loose noose
Member
No way was he justified in shooting, after all the subjects had allready began leaving, and the threat was actually over. Pure stupidity, no matter how you look at it.
You shouldn't start a fistfight in the first place but if you do, are you saying you lay down your right to protect yourself from being killed?
You don't lose your right to defend your life even in a fist fight you start. Check the laws on this. Do some research.
Honestly I fail to see how the young driver and his passenger acted stupidly. Some guy comes to your car, starts pounding on you. You just going to sit there? Watch your friend get pounded on? Whether or not they "ran him off the road" is not proven, it is purely an allegation by the obviously aggressive initiator. Even so, let's say they "ran him off the road" - who hasn't missed someone in their blind spot?
The fact is, you can't make blanket statements about self defense laws. Each state is different.
I'm basing my opinion on Nevada law from a few years back.
NRS 200.120 “Justifiable homicide” defined; no duty to retreat under certain circumstances.
1. Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein.
2. A person is not required to retreat before using deadly force as provided in subsection 1 if the person:
(a) Is not the original aggressor;
(b) Has a right to be present at the location where deadly force is used; and
(c) Is not actively engaged in conduct in furtherance of criminal activity at the time deadly force is used.
[1911 C&P § 129; RL § 6394; NCL § 10076]—(NRS A 1983, 518; 2011, 265)
NRS 200.200 Killing in self-defense. If a person kills another in self-defense, it must appear that:
1. The danger was so urgent and pressing that, in order to save the person’s own life, or to prevent the person from receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary; and
2. The person killed was the assailant, or that the slayer had really, and in good faith, endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given.
[1911 C&P § 137; RL § 6402; NCL § 10084]
You don't lose your right to defend your life even in a fist fight you start. Check the laws on this. Do some research.
phillipduran said:You shouldn't start a fistfight in the first place but if you do, are you saying you lay down your right to protect yourself from being killed? The person who is in the wrong would be the one to first brings lethal force against the other without their life being in danger.
Philip, either they told you wrong, or you heard it wrong.
They could be wearing anything they like, that is irrelevant to the incident and to the content of their character. And they were filming because some obviously irate guy was rushing their vehicle. I'd film not because "something good" was about to happen, but quite possibly something bad - and I'd want to document the incident. I would absolutely have start filming were I a passenger. The video starts with the guy at their door. it's not like it starts at the moment of them "cutting him off" or who knows what happened.Considering the kids outward appearance they're presenting and the fact that they were already recording the incident expecting "something good" it wouldn't surprise me if they made a reckless pass that nearly did cause an accident.
That being said, as a motorcyclist that gets "missed" from time to time despite proper lane positioning, you simply thank God you weren't hit, maybe honk at them to know they F'd up (in case they actually didn't see you), and move on with your life. Following them and yelling at them isn't going to accomplish anything... some people are just reckless and truly don't care about anyone else.
Secondly, it seemed like the wife was looking at the gun like she didn't know how to use it. That in and of itself is a very dangerous situation since it could have easily been taken from her and used against them both.
Mr Turner deserves what he has coming in court, regardless of what happened before the camera got turned on.
They could be wearing anything they like, that is irrelevant to the incident and to the content of their character.
anybody who thinks the man was justified in firing in the manner he did, while no threat present as the kids were retreating, has no business owning or carrying a gun.
In my experience a large portion of reckless drivers do in fact dress like that.
In what segment of the population do you find the most reckless drivers?In my experience 3/4's of the male population under 25 dress like that. Lets not generalize, particularly when you're painting with such a broad brush.