Motorist grabs gun, kills car-jacker

[gunsmith]

well

How would that be anything else?

In certain areas that are gun free victim zones, like NY
a smart feller might have a throw away gun on him.
After he shoots the bad guy dead, he can claim that he took it off him....just sayin

 

[evan price]

Proper job, Mr. Starr. Proper job. I raise a pint to your quick thinking and wish you a speedy recovery from your injuries.

<Edited by EP to remove not-High-Road comment regarding graves & urination>

 

[strambo]

Logic follows that if I can take the gun away from you, you should be able to take the gun away from me. This ain't tennis, I don't want to see how many times we can go back and forth before one of us goes out of bounds.

+1 'zactly
If the "victim" was a lethal threat without the gun because he had the capability to take it and shoot the low-life...the low-life is still a lethal threat without the gun too until he is rendered non-functional.

Just need a good lawyer and expert testimony on your side. End up costing more than your car...

 

[KD5NRH]

But isn't carrying also an inconvenience? A kilo of stuff on your belt because of lowlife predators is an inconvenience to anyone I know who carries.

Nah; I don't even notice the weight of my 1911 in a good holster. I notice the bulgey bits thanks to the Hogue grips. So, I guess carrying isn't an inconvenience, so much as having a gun that's comfy to shoot is

 

[gunsmith]

I'm with ya

It's a pleasure to carry

 

[LAK]

Newton

Unfortunately, there is established case law for instances such as this. I recall one such case where a man pulled a knife out of his own stomach and killed his attacker with it only to be convicted of manslaughter later.

Technically, I'm afraid that motorist is guilty of a crime unless he can provide reasonable evidence of a second weapon or some type of continued threat.

Having taken control of the gun, he was no longer under immediate threat of death and was not therefore justified to shoot.

I know, I know, the scumbag deserved it, but the law doesn't see it that way.

I do not share "the scumbag deserved it". But it was certainly a justifiable shooting on the surface of facts given - regardless of some case histories.

My impression is this. That, fearing for his life, the defender in attempting to wrestle the gun from suspect received a serious gunshot wound. Easily qualifying as "deadly" within the spirit of the law under "deadly force". One that as well as being potentially fatal - yes, fatal - would likely induce a significant incapacitating effect.

Fearing further incapacitation through shock and blood loss - and death - defender took the first opportunity when during the struggle the gun was pointed at suspect, or wrested from suspect, and fired to ensure his own survival.

Good shoot, and a good example of mindset against the odds.

------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Sport45]

As online gamers would say, that criminal got PwNz0rD

How about a translation for some of us who aren't online gamers?

 

[Colt]

We also need the network television stations to start reporting on these defensive shootings.

Given today's media, this particular event would be spun: "You don't need to carry a gun to protect yourself. Just take away the mugger's gun and use it."

But I agree with your sentiment.

 

[foghornl]

that criminal got PwNz0rD

Essentially, that is gamer's slang for "Owned"...meaning that the Good Guy wins, Bad Guy bites the dust.

"all your base are ours"..same thing in the gamers world

 

[bclark1]

i think the media might not paint the prettiest picture, but reporting would be good. i'd still like to think that the vast majority of americans have at least some common sense, and when they see that good people are having tough times get tougher because they're being charged as criminals for protecting who and what they care about from real criminals, they'd make a stink.

 

[Deanimator]

I can't believe you really feel that way. I can see that we live in far different universes. What 'law' are you refering to? That is not logical, not practical, and I don't believe, true.

Barring other unstated factors, Ohio would simply say, "Carjacking is dangerous. You ought to avoid engaging in it. You could get shot."

The attacker had already used lethal force against the victim, seriously injuring him. Absent evidence that the criminal tried to surrender and was shot while trying to do so, it'd be a done deal here.

 

[Deanimator]

The real message here is to lock the car when going inside the store or to the cashier booth. Also look inside the back of the vehicle when re-entering.

And that would have made what difference in THIS case? The assailant had a gun. He USED it. They taught me in the Army that NOBODY can outrun a bullet. I've NEVER seen ANY proof to the contrary...

 

[learn2shoot]

Thoughts

A motorist wrestled a gun from a suspected carjacker ...

I can see the antis now... See if you have a gun it will just be taken away from you and used against you. This is doubly so if you (the GG) has a gun because the BG is better trained to take a gun away because they are good at their profession. (I have seen the "Good at their profession" stuff on other sites)

Also for the "appears to be justified..." comment, the quote was from an officer who would be foolish to speak in absolutes. Becasue if I know anything from watching too much TV it is that there is often a twist of some sort. But, in all seriousness, until an investigation there is no way for us on THR to know if this was a drug deal gone bad or something. I guy I know always claimed there is no reason why there should be two sides to the story, this GG could be lying. Unlikely, but possible. Hence- the "appears"

 

[orionengnr]

thought people only bought beef jerky at gun shows?

well, a gun was shown...