I see no problem with what he did.  The bad guy was in the process of drowning defenseless babies. No time to warn.  Am evil act that must be stopped right now.

I can't see a prosecutor in any state going after this.  Most prosecutors are too busy to spend time "sending a message".

There is no requirement to offer a warning before using deadly force.

There is no law that says you can't shoot someone that deserves it (as in legally deserves it, not necessarily morally or ethically) in the back.

Even in NJ, this would be a good shoot.

The best explanation I've ever heard on justification of lethal force came from Jeff Cooper.  He said (paraphrasing):

"Lethal force is justified when someone is doing something so bad they have to be stopped right now.  What they are doing is so bad it doesn't matter if they live or die".

Drowning babies sounds like it fits this.

40 minutes ago, High Exposure said:

There is no requirement to offer a warning before using deadly force.

There is no law that says you can't shoot someone that deserves it (as in legally deserves it, not necessarily morally or ethically) in the back.

Even in NJ, this would be a good shoot.

Depends on the zeal of the prosecutor, I would think... or the political pressure they might be facing.  I've seen some people prosecuted in cases that should have never come to trial.  In fact, I was a juror on one such case. The accused was facing a slew of cascading charges including 2nd degree assault, possession of a deadly weapon, pos. of weapon for unlawful purpose, etc. etc. etc., "Cascading..." because the jury had the option to convict on the 3rd of 4th degree offenses if not 2nd degree. But the prosecutor simply had no case.  They were hoping to convict on "circumstantial evidence alone..."  I also think the prosecutor was counting on the jury being "shocked and angered by the crime" and wanting us to throw the book at the defendant. 

The prosecutor was wrong.  And he even knew he was in trouble from the start.  23 witnesses listed on the original Voir-dire form including NJSP Forensic analysts,etc...  Not one of them showed up for trial. Only the local PD detectives, evidence tech and the doctor that treated the victim. And the one witness to the brawl brought in by the prosecution to testify actually contradicted the prosecution's theory.  It got so bad for the prosecution that they added one additional charge to the indictment after the trial had begun for a "Simple assault" charge... a DPO, but with the "mutual consent" finding question.  We, the jury, after two days of deliberations, ended up acquitting the defendant on all the original charges, and convicting only on the one added charge, but with the finding that there was mutual consent... reducing it to a PDPO (30 days in jail).   We suspect the trial prosecutor in this case was under pressure from the prosecutor's office  to bring the case to trial for political reasons... the county DA being a resident of the town in which the crime occurred and facing political pressure from the town residents (read: Biker gang bangers) involved.

 

51 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

I see no problem with what he did.  The bad guy was in the process of drowning defenseless babies. No time to warn.  Am evil act that must be stopped right now.

I can't see a prosecutor in any state going after this.  Most prosecutors are too busy to spend time "sending a message".

Yet it seems, when it comes to gun crimes, they often do "find the time."  Just ask Shaneen Allen... and "victims" like her.

BTW, I also agree this was a righteous shoot.  With drowning infants, seconds don't even count... milliseconds count!

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, HBecwithFn7 said:

Depends on the zeal of the prosecutor, I would think... or the political pressure they might be facing.  I've seen some people prosecuted in cases that should have never come to trial.  In fact, I was a juror on one such case. The accused was facing a slew of cascading charges including 2nd degree assault, possession of a deadly weapon, pos. of weapon for unlawful purpose, etc. etc. etc., "Cascading..." because the jury had the option to convict on the 3rd of 4th degree offenses if not 2nd degree. But the prosecutor simply had no case.  They were hoping to convict on "circumstantial evidence alone..."  I also think the prosecutor was counting on the jury being "shocked and angered by the crime" and wanting us to throw the book at the defendant. 

The prosecutor was wrong.  And he even knew he was in trouble from the start.  23 witnesses listed on the original Voir-dire form including NJSP Forensic analysts,etc...  Not one of them showed up for trial. Only the local PD detectives, evidence tech and the doctor that treated the victim. And the one witness to the brawl brought in by the prosecution to testify actually contradicted the prosecution's theory.  It got so bad for the prosecution that they added one additional charge to the indictment after the trial had begun for a "Simple assault" charge... a DPO, but with the "mutual consent" finding question.  We, the jury, after two days of deliberations, ended up acquitting the defendant on all the original charges, and convicting only on the one added charge, but with the finding that there was mutual consent... reducing it to a PDPO (30 days in jail).   We suspect the trial prosecutor in this case was under pressure from the prosecutor's office  to bring the case to trial for political reasons... the county DA being a resident of the town in which the crime occurred and facing political pressure from the town residents (read: Biker gang bangers) involved.

 

Yet it seems, when it comes to gun crimes, they often do "find the time."  Just ask Shaneen Allen... and "victims" like her.

BTW, I also agree this was a righteous shoot.  With drowning infants, seconds don't even count... milliseconds count!

 

 

 

 

I really can't comment on the case where you were a juror.  I only have the information from your perspective.

Shandon Allen was illegally carrying a gun in NJ.  People get arrested for that everyday but you don't hear about them. IIRC she was going to AC to arrange a birthday party for one of her kids.  That doesn't sound right from the start.  The single mom with a carry permit in PA, she didn't know she couldn't carry in NJ, sounds like she didn't research the law and the 2A people jumped on publicizing it.

People complain about criminals getting off.  She committed a malum prohibitum crime.  The prosecutor would not be doing his job if he didn't pursue this case.  He would be violating his oath of office.  Nothing about sending a message.  No selective prosecution.   She got off anyway.

People bitch about a cop letting another cop off for a minor traffic violation.  You think people should be let off for illegally carrying a gun?

I think people should be able to carry anywhere.  Pretty much a believer in Constitutional Carry.  But that's not the law.  The law needs to be changed but we have to live with it if we want to stay out of trobule.

10 hours ago, GRIZ said:

People bitch about a cop letting another cop off for a minor traffic violation.  You think people should be let off for illegally carrying a gun?

I think people should be able to carry anywhere.  Pretty much a believer in Constitutional Carry.  But that's not the law.  The law needs to be changed but we have to live with it if we want to stay out of trobule.

My point was not whether or not the prosecutor should do their job.  I'm not saying the prosecutor should ignore the crime. I'm saying that part of "doing their job" is using the "discretion" they have in deciding if a crime has occurred and the appropriate response to it if one has occurred. They can "throw the book" at an accused (and, by doing so, "make an example" of them), they can cut a plea deal, or they can do things like offer "Pre Trial Intervention."   Or, they can choose not to prosecute at all, citing "insufficient evidence" for trial, among other things.

My point, above, is that when it comes to incidents involving guns, NJ prosecutors on average are, more than likely, to find that a crime has occurred, and respond with a full "throw the book/make an example" response (as was the case initially with Shaneen Allen), as opposed to cutting a deal or offering PTI, or choosing not to prosecute.  That, until (in Shaneen's case) it was exposed that the same prosecutor offered PTI to an NFL player that committed aggravated assault against his wife in an elevator. All of a sudden, PTI magically appeared "on the table"  for Ms. Allen.  And, in a final statement of how much that initial proposed punishment didn't fit the crime, Ms. Allen was pardoned by Gov. Christie.

Again, point being, prosecutors have a lot of discretion in re: deciding if a crime has occurred, whether or not to bring it to trial, and what punishment to seek.  And it just seems to me that when it comes to violations of NJ's gun and HD/SD laws, NJ prosecutors seem a lot more overzealous about finding that crimes have occurred, and bringing them to full trial / seeking maximum punishment, as compared with other crimes. This, in support of an "anti gun" political agenda.  

Yes, we do need to change laws and penalties we feel are too severe.  But that isn't happening. These laws and harsh penalties are kept on the books to allow prosecutors to keep that "discretion."  I'm just saying, NJ prosecutors seem to go "full force" on gun crimes/citizen HD/SD scenarios, than, perhaps, their counterparts in other states. 

 

 

Today's episode is titled "Why Criminals Need Gun Safety Training".

It appears prison does not provide this training to residents.

Well, they weren't satisfied the first time around. So they came back to double dip. But someone slammed the cookie jar shut.

Smokin'!!

"Gunman opens fire at Ohio judge, who takes out gun and fires back"

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gunman-opens-fire-ohio-judge-160500529.html

Three store robbers in LA are treated to a hail of gunfire. In the text, notice that one of the robbers was 'released to his parents'. With or without his pistol?

Some things you just can't get out of a box of Cracker Jack.

On 8/21/2017 at 3:38 PM, CMJeepster said:

"Gunman opens fire at Ohio judge, who takes out gun and fires back"

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gunman-opens-fire-ohio-judge-160500529.html

Talk about Judge, Jury & Executioner....LOL. Good for that judge to finish it...

This is an interesting case with a well-known person involved. (Not a NASCAR fan at all, but even I knew the name Richard Childress).

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/motorsports/nascar-team-owner-richard-childress-fires-shots-at-intruders-who-broke-into-his-home/ar-BBH60fi?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp 

2 questions come to mind:

- how unlucky or stupid do you have to be to break into the house of an NRA board member?  Whoopsy!

- how damn lucky is this NRA board member that he's still alive? (I ask that because they were apparently multiple armed intruders, but the article makes it sound like Childress shot in their "general direction" but not "at them". Color me confused! Doesn't that seem awfully unwise?

Nonetheless, the bad guys fled the scene, he and his wife are OK. A happy ending.

2 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Nonetheless, the bad guys fled the scene, he and his wife are OK. A happy ending.

After saving his family from those home Invaders, I bet he got more than just a happy ending.

Just now, Scorpio64 said:

After saving his family from those home Invaders, I bet he got more than just a happy ending.

In this Christmas Season, shouldn't you be nice...not naughty?

4 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

This is an interesting case with a well-known person involved. (Not a NASCAR fan at all, but even I knew the name Richard Childress).

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/motorsports/nascar-team-owner-richard-childress-fires-shots-at-intruders-who-broke-into-his-home/ar-BBH60fi?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp 

2 questions come to mind:

- how unlucky or stupid do you have to be to break into the house of an NRA board member?  Whoopsy!

- how damn lucky is this NRA board member that he's still alive? (I ask that because they were apparently multiple armed intruders, but the article makes it sound like Childress shot in their "general direction" but not "at them". Color me confused! Doesn't that seem awfully unwise?

Nonetheless, the bad guys fled the scene, he and his wife are OK. A happy ending.

if he wasn't famous, he'd have been arrested for "firing in their general direction", 'cause if he didn't have to shoot AT them, then he shouldn't have been shooting

The title of this story should be "Four Strikes And You're Out!".

In this case, since you missed me four times, I'll hit you twice and send the rest of the group scattering.

And check out the two babe accomplices. Meth heads?

1) Born is proof positive as to why some people should not be allowed to breed.

2) two hits in the chest with .38 and dude drove off? shit......good reason to keep larger caliber handy for home defense.

7 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

1) Born is proof positive as to why some people should not be allowed to breed.

2) two hits in the chest with .38 and dude drove off? shit......good reason to keep larger caliber handy for home defense.

Ball ammo perhaps.

On ‎2‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 4:32 PM, 45Doll said:

And check out the two babe accomplices. Meth heads?

Definitely.

Here's a mother and daughter taking on an armed robber in a liquor store hold up.

I don't think this is an example of how to defend one's self against an armed opponent. The result was alright, but as you watch the video you may gasp and ask "why'd they do that?". Our field of view is really narrow, so we have to imagine what was going on off screen. I don't think it was well planned or thought out. Notice especially the line of fire at some points.

This may show up in a tactical training class as the 'don't take this approach' video example. At the least it shows the importance of forethought and training if you intend to use a firearm for self-defense.

32 minutes ago, 45Doll said:

Here's a mother and daughter taking on an armed robber in a liquor store hold up.

I don't think this is an example of how to defend one's self against an armed opponent. The result was alright, but as you watch the video you may gasp and ask "why'd they do that?". Our field of view is really narrow, so we have to imagine what was going on off screen. I don't think it was well planned or thought out. Notice especially the line of fire at some points.

This may show up in a tactical training class as the 'don't take this approach' video example. At the least it shows the importance of forethought and training if you intend to use a firearm for self-defense.

I saw this last night on live Pd. Several lessons to be learned on what not to do.

The perp has confessed to 10 armed robberies according to live Pd 

46 minutes ago, 45Doll said:

Here's a mother and daughter taking on an armed robber in a liquor store hold up.

I don't think this is an example of how to defend one's self against an armed opponent. The result was alright, but as you watch the video you may gasp and ask "why'd they do that?". Our field of view is really narrow, so we have to imagine what was going on off screen. I don't think it was well planned or thought out. Notice especially the line of fire at some points.

This may show up in a tactical training class as the 'don't take this approach' video example. At the least it shows the importance of forethought and training if you intend to use a firearm for self-defense.

Even I (who has never taken defensive shooting training and knows exactly "diddlysquat" about it) can see a lot of things that I think they did wrong. The things that jumped out to me were:

• the mother let the killer get too close to her (close enough to grab the gun) 
• the daughter shot the intruder when the mother was right behind him (she could have shot her own mom!) 
• there were several additional times when it looked like the 2 ladies had their guns pointed at each other.

So, sure... I really hope they sign up for defensive firearm training!  THAT SAID, let's keep the blame where it should be... this piece of garbage/career criminal tried to steal from their business and put them in fear for their lives... and instead of making off with the cash, he ended up bleeding on the floor with 4 pieces of lead in him. All in all, despite the ladies' technical errors, still a pretty good ending if you ask me!  

Do not stop shooting until the threat has been neutralized.  Mom needed to follow this rule.

21 minutes ago, T Bill said:

Do not stop shooting until the threat has been neutralized.  Mom needed to follow this rule.

During the opening lecture in every one of Pat Rogers’ classes he used to give a pretty good talk on combat mindset and how many rounds are necessary to stop a threat. In the end he would say:

“Keep shooting until he changes shape or catches fire”

I think this is good advice.

21 minutes ago, High Exposure said:

During the opening lecture in every bone of Pat Rogers’ classes he used to give a pretty good talk on combat mindset and how many rounds are necessary to stop a threat. In the end he would say:

“Keep shooting until he changes shape or catches fire”

I think this is good advice.

Jeff Cooper said, "Anyone who deserves to be shot deserves to be shot more than once".  

You shoot to stop a threat.  You keep shooting until the threat stops.

Yup. Pat was a disciple of Jeff’s and a long time Gunsite instructor and director of training. 

While I have enjoyed reading the teachings of Ayob, Cooper, and Rodgers, Clint Smith's delivery also hits a home run.

 

So it's around midnight and four guys with handguns kick in the front door of your trailer home.

You are back in the bedroom. 

Here's what happens next.

"Homeowner shot a 14-year-old during burglary attempt. The 5 other teens with him were charged with murder"  https://news.yahoo.com/homeowner-shot-14-old-during-001623622.html

Gun collector's home is invaded. But he's ready (sort of). Two of three invaders don't live to tell about it.

I note that he posted pictures of his collection on social media.