My middle name is Typo.

Absolutely not. It appears you do not know the law. He used the minimum amount of force. he did not shoot several times, he did not shoot while the man was retreating. he followed the law in using force to protect himself.

Not at all, read the law.

Absolutely correct. The aggressor backed up only because he had been shot. Previous to that the video clearly shows an aggressive stance. He was going to do more. Shooting was justified.

Correct. You use the minimum amount of force to stop the threat. In this case, one shot did the trick. Had the aggressor kept coming, multiple shots would have been justified.

Minimal force = one shot!
Maybe for some, lawyers, etc.
To me and many others minimal.......MINIMAL.....force does not include an action that can result in death.......

We all know how the law/ legal system works......
Use
Abuse
Or hide behind

The letter of the law.

MINIMAL and death do not go in the same sentence.

Quoting a legal interpretation does not make it right.

I wonder how a lawyer would explain to a family member of the deceased how a LETHAL result, in this case the death of another person was the acceptable use of minimal response??

To each his own.

This thread is approaching "minimal" merry go round speed.....oh-oh!

Common sense and decency dictates that there is an inherent problem with a law that allows someone to wander around, constantly looking for a confrontation...just so they can pull their gun and shoot/kill someone. :ohdear:


While CC and open carry are a bit different, I think the general mentality are similar...and this sums it up pretty well.

http://i.pinimg.com/originals/bc/23/...80d43e00ef.jpg

:BigApplause:...:BigApplause:...:BigApplause:

I have to admit that I don't understand the viagra cartoon.

So to all those that think no one should not defend themselves, that its OK for a thug to beat the living daylights out of you, that you are willing to allow your family to be subjected to some one else's horror perpetrated against you. good luck with that approach. Just because some one has a CCW does not mean they are going out of their way to find a problem. As for me I will exercise my constitutional right to protect me and my family. if that means I have to pull a trigger on a gun, so be it.

I agree. Why carry a gun if you can't shoot someone who attacks you? I still don't understand the viagra cartoon. Is there supposed to be some humor there?

In that case a rock would be cheaper. It just amazes me how some one can defend a thug who gets shot and dies. As if nice words are going to make the evil go away. I had to face this type of a situation about two years ago. I thank God I had the pistol with me. I also thank God I did not have to pull the trigger. The pistol itself did the trick. That may be the only time in my life where the pistol sees the light of day in a confrontation. I pray it is because its not pleasant to know one more move and some gets shot. My wife used to always say to me "you really think you need that?" She does not say that any more.

My Bride went thru the same process. Hate to say it, but she worries the most at church and movies.

We live in a different world today. Nothing is sacred. Everything is fair game. You never know when evil will strike you just prepare the best you can.

The term is minimum LETHAL force. In other words, just enough force to kill someone but no more. It's possible that in some instances a person might survive minimal lethal force.

If a person is attacked and feels that their life is in jeopardy, they may shoot their attacker. If that stops the attack, then they must stop shooting. If the attacker is lying on the ground and the threat has obviously been stopped then the shooting must cease.

If in that example the shooter got up and shot the attacker while he was lying on the ground it would be considered excessive lethal force.