My link

 

 

I never get sick of these. I would check these kids underwear because **** got real very quickly! Hahaa

Well they got what they deserve

Glad to hear no one was killed but they got what they deserved. Hopefully a lesson is learned.

they got what was coming to em and I hope he sues them for bodily injury

I'm surprised he didn't shoot the 3rd guy in the back. If they hit me in the head with a bat and I was still standing I most definitely would.

I'm surprised he didn't shoot the 3rd guy in the back. If they hit me in the head with a bat and I was still standing I most definitely would.

And you would be arrested and charged. You should learn the laws of defending yourself and your lobed ones before it's too late.

+1 for pops.

A creative attorney could argue that even if you did shoot the third one in the back, he could argue that all three shots were still only one "act," that you were unable to distinguish that his back was turned (adrenaline can really change your perspective and what you perceive in the heat of the moment)and you were trained or prepared to repel 3 attackers and didn't "reassess" the situation until after all three had one shot in them.

 

As an example, my Criminal Law professor successfully defended a man that put 3 magazines in an intruder (in NYC!!!). He argued that it was all one act, that the man was in such fear and had some training and that training was to not stop until the last magazine is empty. For him, that meant 3 magazines, 2 re-loads and one dead intruder.

 

See, creative lawyers aren't all bad!

I'm surprised he didn't shoot the 3rd guy in the back. If they hit me in the head with a bat and I was still standing I most definitely would.

 

Just out of curiousity why? He's not a threat considering hes running away.

Just out of curiousity why? He's not a threat considering hes running away.

Just because he's a douche bag for breaking in. He'll do it again when he gets out of jail in a couple months. In my book, anyone who tries to break in my house is a dead man. I'll sit in jail.

A creative attorney could argue that even if you did shoot the third one in the back, he could argue that all three shots were still only one "act," that you were unable to distinguish that his back was turned (adrenaline can really change your perspective and what you perceive in the heat of the moment)and you were trained or prepared to repel 3 attackers and didn't "reassess" the situation until after all three had one shot in them.

 

As an example, my Criminal Law professor successfully defended a man that put 3 magazines in an intruder (in NYC!!!). He argued that it was all one act, that the man was in such fear and had some training and that training was to not stop until the last magazine is empty. For him, that meant 3 magazines, 2 re-loads and one dead intruder.

 

See, creative lawyers aren't all bad!

 

You could claim that while you were engaging the first two aspiring rap artists, one round must have strayed and hit its mark.

 

The question to ask is, What would Bernie Goetz have done? While I agree that shooting the 3rd is a personal choice, he still is on the path at an early age to being a career criminal. Taking him out of the population sooner then later is only going to prevent future victims from his acts. Do you really think because he survived this incident he is going to change his ways? Incidents like this only help these young thugs to climb the command ranks of gangs much faster. Lucky if he does one or two years and jumps right back into action. Many next time he realizes that he should just use a gun instead of a bat instantly when someone opens the door. This isn't the last time this kid will be involved with violent crime and to stand before a judge.

Just out of curiousity why? He's not a threat considering hes running away.

 

How do you know he's not running to a car to get a gun or a rifle?

In my opinion you either shoot or you don't shoot at all.

Criminals don't think like you. These kids may be back at a later time again to kill the old man, or his family.

As far as I'm concerned, this story may not be over. Being from the Balkans, I've seen it all.

I had a friend who successfully defended himself from two muggers just to get hit with a metal bar in the head a few weeks later after they found where he lived. They waited for him and as he was coming around a corner of a building a metal bar appeared and hit him in the face. He was lucky to have survived.

And you would be arrested and charged. You should learn the laws of defending yourself and your lobed ones before it's too late.

 

Florida Castle Doctrine pretty explicitly states that regardless of the angle of their bodies to the victim, all of their lives were forfeit when they assaulted that old gent on his property. As long as the kid was shot in his back on this guy's lawn along with the other two, it wouldn't have been an issue.

His only goof was not going with his gut and still opening the door even though it would seem he clearly had a bad feeling about what/who was waiting for him behind it. But, I'll be the first to admit that's easy for me to say sitting here as someone who has never dealt with something like that. At the end of the day, he bravely protected himself in a pretty frightening situation and deserves credit for a job well done on the whole.

How do you know he's not running to a car to get a gun or a rifle?

In my opinion you either shoot or you don't shoot at all.

Criminals don't think like you. These kids may be back at a later time again to kill the old man, or his family.

As far as I'm concerned, this story may not be over. Being from the Balkans, I've seen it all.

I had a friend who successfully defended himself from two muggers just to get hit with a metal bar in the head a few weeks later after they found where he lived. They waited for him and as he was coming around a corner of a building a metal bar appeared and hit him in the face. He was lucky to have survived.

 

I don't know if hes going to his car to get a weapon nor do you know either. However every situation is different and I don't know everything on what happened. I understand what you're saying however I don't agree with shooting someone thats fleeing the scene. The elderly man was in his home to protect him if the guy in fact wanted to come back.

 

"criminals don't think like you"- I agree with your statement. There's a possibility if the roles were reversed the criminal would have shot someone in the back. But as a responsible gun owner in my opinion, we should exercise proper judgement.

 

I am very sorry to hear about your friend. It's never something that I like to hear but I am glad things with him worked out and he survived.

And you would be arrested and charged. You should learn the laws of defending yourself and your lobed ones before it's too late.

 

 

don't know about all that... castle doctrine and stuff.. FL is like a different country.. Joe Horn shot at least one guy in the back after ROBBING HIS NEIGHBOR.. notice.. not attack.. not his house.. ROBBING his neighbor.. shotgun.. to the back... guess what.. the law was on his side.. and he wasn't convicted of anything.. laws can vary greatly state to state.. most of these pro-2a states with things like castle doctrines protect people when using deadly force.. you should read the brochure I got with my FL CCW and when it told me it was ok to shoot at someone.. you would be pleasantly surprised..

Florida Castle Doctrine pretty explicitly states that regardless of the angle of their bodies to the victim, all of their lives were forfeit when they assaulted that old gent on his property. As long as the kid was shot in his back on this guy's lawn along with the other two, it wouldn't have been an issue.

Well that's just great for Florida. Unfortunately for the person I was replying to, we don't live in Florida. We live in New Jersey. In New Jersey, shooting a person in the back, REGARDLESS of what they are doing, will get you arrested, charged, and convicted of a serious crime. However, he said that he would shoot them in the back, which would in turn get him arrested, charged, and convicted. Therefore, he needs to learn about the laws concerning defending himself and his loved ones.

 

I don't care what they are doing, they are no longer a threat. "I thought they were going to get a gun from their car" is NOT by any means a proper defense in NJ. You can only use deadly force if they are an IMMEDIATE threat to your safety. Leaving to get a weapon is not an IMMEDIATE threat, no matter how close that weapon is. It's absolutely hilarious that you assclowns hand out negative rep because someone tries to educate you on your state laws

Good for the old man. I wonder what kind of gun and caliber he used. If it came down to protecting even my dog I would of shot them as well. Sadly with our state the third would of gotten away unless you use the Ron White method. Shoot'em in the leg. He will eventually turn around lol.

It's absolutely hilarious that you assclowns hand out negative rep because someone tries to educate you on your state laws

I don't think the negative marks is based on the content. It might be because of the delivery. Just a guess.

I don't think the negative marks is based on the content. It might be because of the delivery. Just a guess.

Informing somebody of the laws regarding defending their life and their loved ones, when they are obviously ignorant of those is wrong? Not in my book, nor should it be in general. I understand what you are saying, and I appreciate you pointing it out. But I don't think that it should by any means be taken negatively when someone tries to educate their peers on something EXTREMELY important.

Informing somebody of the laws regarding defending their life and their loved ones, when they are obviously ignorant of those is wrong? Not in my book, nor should it be in general. I understand what you are saying, and I appreciate you pointing it out. But I don't think that it should by any means be taken negatively when someone tries to educate their peers on something EXTREMELY important.

The problem we all run into is that it is all typed words instead of spoken words. Some people type the way they talk, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, informing or educating someone may be misconstrued as lecturing and berating someone for not knowing something. Some posts are harder to determine, others not so much.

 

Example:

Informing somebody of the laws regarding defending their life and their loved ones, when they are obviously ignorant of those is wrong?

As opposed to

Informing somebody of the laws regarding defending their life and their loved ones, when they don't know the laws is wrong?

It conveys the same message, yet it doesn't sound too harsh.

Hope you don't take it personally. It's just an observation.

Straight from dictionary.com:

 

Ignorant: lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact.

 

Again, the problem is that people take the word "ignorant" to mean "stupid", when it in fact means lacking the knowledge.....which exactly matches your example. If I wanted to call someone stupid, I would use the word stupid. However, ignorant has a different meaning....and I will use the word ignorant when it fits into the context of what I am saying. Don't get me wrong....I COMPLETELY understand what you are saying, but it's not my fault if someone doesn't understand the words that I am using.

 

I am not taking any of this personally, I appreciate friendly debates like this