He was already in the car, how about this genius, instead of taking 5 seconds to get your magic gun...why not just shut & lock the door, start the car and slam it in reverse? Aaaand before someone says he was blocked in, nope, he could have backed out easy, he'd hit the car behind him yes, but he could have reversed out to screen left and out of the immediate area. Now he's surrounded by steel and glass in a running vehicle vs. stick-boy and not facing a murder charge.
Heck, he could have shut/locked the door and grabbed the gun and exited the passenger side. Point still, utilizing the car 1st (even if only to shut/lock door) is still the better and safer play.
I agree with the point made in the video. We should shoot to stop the threat, not to kill. It appears as though the attacker stopped after being hit the first time. It doesn't look as though the second shot was necessary, and the third definitely was not. The shooter should have been aware of the history between himself and the attacker and how pulling the trigger the second and third times would look.
Yes, but you should watch the video again as well, the attacker does nothing to stop him from closing the door after that initial swing. Slamming the door shut and locking it would have bought him time, heck he could have presented the gun from inside the car and potentially de-escalated since a man with a stick outside a locked car door is no longer an imminent deadly force threat.Watch the video again. The defender appears to be pulling the door closed when stick guy attacks. Which is why the door catches the stick, saving a blow to the head. Now the intent may have been to drive away and make distance. Or it could have been to buy time to get to the eventually used handgun. We don't know and it is hard to tell the actions and motives of both parties from a 60 second video. Besides, a buffoon with a stick is still assault with a deadly weapon, at least by US standards.
If the threat stops after the first shot the second shot is not legal.Anything worth shooting is worse shooting twice.
That's absolutely false. It is true that pistol calibers will not reliably deliver one shot stops but that is NOT the same thing at all as saying that there's no such thing as a one shot stop. There are certainly many instances where a single pistol shot ended a confrontation--sometimes without even scoring a hit.There is no such thing as a one stop shot...
Watch the video again. The defender appears to be pulling the door closed when stick guy attacks. Which is why the door catches the stick, saving a blow to the head. Now the intent may have been to drive away and make distance. Or it could have been to buy time to get to the eventually used handgun. We don't know and it is hard to tell the actions and motives of both parties from a 60 second video. Besides, a buffoon with a stick is still assault with a deadly weapon, at least by US standards.
Anything worth shooting is worse shooting twice. There is no such thing as a one stop shot, so a second is understandable and taught by firearms trainers the world over. The hot water starts at the third shot to the back of the skull. Tactically, that was probably unnecessary.
Utter poppycock. Where did you get such ideas?I disagree with the notion that the victim did something wrong. If the victim was a cop, he would not be in any legal trouble whatsoever because (as we've seen over & over) multiple shots are fired until the threat is gone. Frequently, police will continue firing even after the threat has fallen if he is still moving. This victim has the same right to continue firing until the threat is gone. We all know that someone who is shot once or twice but is still standing & still armed can be considered a threat.
The victim may be charged, but if his attorney is worth anything, he'll be acquitted.
True here, too.You have a limited right to remain silent because your silence, your failure to give answers to police questions, can in itself be incriminating.
Utter poppycock. Where did you get such ideas?
And what in the world do you mean by "until the treat is 'gone' "? Dead? Dead and removed from the scene?
These attackers were armed with firearms. They presented lethal threats until they were no longer able to fire their guns.Perhaps you have not watched videos of police shootings or followed court cases where police officers justify firing 10, 20, 30 or more shots. In some videos, you can see rounds hitting the ground around the suspect who has already fallen. They usually justify it by saying, "We are trained to continue firing until the threat (not "treat") is gone." And, "As long as the suspect is still moving, he is still a threat." At 1:25 of the video below, you'll count 9 rounds fired after the suspect falls.
These attackers were armed with firearms. They presented lethal threats until they were no longer able to fire their guns.
The Israeli case bears no similarity whatsoever.
Do you have some reason to believe that, had the attacked defenders other than sworn officers, the basis for justification would have differed?
No, it is not irrelevant when it comes to the assessment of ability and opportunity.A deadly weapon is a deadly weapon - gun, knife, club etc. Type of weapon is irrelevant (at least here)
True here, too.
Appreciate yours points, except the third shot was unquestionably unnecessary and unjustified deadly force. How the law is applied to Mr. Joe and civil servants is another issue.I disagree with the notion that the victim did something wrong. If the victim was a cop, he would not be in any legal trouble whatsoever because (as we've seen over & over) multiple shots are fired until the threat is gone. Frequently, police will continue firing even after the threat has fallen if he is still moving. This victim has the same right to continue firing until the threat is gone. We all know that someone who is shot once or twice but is still standing & still armed can be considered a threat.
The victim may be charged, but if his attorney is worth anything, he'll be acquitted.
No, it is not irrelevant when it comes to the assessment of ability and opportunity.
For example, a man with a knife poses an imminent threat when he is within a fairly close range and can move. A man with a knife in a fenced corral some distance away does not.
In the examples at hand, a man with a firearm poses an imminent threat as long as he can pull the trigger. A man with a club who cannot wield the club cannot pose an imminent threat.
Yes, but you should watch the video again as well, the attacker does nothing to stop him from closing the door after that initial swing. Slamming the door shut and locking it would have bought him time, heck he could have presented the gun from inside the car and potentially de-escalated since a man with a stick outside a locked car door is no longer an imminent deadly force threat.
That's absolutely false. It is true that pistol calibers will not reliably deliver one shot stops but that is NOT the same thing at all as saying that there's no such thing as a one shot stop. There are certainly many instances where a single pistol shot ended a confrontation--sometimes without even scoring a hit.
I disagree with the notion that the victim did something wrong. If the victim was a cop, he would not be in any legal trouble whatsoever because (as we've seen over & over) multiple shots are fired until the threat is gone. Frequently, police will continue firing even after the threat has fallen if he is still moving. This victim has the same right to continue firing until the threat is gone. We all know that someone who is shot once or twice but is still standing & still armed can be considered a threat.
And what in the world do you mean by "until the threat is 'gone' "? Dead? Dead and removed from the scene?
At which point repeat shots would be justified.I've also seen videos of attacks where an aggressor with a knife actually fell after being shot, then got up & continued an attack - several times, requiring repeat shots: