Whats wrong with people?

Would you have been legal in shooting?

  • Yes

    Votes: 248 63.8%

  • No

    Votes: 16 4.1%

  • I do not know but I would have shot any way and let the law figure it out!

    Votes: 125 32.1%
  • Total voters
    389
Status
Not open for further replies.
Another Texan here that would have easily and justifiably snuffed this POS's candle. He would have been DRT. I will say of the people that happened along the trajedy, while their physical interventions at stopping the guy were ineffective, I do greatly admire and respect them for trying. A lot of people would have kept on driving. Good on them for that (and for obviously contacting LEO's).
 
I don't know and don't care what TN (or any other states) law says. If I come up on a scene like that I will run out of bullets and hand my wallet to anyone willing to go buy more bullets so I can shoot the SOB more.
 
I'm in California and after having to give up abused(cigarette burned, broken bones etc) 9yr old grandson to daughter who showed up at our door saying we had kidnapped him(after calling us telling us to pick him up a rest area where she left him) and the police let her take him. We have now not seen him in 7 years and don't even know where he is Yes I would have intervened to try to help this poor child. I would have emptied the chamber, then stomped this guy into hamburger. I would not have cared what was legal or not.
 
North Dakota, good to go since the victim would have been justified in using deadly force to protect himself.

Who voted "no," and what the heck does the law say where you live?
 
In Idaho the rules for using lethal force in the defense of others are the same as using it for yourself so it would be legal to shoot him.

I wouldn't be concerned with the law in this case.

Hopefully the people who were witness to this are getting some help.

I'm also wondering who voted no, perhaps someone who made the Switzerland comments.
 
In California, a person is justified in using deadly force to protect another person if that other person is justified in using deadly force. (That’s the law in most, if not all, states.)
Click to expand...

Legally speaking, jakemccoy is probably closest to the mark: If it would be self-defense for the victim, a third-party may use deadly force to protect the person in many states. Note: this may not be the case in your particular state, though. Just because you live in Texas or Alaska or Virginia or some other generally-sensible state doesn't mean that there's not a loophole that hasn't been closed which can come back to bite you.

IANAL: This is not legal advice

Also, remember that the topic here isn't whether you would or should intervene but whether your state's (or country's) law will back you up if you do.
 
Stomping on anyone, especially a child, endangers their life and I am justified in using deadly force to stop the threat to the child's life.

This is in MI.

As a father of a 20mo son, by principle I'd shoot the SOB regardless of the law. Anyone who stomps a child should be killed. Period.
 
The cop did the right thing, and the same thing I would have done. However after looking at my state laws (South Dakota)I see no provisions for protecting a stranger.
 
Based soley on the information provided, absolutely in AZ, justification, defense of a third person. If the scumbag had survived, and gone to prison, his life would have been short and violent anyway - cons have kids too.
 
crazed ss wrote:

As a Californian, I understand why people were unable to stop him. In this state, virtually the only people carrying guns are criminals and cops. That means if you see some bad stuff going down, and you step in, you're putting your life on the line with no means of defense except for your fists.
Click to expand...

This is really the key point. Even though you wouldn't be prosecuted for killing the guy, in many places the people don't have the MEANS to do so.

I haven't heard one reporter mention that an armed citizen could have stopped this madman.
 
That story disturbed me deeply.

What really is a shame is the first few people who arrived on scene were in a position to stop this guy from continuing the attack, but obviously the big factor was physical size, fighting ability, of the passing motorists. It sounds like he was able to simply push them away or threatened them with violence, and they couldn't take this guy on physically.

Clearly a CCW would could have be crucial here.

Such a story really discourages you about human nature. :(
 
Being a father of a child around the same age as the one in the op, I agree with everyone that said they would not care if it would be legal or not. I would have done ANYTHING to stop that guy if I was there.
 
Virginia: Defense of self or other from imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm. Good to shoot.
 
Assuming I was in my truck, I'd have knocked him in the head with a pipe wrench. Of course, then when the cops showed up thy might have blamed me for killing the attacker *and* the kid.
 
By the letter of the law in AZ, I'd say the officer may get charged. They would have a hard time finding a jury to convict him though. This is what they make tasers and big flashlights for.
 
90% sure would have been a legal shoot in Idaho. I answered "I don't know would have shot anyways" because I wouldn't have cared what the law was...I would have shot and let the law figure it out later.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

3
  • Locked
Legal advice for a shooting
Replies
7
Views
379
gunsmith
G
S
  • Locked
Crazy guy stabs people in NY - off-duty cop shoots him
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
4K
Justin
Justin
D
  • Locked
(TX) Store clerk killed after cooperating
Replies
9
Views
685
Devonai
Devonai
H
  • Locked
Knife Wielding Crazy Guy Stabs Dog Walker...
Replies
1
Views
333
hrgrisso
H
R
  • Locked
22-MO finds gun, kills self!
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Run&Shoot
R
Back
Top