I would have thought Texas, of all places, would have taken care of that a long time ago.
One would think that, but here we areā¦
1 Like
Once upon a time in an America now long gone this kind of violence was pretty much unheard of. But add that over the decades our once criminal justice system was strong. This kind of insanity didnāt happen because the death penalty was on the table and sentences were tough. Our southern neighbor state is # 1 in the nation for crime and lawyers rule while citizens die. Repeat offenders who got off because of a lawyerā¦Interesting aside for those who read the Bibleā¦there are 3 references to lawyers, all very uncomplimentary. Lawyers may be acceptable in some cases, but repeat murderers? No. These criminals didnāt give their victims a chance and they donāt deserve that chance.
2 Likes
Great article, but I canāt agree with the statement, āThroughout the incident, the passenger was positioned between the assailant and the defender ā a poor tactical setup.ā The threat appears to have occurred through the passenger side of the vehicle, so there was little choice on the part of the defender as to how to respond; if that meant that a poor available option on the part of the defender would have been better. So, how would you suggest a better defensive position under the situation as described?
2 Likes
What is the logic of waiting to see if an armed assailant is going to fire first before engaging? They already have the first advantage on you if they approached you with a weapon in hand and the second most critical advantage is if they fire first, which means you are probably dead (but at least you are in compliance with some stupid law).
2 Likes
Greetings & welcome to you both, @Jonathan226 & @Warland
Iām confused. The perp aims a gun at me point blank, no where to run or retreat and I cannot fire to eliminate the threat? If I have accesss to my firearm he is getting sent to his maker!
2 Likes
If USCCA, Is finding this to be possibly a questionable use of force regardless of state. Then I personally want to know. Someone comes up to my car and pulls a weapon, I donāt care if I get out do jumping jacks first then shoot. This assailant pulled a gun, if I have to wait to be shoot at first then USCCA is not the company I should be dealing with.
So I suggest USCCA explain their full stance on this.
2 Likes
We are USCCA. Welcome to the community and thanks for explaining your full stance on this.
As far as getting @USCCA ās to explain one would have to put the @ symbol in front of USCCA or click on their avatar and send a PM (personal message).
If you have been threatened with death or great bodily harm, it is legal to shoot first. There could be a trial to determine the facts, but it is my belief that it is legal no matter where you live.
1 Like
Hereās the problem with ācenter massā: there is nothing there that will cause an immediate physiological shutdown. You want to shoot into the top of the 9 or 8 ring of a standard target. Stop the pump or break the plumbing. (Draw an imaingary line between the nipples.) You can shoot the center of mass out of the target and all youāll find out is what the target had for lunch.
1 Like
In a stress situation, there is a tendency to over grip with the strong hand, so a right handed shooter tends to fire low and to the left on the first shot. Which may explain the wounded knee on the suspect. This is something law enforcement is trained to avoid, yet still occurs even in close shootings, most often with a miss on that first trigger pull.
I reside in ultra liberal California and even here I donāt think it would matter that the ā robbery appeared overā if the victim shooter feared for his/her life or the life of the robbery victim, the shooting would be justified. With that said, and knowing the crazy justifications by pro criminal district attorneys, who knows!
3 Likes
Good afternoon & welcome to the community, Carl!
3 Likes
Thank you. 
2 Likes