Would this have been a justafiable situation?

[Larry Legend]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/09/teen_stabs_man.html

"A 56-year-old man who refused to give up his wallet was stabbed multiple times Monday night by a teenager during a struggle on a dark Cambridge street, Cambridge Police said.

The victim was in stable condition this afternoon. Police said the man was walking home about 11:30 p.m. in the Cambridgeport neighborhood when a teenager wielding a knife approached him at the corner of Brookline and Erie streets and demanded that he give up his wallet. The man refused and the two wrestled.

A 16-year-old boy was arrested at 1:44 a.m. today and charged with attempted armed robbery and assault with intent to murder."



If the man had been CCW, would the brandishing of the knife, the threat of robbery, and subsequent actions leading up the "wrestle" have been enough to justify shooting this little sh*t?




I'm voting for yes.

 

[Admin]

Deadly weapon present, shoot until there is no longer a threat.

 

[Lignum Vitea]

I think empty the mag and a re-load would be in order and justified.

 

[wolf223]

= one dead BG to me. i would have shot "to wound" in the leg and beat him into a coma





internet tuff guy post for September 2009 - don't take it seriously...

 

[Tiktock]

Who cares what actions led up to the wrestle. The kid threatened death while holding a deadly weapon during a robbery. *BANG* *BANG*...Repeat until threat no longer exists.

 

[EddieCoyle]

Justifiable or not, I'd rather the robber have holes in him than me. Worrying about the courts, etc comes much later.

 

[jobowker]

Deadly weapon present, shoot until there is no longer a threat.

I was trying to think of something really good to say here, but this pretty much sums it up perfectly.

 

[JonJ]

Would this have been a justafiable situation?

Why do you think it isn't or may not be?

 

[william_munny]

Justifiable or not, I'd rather the robber have holes in him than me. Worrying about the courts, etc comes much later.

+1 The kid presents a knife and a threat, your life is in danger.

 

[TonyDedo]

As soon as I see that knife...

 

[Larry Legend]

Why do you think it isn't or may not be?

Cause it happened in the Peoples Republic of Cambridge.

 

[appraiser]

respond to deadly force with deadly force.

You can't shoot someone holding a feather, there is that whole escalation of force thing, but you can respond with equal levels of deadly force to stop an attack or threat.

When in doubt, take being tried by 12 over being carried by 6

 

[RI_John]

If someone robbing you at knifepoint isn't a justifiable shoot, what WOULD be?

 

[KMaurer]

If you're in a situation and asking yourself whether or not it would be legal to use lethal force, the answer is almost certainly "No!" When it's a good shoot, you won't care less whether or not it is. If you've got the time to worry about being tried by 12, the risk of being carried by 6 must not be all that real and present.

Ken

 

[JonJ]

Cause it happened in the Peoples Republic of Cambridge.

It doesn't matter where it occurs. I strongly suggest that you contact GOAL and consider taking "The Art of Concealed Carry" seminar.

 

[center442]

BG tries to rob you
BG uses threat of death or injury
BG displays weapon to carry out threat

BG should be forcefully discouraged by whatever means possible.

If the BG survives he can work on turning his life around from his hospital bed. If BG doesn't survive it will give his relatives and friends an excellent opportunity to tell the world what a fine and generous individual he was.

 

[ShadeWPI]

I believe the OP's point isn't that he is unsure if this SHOULD be a justifiable shooting, rather that he's making a statement about the political situation in Cambridge that "A justifiable shooting is questionable"

New Hampshire law is called competing harms: It is legal to perform an illegal action to prevent a greater illegal action from occuring. If you see someone robbing your neighbor's house, you can actually break-in to stop the burglery because breaking and entering is a lessor crime compared to burglery.

Since using deadly force is an equal crime, there is a specific exception. The use of deadly force is justified when there is a "reasonable threat of imminent grieves bodily harm and or death." There is also a specific clause stating that there is no expectation of flight in your home, vehicle or property. (There is no specific clause stating that there IS an expectation of flight elsewhere)

So the measuring stick is, "Would a reasonable person in the same situation have a fear of grievious bodily harm or death"

16 year old with a knife demanding your wallet? Absolute.

 

[packingungal]

If I have made the choice to get the license and to carry - then the rest requires no thought.

 

[FiXXXer024]

= one dead BG to me. i would have shot "to wound" in the leg and beat him into a coma





internet tuff guy post for September 2009 - don't take it seriously...

Is it still shooting to wound if you aim for the femoral?

 

[Jose]

If you're in a situation and asking yourself whether or not it would be legal to use lethal force, the answer is almost certainly "No!"

With all due respect, Ken, I disagree.

Some people ask that question because they do not understand or have not been taught what elements need to be present for deadly force to be a lawful response to a threat. They may not think a situation calls for deadly force, or are not sure, when in fact it does. How many times have you heard the ignorant comment that the police shouldn't have shot the neighborhood saint because he was only running around with a knife? You and I know damned well that bullets are the only correct response to a threat made with edged or blunt impact weapons. But those not trained may not.

However, if one is to carry a firearm for self defense, one must have not only an iron-clad understanding of the law but also a set of triggers or "lines in the sand" that will elicit a response of deadly force if an agressor crosses them. One must review and rehearse that knowledge and those triggers often so that there will be no hesitation when the time comes to end a threat.

Steve, like many others have said, I could care less what any libtard city government or police department thinks. I follow statutory and case law that applies in my state WRT the use of deadly force. I also continually review and re-assess what situations will make me reach for such force in self defense.

Again, like many have said, one of my triggers is being shown a weapon in a threatening manner with intent to harm me and at a distance that makes the threat credible and immediate.

So in this case I would have smoked Junior without a second thought.

 

[theGringo]

I think a lot hinges on whether or not the assailant is "a good guy" who was "trying to turn his life around" and be "a good father to his newborn son". I'd go with whatever his poverty stricken mother, his girlfriend, social worker and parole officer say.

 

[ASHDUMP]

J.A.M Factor

Jeopardy. Ability. Means.

This is what I was taught. You have to process all three of these before you shoot someone. Is your life in Jeopardy? Does this person have the ability to kill you? Does this person have the means to commit the act?

In this case the victims life was in jeopardy, the criminal was not disabled or in a wheelchair (ability) and he had a knife (means).

Shoot the M effer.

 

[Dagnutz]

I was always taught never "shoot to wound". You fear for your life and responded with swift actions to remove the threat completely. A dead BG with a knife tells a different story then an alive BG with a case of "i asked this guy for a smoke and he shot me. Thats just my pocket knife. I've been violated!"
Learned that from the intro to CC class. shoot to kill. thats it.

= one dead BG to me. i would have shot "to wound" in the leg and beat him into a coma





internet tuff guy post for September 2009 - don't take it seriously...

 

[appraiser]

I was always taught never "shoot to wound". You fear for your life and responded with swift actions to remove the threat completely. A dead BG with a knife tells a different story then an alive BG with a case of "i asked this guy for a smoke and he shot me. Thats just my pocket knife. I've been violated!"
Learned that from the intro to CC class. shoot to kill. thats it.

If you are going to pull a gun out, you damn well better be prepared to pull the trigger AND KILL what you are shooting at.

You might not kill the target, but your intent is always to do so. To do otherwise is going to be your undoing.

 

[dagwag77]

From the way the facts are presented, the criminal manifested intent and means to inflict upon me/victim serious bodily injury. I'm not clear on when exactly the bad guy first had an interaction with the victim, and in what manner. The article says "approached him at the corner" did the vic not know of the imminent attack until he said "give me your wallet or you're getting knifed"? or was it more along the lines of "i'll kill you and take your wallet"? IMO those are two very different statements.

A life (yours or BG's) isn't worth a wallet. The article says the vic refused to give his wallet. Granted, I don't fault the victim, but he wouldn't have been ventilated if he complied. With being able to walk away from the situation goal #1, sounds like a wallet is worth not getting stabbed, or arrested.

I think a situation like this goes to mindset - be prepared, situational awareness, and avoid avoid avoid.

 

[Realtor MA]

If you are going to pull a gun out, you damn well better be prepared to pull the trigger AND KILL what you are shooting at.

You might not kill the target, but your intent is always to do so. To do otherwise is going to be your undoing.

No! Your intent is to neutralize the threat. Period!
It was stated earlier in this thread. 'Shoot until the threat is neutralized.'

edit: Shooting to kill is for hunting. Shooting to neutralize is for self defense.

 

[Jaxon]

depends on where you live, i guess. shoot a 16 year old kid with knife behind the iron curtain that is MA, and you might be looking at time depending on how the LEO's, media decided to paint it.

in a free state, show up naked with a tube of lube in your hand claiming you're going to assault me, and i'll probably not even be arrested after ventilating you.

(or we might just have a grunt grunt man party.)

Do you get those offers often?

 

[cevtv]

he wouldn't have been ventilated if he complied.

There is no way of knowing that...... It's very possible the BG would have stabbed him anyway.

 

[KMaurer]

With all due respect, Ken, I disagree.

If you're faced with what might or might not be a good shoot and you take the time to consider the legalities, there are two possibilities.

1. It really wouldn't be a good shoot, and my advice is correct;
2. It really would have been be a good shoot, but it's too late; you're dead because you took the time to mull over the legalities.

Ken

 

[law dawg]

If you are going to pull a gun out, you damn well better be prepared to pull the trigger AND KILL what you are shooting at.

You might not kill the target, but your intent is always to do so. To do otherwise is going to be your undoing.

This is wrong. Say this to a cop and you'll be whisked away to jail ricky-tick.

You should to stop the action that causes you to be in fear of your life or serious bodily injury. When that action stops, you have to stop. The life force of the actor has nothing to do with it. Their actions alone dictate your ability to shoot or not shoot.