- The AGN App is ready! Search "Airgun Nation" in your App store. To compliment this new tech we've assigned the "Threads" Feed & "Dark" Mode. To revert back click HERE.
Moron With Replica
- Thread starter PA_AirHead
- Start date
Generally before the internet, what the village idiot did stayed in the village for the most part.Every town has a local idiot, or two, or three, etc…..
Upvote 0
Open carry is a right in much of the USA (supposed to be a right in the whole country but that's another discussion).
Walking around brandishing something and aiming it towards people, loaded or unloaded, fake or real, is an entirely different situation.
Upvote 0
Sometimes local laws trump federal laws and sometimes federal laws trump state laws. Know your local laws before you push the limit. In my state I can't legally shoot a person for breaking into my house unless they are committing a felony at the time. Breaking into my house is just a misdemeanor.
Upvote 0
A good (if there is such a thing) lawyer could argue that the last headshot was just molesting/damaging a corpse which is a crime but not a major one..
Upvote 0
You can't murder someone because they stole from people, even at gunpoint, and are now no longer threatening anybody and have moved on to escaping from the scene of the crime. If someone is "at gunpoint" and under active threat, then that threat should be neutralized. If the active threat to safety resolves, you can't just chase someone down the street or decide "they deserve to die" and take that into your own hands regardless.
That's called being judge, jury and executioner. Aka murder.
Use of deadly force is only justified when there is an active threat to someone's life. And that could mean breaking into a house with unknown but likely menacing intent where you are fearing for your life. But is it right to shoot them on the way out the door, after you've been robbed but they've only demonstrated an intent to steal something and leave "peacefully"? No. Just my opinion, and probably the law in most areas.
Of course none of this discussion has anything to do with airguns.
That's called being judge, jury and executioner. Aka murder.
Use of deadly force is only justified when there is an active threat to someone's life. And that could mean breaking into a house with unknown but likely menacing intent where you are fearing for your life. But is it right to shoot them on the way out the door, after you've been robbed but they've only demonstrated an intent to steal something and leave "peacefully"? No. Just my opinion, and probably the law in most areas.
Of course none of this discussion has anything to do with airguns.
Upvote 0
So basically you can only defend your life while a gun is pointed at you but once the gun is pointed at someone else then you are safe (BS). Seems like criminals have more rights than people just living their lives. Murder is a legal term that is meant to be negative, Homicide is the general term in taking a life such as Justifiable Homicide. My Blitz is my home defense weapon so a airgun could factor in. It all gets convoluted anyways. I've seen a guy get off from a Murder charge even though he killed the guy that threatened to kill him a day before. I've seen a guy get away from another murder charge because he was slashing a guy with a knife and not stabbing him, it seems that slashing is a defensive use of a knife.
Upvote 0
Read my post again. If the gun is pointed at anyone the threat should be neutralized. If the guy already committed the crime and on his way out the door and you shoot him the back, that's manslaughter. Anything besides calling the police is taking justice into your own hands. You may believe you are justified but there is a reason for police, prosecutors and courts.
Lives are always worth more than things. Even if that life just committed a crime. God will decide the matter. More people should learn Jiu-Jitsu. If you can submit someone until the cops come, that's the best possible outcome. From what I heard of the story that was referenced earlier -- the guy who was shot didn't have to be shot and could have been submitted just as easily. Or else just let the guy go and let the cops deal with it. Then you don't have blood on your hands as well as handcuffs.
Upvote 0
They can argue defense of 3rd party. Who knows what the menace with the gun is planning. He is a threat to society at that point and you were doing your civic duty. Thats how it used to be anyhow. Now, theyll probably charge the guy when they finally find him.
Upvote 0
I knew what you said and mean. The fact is that the guy wasn't out of the door. He could have turned around and started shooting. Facts are facts and assumptions don't matter. Another fact is that had there been a armed off duty cop in there then he would have dropped that guy the first chance he got even after the guy left the building. He might have skipped the final headshot though.
Upvote 0
I wasn't there as a witness and my knowledge of the story is passing and hearsay. If the guy really was still acting menacing in that moment, it may well have been a justified result to that behavior.
My statements were based on what I thought hearing the story, that the guy was already leaving. Nuance is important and I'm not privy to it in this particular case.
My statements were based on what I thought hearing the story, that the guy was already leaving. Nuance is important and I'm not privy to it in this particular case.
Upvote 0
People wonder why the armed citizen or cop uses deadly force, when they see a replica CO2. Good way to get shot or killed IMHO.
Upvote 0