F**ked Around and found out....Sucker Punch Gone Sideways

[Batcat]

Too bad for him that it wasn't a .22. It would have just lodged in the lung and one of the passersby could have made him cough it up with a Heimlich Maneuver.

.22 rounds are more deadly than you think. They are not always immediately lethal but often they do considerable damage to the body as instead of entering and exiting they can bounce around the body.

Still, I would not carry a .22 LR pistol or revolver for self defense. I sometimes carry a snub nosed S&W Model 351PD 22 Magnum revolver concealed.

The Real Danger of A 22 Caliber Round - Legionary

Any gun can be dangerous if it’s used for murderous intent or handled by an untrained individual. In order to provide the highest level of safety for those around us,

legionary.com

***snip***

22 Caliber Bullets: Piercing Through And Causing Tissue Damage​

All bullet types have the potential to cause damage, but let’s look at 22 caliber bullets in more depth. They have an unseen ability that makes them particularly dangerous.


When a 22 caliber bullet is fired from projectile weapons, a large amount of kinetic energy is transferred straight into a target. This causes the body’s tissues to ripple from a shock wave of force. The bullet is designed to penetrate through the surface area, transfer the energy, and tunnel through as far as it can from the shooting yard’s distance. The end result is either to take out the target with lethal force or cause a ricochet effect because of the 22 bullet’s light weight.

***snip***

Do .22 Caliber Bullets Cause More Damage Than Larger Rounds? ​

In 2010, there was a study performed for a Master’s thesis in forensic ballistics. The thesis was on the cranial ballistic wounding found in gunshots to the head. What was mentioned in the thesis was how many times a .22LR could ricochet inside the human body.

A post mortem subject had 5 gunshots to the back of the head which the author was observing, and all the shots were in a contact range to have enough gas expansion to damage the cranial cavity. Three of the five 22LR bullets were recovered inside the cranium with no wounds exiting outside. When going over the C-T scan, a single lead bullet was found in the throat and the last was found inside the bladder. Both bullets are found around the head and below the body before the velocity ran out and lodged inside body tissue.

The author concluded that more people die from the result of 22LR gunshot wounds than any caliber.

 

[Batcat]

If he'd pulled the pistol immediately after being sucker punched he'd have been better off.

Very true. If someone sucker punched me I could easily argue I was afraid he would continue his attack so I was in fear for my life or health. And to be honest, I would be. The fact that I am a handicapped elderly citizen would also be a factor.

 

[Persuader]

Exactly. The victim of the sucker punch was no longer being attacked so the use of lethal force was no longer justified. He was no longer in fear of serious injury.

In many of our big bluer cities the prosecutor seems to favor the bad guys. If so, he will try to make an example of the sucker punched victim to stop bad guys from being shot.

You are mistating the law on self defense to begin with.....the law does not say you have to be under attack in order to use lethal force in self defense.....the law says you must be in fear of your life.

Now for all those who were not there and who had not been attacked in so vicious a manner that could have easily resulted in death as so many of such victims have suffered and yet---- they want to stand in judgement and quickly claim it was not justified....I say pray you are never placed in such a situation and the liklliehood of that happeneding is growing by leaps and bounds as violent crime is out of control.

I of course recognize the legal team that will defend this guy has their work cut out for them.....yet I believe a skilfull lawyer has a fighting chance to get this guy off due to the violence and injury he suffered....perhaps even brain damage.

Just depends on the jury....if the jury is composed of people who want real justice and will not kowtow to legal technacalities....I say there is a chance the guy will walk or at most serve a yr. or 2.

Again the Law is about justice.....about serving justice....not about allowing injustice aka using the law to deny justice.

The simple fact is that anyone who will sneak up behind someone and hit them with enough force to kill them deserves to get shot.....now that is real justice.

I think the majority on here would agree with that.

 

[Batcat]

He was surrounded by posturing thugs that could easily be mistaken for minions of the Puncher ( thus he had to get distance to draw safely ) and open option to egress ( doorway )

Hopefully the jury (if there is one) will practice jury nullification.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We don't know. The thing is, this sucker punch thing is getting out of hand.

Truth is, the guy who shot him is in serious, serious trouble.

He came "BACK" to shoot the guy. That is at a minimum, manslaughter. Could be second-degree murder.

Depending on state law first degree murder

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

He was surrounded by posturing thugs that could easily be mistaken for minions of the Puncher ( thus he had to get distance to draw safely ) and open option to egress ( doorway )

If he'd have pulled his pistola the other ones that might have been his buddy would have hauled ass even if they had guns of their own.
Of course they may run 20 feet and then pull their shit and fire back.
As it turned out it appeared that the other guys weren't in on it.

 

[Persuader]

Very true. If someone sucker punched me I could easily argue I was afraid he would continue his attack so I was in fear for my life or health. And to be honest, I would be. The fact that I am a handicapped elderly citizen would also be a factor.

We are seeing a lot of injustice being dealed out by stupid juries....being berated into folllowing legal technacalities conjured up by district attorneys obsessed with persecuting white people....they go on and on about what the law says and convince these dumb **** jurors they most vote to convict ....I say utter b.s. what juroers need to be concerned about is real justice and common sense.

Again....I do not know the race of the sucker puncher but if he is black he will have a record as long as your arm....you can bet on that.

Unfortunately today the defense is not allowed to talk about the past criminal history of a perp....that is considered prejudicial....what utter nonsense....that is a big reason that violent crime is so out of control.

 

[Seymour Flops]

We don't know. The thing is, this sucker punch thing is getting out of hand.

Truth is, the guy who shot him is in serious, serious trouble.

He came "BACK" to shoot the guy. That is at a minimum, manslaughter. Could be second-degree murder.

I don't want to meet the kind of people who could form a jury of twelve who would convict him.

It would have to be twelve white liberals, who never have to walk in a high-crime neighborhood, or ride public transportation.

 

[Persuader]

Depending on state law first degree murder

Oh you c

Depending on state law first degree murder

One could be charged with first degree murder in this case and may be...... but it is the jury who determines what is just and what is not just...what is right and what is wrong....I can say without equivocation any jury that will find this guy guilty of murder should be sent to an insane aslyum asap as such folks are a implicit danger to society.

 

[Persuader]

I don't want to meet the kind of people who could form a jury of twelve who would convict him.

It would have to be twelve white liberals, who never have to walk in a high-crime neighborhood, or ride public transportation.

Absolutely......laws are laws.....yet they require interpetation in order to see what fits....just because some district attorney wants to convict someone to keep the natives from getting stirred up to the point of burnings and looting does not mean the jury must go along with such nonsense....everyone needs to think for themselves....and any jury composed of competent lovers of justice will not vote to convict the shooter of murder.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Oh you c

One could be charged with first degree murder in this case and may be...... but it is the jury who determines what is just and what is not just...what is right and what is wrong....I can say without equivocation any jury that will find this guy guilty of murder should be sent to an insane aslyum asap as such folks are a implicit danger to society.

He leaves and comes back with intent to kill first degree murder.

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K9-1

 

[Batcat]

You are mistating the law on self defense to begin with.....the law does not say you have to be under attack in order to use lethal force in self defense.....the law says you must be in fear of your life.

Now for all those who were not there and who had not been attacked in so vicious a manner that could have easily resulted in death as so many of such victims have suffered and yet---- they want to stand in judgement and quickly claim it was not justified....I say pray you are never placed in such a situation and the liklliehood of that happeneding is growing by leaps and bounds as violent crime is out of control.

I of course recognize the legal team that will defend this guy has their work cut out for them.....yet I believe a skilfull lawyer has a fighting chance to get this guy off due to the violence and injury he suffered....perhaps even brain damage.

Just depends on the jury....if the jury is composed of people who want real justice and will not kowtow to legal technacalities....I say there is a chance the guy will walk or at most serve a yr. or 2.

Again the Law is about justice.....about serving justice....not about allowing injustice aka using the law to deny justice.

The simple fact is that anyone who will sneak up behind someone and hit them with enough force to kill them deserves to get shot.....now that is real justice.

I think the majority on here would agree with that.

So from what you are saying if you got in an argument with someone and he told you, “I am going to kill you” then you could shoot him becasue he put you in fear for your life.

However I will agree you are correct and there are times when you don’t have to be under attack to be able to use lethal force. Much depends on the state you live in.

I live in Florida.

Florida Law on Self-Defense | Use of Deadly and Non Deadly Force

Under Florida Law, self-defense is a type of affirmative defense that can excuse or justify the use of deadly or non-deadly force. Applies to crimes of violence where there is a reasonable belief of imminent bodily harm.

www.husseinandwebber.com

***snip***

If the defendant is in his or her home or vehicle, then, under Section 776.013, Florida Statutes, the law will presume that the defendant had a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily harm if the alleged victim unlawfully entered or remained or attempted to remove another person against their will. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter another’s home or vehicle is furthermore presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. (note this is just an excerpt …. Read the entire article.)

One time I remember my daughter was at a liquor store and had just got in her car to leave when a man opened the passenger door and entered her car. She could have legally shot him but she was aware of this guys bad habit of entering cars and just ordered him to get out. He did. She had a concealed weapons permit and was carrying at the time.

 

[whitehall]

It might be some weird cultist thing (mostly black aggressors) and the intent seems to be to render the victim unconscious and to kill the victim. Wouldn't the use of defensive deadly physical force be appropriate before the victim lapses into a coma?

 

[Darkwind]

I don't want to meet the kind of people who could form a jury of twelve who would convict him.

It would have to be twelve white liberals, who never have to walk in a high-crime neighborhood, or ride public transportation.

Look, I sympathize with the guy. He may have still thought he was under attack. The problem is, he actually walked out a door, then turned, stepped through the door, put his hand in a bag, pulled a gun, and shot the piece of shit.

His mental state can be called into question. I am on his side, but the law is the law. If I was on a jury, I'd have to tell the truth, because that is what I do.

The question is: Was it a lapse in judgment? Was he so confused that his judgment was impaired? Is an impaired judgment grounds for killing? <-- Think DUI. The only difference is that it was NOT a self-inflicted impairment.

Don't get Me wrong. I'm glad that piece of shit was ghosted. Any person who can just 'sucker punch' someone out of the blue is not long for this world. I may have done the same.


Regardless; HE CAME BACK. That means it was NOT self-defense.

 

[White 6]

I would not want to be a juror on this.
It would be tough. I consider myself a straight shooter and place a high value on ethics and fairness.
This case would push those values to the limit.
Like you, I would take no part in convicted this man and going to prison. I don't think I could do it.
But at the same time, we are a nation of laws. This isn't 1880s Wild West. You can't just shoot someone because they punched you.
But this is Chicago. You put a couple anti-gun nut liberals on that jury and they will fry him.

I used to be young. I am not. I have seen people my age, older, even younger taken out with a sucker punch like that. They have been shown and discussed, right here on this board. If attacked like that, I might react the exact same way, and I am carrying concealed more often than not. Altogether possible, with a hit like that, I could already be dying and not even know it. I am exactly the kind that would take my attack out with finality, if suffering an unprovoked attack. Hopefully, for me, it will never come up and hopefully security cameras would be covering the event if it takes place. I would willingly turn myself in, and take my chances, others on a Tennessee jury of my peers, would be equally revolted in such a cowardly violent sneak attack, launched by the original assailant, not to mention his very probably criminal history.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Look, I sympathize with the guy. He may have still thought he was under attack. The problem is, he actually walked out a door, then turned, stepped through the door, put his hand in a bag, pulled a gun, and shot the piece of shit.

His mental state can be called into question. I am on his side, but the law is the law. If I was on a jury, I'd have to tell the truth, because that is what I do.

The question is: Was it a lapse in judgment? Was he so confused that his judgment was impaired? Is an impaired judgment grounds for killing? <-- Think DUI. The only difference is that it was NOT a self-inflicted impairment.

Don't get Me wrong. I'm glad that piece of shit was ghosted. Any person who can just 'sucker punch' someone out of the blue is not long for this world. I may have done the same.


Regardless; HE CAME BACK. That means it was NOT self-defense.

Nothing you say is incorrect. It was not self-defense. I would nitpick and say that a juror's job is not to "tell the truth," but to make a decision and apply the law.

Still, the jury has discretion. If police are allowed discretion in who to arrest and prosecutors are allowed discretion in who to prosecute, certainly a jury is allowed discretion in judging the guilt of a person the police decide to arrest and the prosecutor decides to try.

I'm hoping the man is never identified, and any thugs that get kicks from playing the knockout game can be on notice. It has gotten to the point that prosecutors are using their discretion to simply enable favored groups to literally get away with murder, and with many other crimes.

Given the choice between having a few of the thugs get shot a moment to late for the armed citizen to claim legit self-defense and the total breakdown of society that is sure to follow allowing the enabled ones to get away with it, I'll take the former.

 

[Persuader]

Nothing you say is incorrect. It was not self-defense. I would nitpick and say that a juror's job is not to "tell the truth," but to make a decision and apply the law.

Still, the jury has discretion. If police are allowed discretion in who to arrest and prosecutors are allowed discretion in who to prosecute, certainly a jury is allowed discretion in judging the guilt of a person the police decide to arrest and the prosecutor decides to try.

I'm hoping the man is never identified, and any thugs that get kicks from playing the knockout game can be on notice. It has gotten to the point that prosecutors are using their discretion to simply enable favored groups to literally get away with murder, and with many other crimes.

Given the choice between having a few of the thugs get shot a moment to late for the armed citizen to claim legit self-defense and the total breakdown of society that is sure to follow allowing the enabled ones to get away with it, I'll take the former.

Good analysis.....

 

[Persuader]

Look, I sympathize with the guy. He may have still thought he was under attack. The problem is, he actually walked out a door, then turned, stepped through the door, put his hand in a bag, pulled a gun, and shot the piece of shit.

His mental state can be called into question. I am on his side, but the law is the law. If I was on a jury, I'd have to tell the truth, because that is what I do.

The question is: Was it a lapse in judgment? Was he so confused that his judgment was impaired? Is an impaired judgment grounds for killing? <-- Think DUI. The only difference is that it was NOT a self-inflicted impairment.

Don't get Me wrong. I'm glad that piece of shit was ghosted. Any person who can just 'sucker punch' someone out of the blue is not long for this world. I may have done the same.


Regardless; HE CAME BACK. That means it was NOT self-defense.

Look, I sympathize with the guy. He may have still thought he was under attack. The problem is, he actually walked out a door, then turned, stepped through the door, put his hand in a bag, pulled a gun, and shot the piece of shit.

His mental state can be called into question. I am on his side, but the law is the law. If I was on a jury, I'd have to tell the truth, because that is what I do.

The question is: Was it a lapse in judgment? Was he so confused that his judgment was impaired? Is an impaired judgment grounds for killing? <-- Think DUI. The only difference is that it was NOT a self-inflicted impairment.

Don't get Me wrong. I'm glad that piece of shit was ghosted. Any person who can just 'sucker punch' someone out of the blue is not long for this world. I may have done the same.


Regardless; HE CAME BACK. That means it was NOT self-defense. quote

Look, I sympathize with the guy. He may have still thought he was under attack. The problem is, he actually walked out a door, then turned, stepped through the door, put his hand in a bag, pulled a gun, and shot the piece of shit.

His mental state can be called into question. I am on his side, but the law is the law. If I was on a jury, I'd have to tell the truth, because that is what I do.

The question is: Was it a lapse in judgment? Was he so confused that his judgment was impaired? Is an impaired judgment grounds for killing? <-- Think DUI. The only difference is that it was NOT a self-inflicted impairment.

Don't get Me wrong. I'm glad that piece of shit was ghosted. Any person who can just 'sucker punch' someone out of the blue is not long for this world. I may have done the same.


Regardless; HE CAME BACK. That means it was NOT self-defense

Where you and I come into conflict is when you say the law is the law......this is the b.s. zealous prosecutors will tell a jury aka you are bound by the law blah blah blah.......the jury is bound by no one .....the only thing they are bound by or should be bound by is their conscience.

Overzealous prosecutors have misled juries of course by this b.s. most often these days in cases of inter-racial conflict....when the state feels like it must convict someone to prevent blacks from rioting and looting.

 

[Persuader]

So from what you are saying if you got in an argument with someone and he told you, “I am going to kill you” then you could shoot him becasue he put you in fear for your life.

However I will agree you are correct and there are times when you don’t have to be under attack to be able to use lethal force. Much depends on the state you live in.

I live in Florida.

Florida Law on Self-Defense | Use of Deadly and Non Deadly Force

Under Florida Law, self-defense is a type of affirmative defense that can excuse or justify the use of deadly or non-deadly force. Applies to crimes of violence where there is a reasonable belief of imminent bodily harm.

www.husseinandwebber.com

***snip***

If the defendant is in his or her home or vehicle, then, under Section 776.013, Florida Statutes, the law will presume that the defendant had a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily harm if the alleged victim unlawfully entered or remained or attempted to remove another person against their will. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter another’s home or vehicle is furthermore presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. (note this is just an excerpt …. Read the entire article.)

One time I remember my daughter was at a liquor store and had just got in her car to leave when a man opened the passenger door and entered her car. She could have legally shot him but she was aware of this guys bad habit of entering cars and just ordered him to get out. He did. She had a concealed weapons permit and was carrying at the time.

First of all the concept of self-defense----is under attack like never before in America....it seems lke what the state is doing or is trying to do is to convince people they should never under any circumstances use a gun....not even to defend your life.

The sad truth is that even if you adhere to all that the law says regarding self defense....some jury may still convict you.
That is why I gave up 'carrying' aka carrying as in carrying a gun.....I do carry a knife. If you must kill someone....a jury will be much more sympathetic if you do not use a gun.

At close range where most of these conflicts occur....a knife is very effective....especially if you know how to use one...some will say even more effective.

To all those who 'carry' and here in Florida that is a lot of people.....I say you should be very careful who you shoot....you should only shoot someone if you feel it is absolutely required.

If there is anyway possible for you to get out of the situation other than to shoot....that is what you should do.

Having to go before a jury is a gamble.....a big gamble these days.....most especially if you are white.

The gun phobia whipped up by the feds, the media and misguided whites is just so pervasive that if you have to go before a jury....it is a crap shoot irregardless of how justified you may have been.

 

[bodecea]

So..............what you're saying is..........

Just another boring, dull, uneventful day in the wonderful world of a Democrat city?

A well-regulated militiaman exercising his 2nd Amendment rights. You don't think that should apply in Democrat cities?