6 Likes
Yes, but regardless of what the jury decides, itās ultimately their decision that determines whether a shooting was justified or homicide. And they get hours to make a decision that we only get seconds to make.
Nothing new here. Follow your own conscience, for sure. Just be aware that other people get to second-guess your conscience, and thereās a legal penalty if your conscience is wrong.
3 Likes
Iām with @Robert1246 on this one. I donāt shoot to take lives, but I could shoot to save lives.
Thatās what Alvin York said, anyway. He seems like a pretty good authority on shooting.
4 Likes
@leo23 shared an update to this story.
Did he cross the line - Good Guy With a Gun - USCCA Community (usconcealedcarry.com)
Man who killed armed robber in Houston ready to talk ā Bearing Arms
4 Likes
Yes but we all know it is the bullets
that kill not the weapon.
Edit: just so you know I am not a total moron I know we need a lethal weapon to stop a lethal threat.
2 Likes
Whatās most important as it pertains is, ānot to humanize a threat.ā
5 Likes
No, I cannot given that video and nothing else at all, prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
I canāt even prove and quantify that was real and not a skit with actors and actresses on a scene.
But itās a video, I watched it, and I stand firmly by what I have said given what the video shows, to the degree of certainly allowed by the video as the video is what we are discussing at this time.
If you come across evidence that contradicts any of my assertions or anything I may have inferred from the video, please update the thread as they become available
3 Likes
I think a good question is when does it not become a threat?
3 Likes
When the threat in context no longer poses a threat.
2 Likes
If youāll recall, this is what I stated:
And this statement was based on the .33 second clip that the Op posted at the top of this thread. In that video alone, being grainy as Iāve stated multiple times, it is not clear as to whether the perp was still in possession of the gun. From that vantage point or disadvantage it is not clear as to whether he still poses a threat. And my statement, again, was based solely on the video posted at the top.
However, I have since, had opportunity to view a much lengthier and clearer video of the incident where it is clearly seen that the gun was dislodged from the perp, and I can now agree that the shooting should have stopped, not when the perp went down, but when he was no longer in possession of that firearm. Because the perp at this point no longer had means. Further, it is clearly seen that the defender even retrieved the firearm, and therefore, no more shooting was necessary. And the defender now, will have to convince Judge and Jury of his reason for doing so. He needs a good Attorney, and that is perhaps why he left the scene, too!
3 Likes
Neither do I, but I know that using a firearm against a person or animal is potentially lethal. As a pacifist (was?), I never wanted to harm anyone. The idea of carrying a firearm to use against someone knowing it was lethal was something I never could do before. Someone claiming they donāt have the mindset to kill, but carries a firearm that can kill, to me is counterintuitive.
Mentally I am prepared for harming/killing a lethal threat because I know shooting an assailant can result in that personās death. Stating I mentally cannot kill does not work in that scenario. That does not in any way mean I want that person dead, just that using lethal force can result in that. How then, can one not have the mindset to kill?
3 Likes
Never thought you were, only how can one use a firearm without being mentally prepared for the possible lethal outcome? I didnāt carry previously for that reason - I never could imagine harming, let alone killing someone. It took a lot of introspection, thought and discussions with a relative that was a LEO, to get past that - be mentally prepared to harm/kill to defend self and family.
2 Likes
To me the intent is what is important and what keeps my conscience clear. Killing is a necessity in life. We cannot eat if we do not kill first. The intent is to kill to sustain life. If I canāt sustain life without killing all the better. I carry a gun to save lives but if someone has to die I would rather it not be the innocent.
5 Likes
It would be inhumane to eat food thatās still alive. 
6 Likes
In the video that @Craig_AR shared in the parallel topic, they explain that Texas law allows use of lethal force to stop an armed robbery. Until I heard that this afternoon, I thought the first shot in the back could be enough to press charges. That helped clarify the scenario to me.
2 Likes
That is why I pay the USCCA for representation
7 Likes
I would say heās not a threat whenever he is in the coroners body bag
3 Likes
Um, Iām not clear as to your post now, sorry. You added two fragments of replies/responses post my latter response. Thatās where Iām not clear.
2 Likes
Just sharing info I didnāt have yesterday. All of us here had a lot of discussion about shooting the robber in the back.
4 Likes