. However, the article doesn’t cover the civil case that could be brought against the vet. And the attacker will win that civil case because he pursued the attacker. All the chest thumping and testosterone will not help him in a civil case. And all that bluster does the USCCA no help at all. You need to go back and get trained.
Right. Let me get this straight. He went outside as innocent as driven snow to “inform” the man who just attacked him that the police had been called? No I don’t think so at all. He did not back away. He walked out of a safe area, opened a door, walked out close enough to engage the attacker in conversation. That’s called aggression. He became the aggressor. He’s damned lucky to get off of criminal charges. He won’t be so lucky in a civil trial.
I’m sad you seem to be unable to understand that.
!!!’WO!!!
I counted at least 8 new members posting for the first time.
Welcome to all of you!!!
2 Likes
Am I missing the whole article? I did my opinion based on the first post made by @USCCA .
And the only thing the Vet had done was this:
He then went outside and told his attacker that the police were on the way.
What’s called “aggression”? Stepping outside to inform somebody that Police was notified? Nope, it’s still not aggression.
Anyway… we all agreed already that the fact he stepped outside was not a wise decision. We are not machines, we can train a lot, but we never will be trained enough to restrain emotions.
1 Like
The Vet had every right to exit the Waffle house. Nothing indicated that he was pursuing the felon, perhaps he was leaving or checking on his car. Note that the felon went to his truck, appeared to get a gun, and than can back toward the vet. The felon then committed attempted murder by banging the vet’s head against the wall. Lethal force was justified in self-defense right there.
The vet asked the manager to call the police, but he had real knowledge if this was ever done or if the police would respond timely if at all.
I would have made sure I shot two rounds at center mass so that the felon could not grab his weapon and kill everyone in shooting distance.
Since the felon was injured in the course of committing a felony, he would be barred from recovery in a civil suit in my state.
2 Likes
I don’t think I would do anything differently, except my shots would have been center mass. My understanding of Alabama law is that if you feel your life is threatened or severe bodily injury is possible, you have the right to use lethal force to neutralize the attacker.
2 Likes
Not many read what you wrote:
1 Like
I once read that a veteran with PTSD is not able to have a concealed weapon. Am I correct ?
1 Like
Not that I know of. Not just for that because it has so much variation.
2 Likes
Well, PTSD is a mental illness. And what kind of questions about mental illness do you have to answer to get a firearms owner’s identification card or concealed carry license? I’m not one to prejudice someone with a mental illness. The question is if someone is a danger to others. Most people suffer from depression at some time in their lives. Are we to deny them their 2nd Amendment rights? I don’t think so. I want irresponsible people, like some who have commented here, denied the privilege to conceal carry a weapon because they are dangerous. The mentally ill don’t scare me at all. But a person who thinks he or she can punish me for some grievance does because they have a gun.
I think Tim Schmidt would know if a PTSD veteran can have a concealed carry permit. I’ll contact Tim tomorrow.
1 Like
Michael, I was not aware USCCA advocated diminishing the rights persons to legally use deadly force. Texas explicitly authorizes use of deadly force in such situations.
Texas allows use of deadly force to protect persons.
Texas allows use of deadly force to protect personal property;
Texas allows use of deadly force to protect ones own real property;
Texas allows use of deadly force to protect the real and personal property of third persons,.
The felon committed attempted murder by banging the vets head against the wall. Deadly force is explicitly authorized by statute for stop or prevent attempted murder.
Is is not very smart to wound a felon with a gun in an extremity. He can still use the gun to kill you and anyone else around. Dead felons don’t shot back.
2 Likes
LEO have PTSD and keep their jobs. Stop trying to place potential “what if’s” on people who’ve done nothing wrong but serve their country. PTSD sucks but it doesn’t and shouldn’t prevent you from exercising your rights under the 2A.
1 Like
I have nothing against Leo nor vets and really don’t understand you problem.
1 Like
I would not have gone outside telling the attacker that “the police were on thier way”. Would’ve noted description of the attacker, license plate etc. Got some witnesses and pressed charges.
1 Like
I was not in the shooters shoes but given a different local I feel he was very lucky not to get jail time.