View Single Post
 
Old 03-28-2023, 11:01 AM
Bill14564 Bill14564 is offline
Sage
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: Village of Hillsborough
Posts: 6,927
Thanks: 2,124
Thanked 7,342 Times in 2,866 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 10 GI View Post
He had already demonstrated violent behavior by firing a gun outside the restaurant. He comes into the building angrily demanding to know who called the police and then reaches into his pants. What would any rational person think about his reaching into his pants? When you are on the floor bleeding out, after being shot with the gun he had in his pants, are you going to be thinking that you were the better person for not shooting first?

As I asked in a previous post, where is that gun? He was seen shooting one just moments earlier in the parking lot.
That is where the higher standard comes in, I don't want my life to depend on what some rational person thinks. If that rational person thinks wrong then an unarmed man may be laying on the floor bleeding out.

- A gun is pointed at me - self defense
- A gun is pointed at someone else - protecting society
- A gun is being carried in a way that makes it obvious that someone will be shot (think school or shopping mall) - protecting society
- A gun is seen in the hand of someone who is threatening me - self defense?
<<<< I would put the bar no lower than here >>>>
- Someone threatening me is reaching for a visible gun - self defense??
- Someone threatening me puts his hand in his pocket - ???
- Someone is acting in threatening manner and looks like a thug - ???

I believe there should be an actual, credible threat to someone's life before using deadly force. Not just the belief that he may have been reaching for a gun but actually seeing the gun. If you're going to shoot someone then you better be right - in this case the permit carrier was not right. He may not be criminally liable or charged but his rational thought was incorrect.

Did he have to shoot that quickly? <Complete speculation> According to reports, Hudson was reaching for his pocket. In the time it took him to do that, the shooter (permit carrier) was able to decide that he needed to act, reach to wherever his concealed weapon was, extract it, arm it, aim it, and fire. He either has a very quick reaction time or Hudson was more fumbling than grabbing for a gun. In either case it seems the shooter would have had time to pull the trigger AFTER actually seeing a gun. He had the draw on Hudson, Hudson was being slow, and when he would have been able to first see the gun it would have been pointed at Hudson's foot.
__________________
Why do people insist on making claims without looking them up first, do they really think no one will check? Proof by emphatic assertion rarely works.
Confirmation bias is real; I can find any number of articles that say so.


Victor, NY
Randallstown, MD
Yakima, WA
Stevensville, MD
Village of Hillsborough