Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr (Post 1568202)

I saw the guy that did the pushing back off once the guy was on the ground. Sometimes these things happen so fast that it's difficult to say exactly whether it was right or wrong.

It seemed to me that when the pusher began to back off, the guy on the ground should have held his fire.

Just because the police at the scene determined that this was a justified shooting it doesn't mean that criminal charges won't be pressed. A prosecutor may look at the video and have a different conclusion.

This is a tough one. It almost appears to me that the guy that did the shooting was looking to shoot someone. Based on the statements made by the store owner, he has caused problems before. It seems that he was looking for trouble.

The guy who pushed him was in the wrong to put his hands on him, but once he pushed him down, he seemed to back off. One an attacker is retreating, it seems to me that shooting is justified. I think a lot has to do with the timing and how fast things happened.

Those of us that carry have been trained that you shouldn't draw your gun unless you intend to shoot. A lot of people seem to think that means if you draw your gun, you have to shoot. The way I see it is that if you show your gun and the threat ends, you don't have a right to shoot.

Originally Posted by BobnBev (Post 1568209)

If the prosecutor decides NOT to file charges, and upholds the SYG law, then there will be no civil suit. That's in the law.

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr (Post 1568202)

I saw the guy that did the pushing back off once the guy was on the ground. Sometimes these things happen so fast that it's difficult to say exactly whether it was right or wrong.

It seemed to me that when the pusher began to back off, the guy on the ground should have held his fire.

Just because the police at the scene determined that this was a justified shooting it doesn't mean that criminal charges won't be pressed. A prosecutor may look at the video and have a different conclusion.

This is a tough one. It almost appears to me that the guy that did the shooting was looking to shoot someone. Based on the statements made by the store owner, he has caused problems before. It seems that he was looking for trouble.

The guy who pushed him was in the wrong to put his hands on him, but once he pushed him down, he seemed to back off. One an attacker is retreating, it seems to me that shooting is justified. I think a lot has to do with the timing and how fast things happened.

Those of us that carry have been trained that you shouldn't draw your gun unless you intend to shoot. A lot of people seem to think that means if you draw your gun, you have to shoot. The way I see it is that if you show your gun and the threat ends, you don't have a right to shoot.

Originally Posted by dewilson58 (Post 1568208)

"One an attacker is retreating, it seems to me that shooting is justified."

Is that what you meant to type??

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr (Post 1568256)

No, obviously a typographical error.

What I meant to type is, "Once an attacker is retreating, it seems to me that shooting is unjustified."

Thanks for pointing that out.

Originally Posted by billethkid (Post 1568144)

So one shot that killed the man is minimum deadly force???? Really?
There is no such thing as minimum deadly force when one chooses to shoot another person, center of mass.

The man he shot died of the gun shot!!!!!!!!!!!

Minimal ????? Surely there is jesting intended.....that most certainly has no humor!!

Originally Posted by CFrance (Post 1568146)

There's an oxymoron...

Originally Posted by Daddymac (Post 1566848)

Wow..
Blind you are!
The “pusher” Should Not Have “pushed”
SIMPLE!!

Originally Posted by Steve9930 (Post 1568382)

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.

Originally Posted by billethkid (Post 1568463)

Originally Posted by Steve9930 (Post 1568478)

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.

Originally Posted by retiredguy123 (Post 1568481)

I agree. Why carry a gun if you can't shoot someone who attacks you?

Originally Posted by Steve9930 (Post 1568482)

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.

Originally Posted by dewilson58 (Post 1568486)

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

Originally Posted by billethkid (Post 1568463)

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!

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr (Post 1568501)

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.

Originally Posted by Steve9930 (Post 1568523)

Very well said. I remember reading an article that in many cases a person will survive being shot. To many people watch two many movies where the person shot immediately falls to the ground and is incapacitated. The video of this shooting shows real life. The officers did a good job on the investigation and the shooter was lucky it was all caught on video.

Originally Posted by dewilson58 (Post 1568554)

In a lot of Police shootings, the officer almost empty their pistol, rapid fire until the perp is on the ground. Very difficult to fire once and see if that worked.