• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Good guy win story

Good guy wins for now, but he shot perps as they were fleeing his property. Brass in the yard and entry wounds in perps' backs don't help the homeowner's case in court. Hope he has a sympathetic jury.
 
"prompting the homeowner to reach for his fully loaded AK-47 assault rifle and begin shooting in self-defense"

If this was Mass it would have read "prompting the homeowner to kindly ask that the perps don't shoot him while he goes to his basement to get his AK-47 out of his safe so that he may retreat and begin cowering in place while being robbed/beaten/shot/killed.......
 
Good guy wins for now, but he shot perps as they were fleeing his property. Brass in the yard and entry wounds in perps' backs don't help the homeowner's case in court. Hope he has a sympathetic jury.

If it was indeed a 'shootout', he's fine. He he was just shooting them as they ran, he might be in trouble.
 
"prompting the homeowner to reach for his fully loaded AK-47 assault rifle and begin shooting in self-defense"

If this was Mass it would have read "prompting the homeowner to kindly ask that the perps don't shoot him while he goes to his basement to get his AK-47 out of his safe so that he may retreat and begin cowering in place while being robbed/beaten/shot/killed.......
Not to mention he chased them out into the street still firing. Out retard AG would want him jailed for life.
 
Good guy wins for now, but he shot perps as they were fleeing his property. Brass in the yard and entry wounds in perps' backs don't help the homeowner's case in court. Hope he has a sympathetic jury.
This was in Texas. Different rules of engagement and different motivation on the part of the DA.
 
I very rarely watch local news but happened to flip over the other day and saw 2 stories about shootings in Houston. It's a shit hole down there.
 
This was in Texas. Different rules of engagement and different motivation on the part of the DA.
Oh hell, I agree. My wife was born in Corpus Christi. We went there on vacation a couple of years ago. We walked through a mall and right next to a kids arcade was a well-stocked gun shop with a full selection of firearms and accessories, including Class 3, that would make our liberal Massachusetts lawmakers stain their undies. God bless Texas!
 
If it was indeed a 'shootout', he's fine. He he was just shooting them as they ran, he might be in trouble.
I am not a lawyer, that’s for sure.

But if someone is shooting at me and when I return fire, that someone turns and runs, I’m going to keep shooting. Who’s to say they won’t turn right back around if I stop shooting. They may be just repositioning themselves to begin firing at me again.

My opinion is that once you’ve made your position clear, that you want to kill me, that I need to end the threat. Not a week later, that hour.

Not an attorney. And this may get me in trouble. But, if someone has announced their intention to kill me, then I have to kill them first, or die trying.

 
Last edited:
But if someone is shooting at me and when I return fire, that someone turns and runs, I’m going to keep shooting. Who’s to say they won’t turn right back around if I stop shooting. They may be just repositioning themselves to begin firing at me again.

My opinion is that once you’ve made your position clear, that you want to kill me, that I need to end the threat. Not a week later, that hour.

Not an attorney. And this may get me in trouble. But, if someone has announced their intention to kill me, then I have to kill them first, or die trying.



No offense, but for the sake of all that's Holy, have a lawyer present if that's your opinion. The current standard is a snapshot of time at each use of force. Every use of force has to be justified, whether it's a CSB, closed fist, or a bullet.
 
... if someone is shooting at me and when I return fire, that someone turns and runs, I’m going to keep shooting. Who’s to say they won’t turn right back around if I stop shooting
The jury that convicts you of murder because you shot someone in the back?
Or was that one of those "rhetorical questions" I hear so much about?


Coincidentally, today's Andrew Branca Law of Self Defense Blog posting
covers why shooting a fleeing felon in the back makes you easy to convict.


The posting will shelter-in-place behind a paywall
less than 24 hours after I post this NES reply.

The premise is that the rhetoric in a significant minority of
Armed Citizen news items praises conduct that will suffice to get you
jacked up for a few decades of felony imprisonment in at least 49,
and frequently 50, of these United States.

Counselor Branca's specific legal point is that
shooting a fleeing burglar in the back
lacks the element of an imminent threat to safety,
and so denies the shooter the safe harbor of a self-defense defense
from criminal charges.

In Texas, that may not turn out to be a problem in some circumstances.
But will probably ensure a maximally-expensive trial ending in a conviction
everywhere else.
 
Good guy wins for now, but he shot perps as they were fleeing his property. Brass in the yard and entry wounds in perps' backs don't help the homeowner's case in court. Hope he has a sympathetic jury.
This was in TX not MA.
 
Back
Top Bottom