Zone1 If someone attempts to rob you At knife or gunpoint do you believe you have a right to shoot them in response?

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

With respect my friend it’s a very straightforward situation as described by the original post. You’re walking down the street and all of a sudden someone comes up to you and pulls out a knife or a gun to rob you … so the question is do you think you have a right to shoot that person? This is not a “ it depends” thing…. It’s a straightforward situation and I’m asking folks what they think about it.




It’s a straightforward situation. But if you’re interested in bringing up other scenarios which are different go ahead and provide your opinion on the different scenarios.

Of course you have the legal right to do so as long as you're defending and not retaliating, however tempting it might be to do so.

Don't screw around in FL, we don't play that here.

Yeah, I don't think I'd do that, but I saw some guys hock a car radio thief down one day and beat the crap out of him and then called the police and they didn't get in any trouble.

It was wayy before that law, though.

You do realize that was an idiotic ruling right?

 

[The Duke]

Of course you have the legal right to do so as long as you're defending and not retaliating, however tempting it might be to do so.

You do realize that was an idiotic ruling right?

Indeed I do. Car radio theft is NOT a Capital crime.

But maybe he shouldn't have been stealin' stuff.

Okay, I don't see him losing his life as justice, no.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Some states continue to allow private citizens to use deadly force to protect property or prevent the escape of nonviolent fleeing felons.12

Examples >> in Michigan, in People vs Couch, and in South Carolina in State vs Cooney, state court decisions have expressly authorized private persons to use deadly force to stop nonviolent fleeing felons. See, e.g., People v. Couch, 461 N.W.2d 683, 684 (Mich. 1990) (holding that Garner did not modify the common law fleeing felon privilege of a private person to use deadly force); State v. Cooney, 463 S.E.2d 597, 599 (S.C. 1995) (“[W]e find the holding inGarner does not apply to seizures by private persons and does not change the State’s criminal law with respect to citizens using force in apprehending a fleeing felon.”). Texas, by statute, authorizes the private use of deadly force, when necessary, to prevent the escape of many felons

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1787&context=ndlr

The common law fleeing felon rule, as it applies to private persons, is arguably constitutionally permissible, because of the state action doctrine.13
The state action doctrine and its exceptions are among the most fundamental, important, and misunderstood principles of constitutional law.14
Under the state action doctrine, most of the Constitution’s protections of individual liberties restrict the conduct of government actors, but they do not restrict the conduct of private actors.15

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1787&context=ndlr

I was completely unaware if this and stand corrected. I don't have time to research this tonight but I find it curious that it's allowable non-violent felons as opposed violent felons. And do they have to have already been convicted of a felony or just have committed one?

 

[protectionist]

I was completely unaware if this and stand corrected. I don't have time to research this tonight but I find it curious that it's allowable non-violent felons as opposed violent felons. And do they have to have already been convicted of a felony or just have committed one?

I believe they just have to have committed one, which I think was why Michael Slager was cleared of a murder charge, after he shot and killed Walter Scott who was running away.

Scott, not very smart, was pulled over by the cop (Slager) for a broken taillight, and had no felony record. He did establish one by fighting with the cop. Scott, getting his butt whipped by the cop, then ran away , and Slager shot him while he was fleeing.

Slager did get charged with something else, and is in prison, but it wasn't for shooting Scott.

 

[Resnic]

Since the question is only if I think I have the right that's what I'll answer instead of going on about maybes and what it's and scenarios.

Yes, if someone threatens me with violence that is potentially life threatening then I believe I have the right to kill them if they are a clear and present danger.

 

[justoffal]

That’s the situation you’re walking down the street and somebody approaches you and pulls out a knife or gun and attempts to rob you saying “give me what you have”. Do you then have a right to shoot that person?

YES, That person surrendered their life the moment they decided to introduce lethal force.

 

[justoffal]

Since the question is only if I think I have the right that's what I'll answer instead of going on about maybes and what it's and scenarios.

Yes, if someone threatens me with violence that is potentially life threatening then I believe I have the right to kill them if they are a clear and present danger.

Screw clear and present.... It may not even be so clear and present.... If the lethal force has been introduced into the situation the person who introduced it has forfeited their right to life.

 

[SavannahMann]

I believe they just have to have committed one, which I think was why Michael Slager was cleared of a murder charge, after he shot and killed Walter Scott who was running away.

Scott, not very smart, was pulled over by the cop (Slager) for a broken taillight, and had no felony record. He did establish one by fighting with the cop. Scott, getting his butt whipped by the cop, then ran away , and Slager shot him while he was fleeing.

Slager did get charged with something else, and is in prison, but it wasn't for shooting Scott.

Um. Slager is currently in Prison. He wasn’t cleared. It was a plea deal to avoid State Charges by going to Federal Prison.

Killing of Walter Scott - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Mr. Friscus]

That’s the situation you’re walking down the street and somebody approaches you and pulls out a knife or gun and attempts to rob you saying “give me what you have”. Do you then have a right to shoot that person?

These situations are so tricky. There's always multiple extremely-specific factors.. and all can see it's the left that attempts to simplify it.

Let's say your basic situation happens...
1. If it's a knife and he's too close, and I back up and he tenses up and tries to advance forward, knife raised, and attack me, yes, I can shoot.
2. If it's a knife and he's too close and I back up and he stays, perhaps not yet.
3. If it's a gun drawn on me, I can shoot if the opportunity presents itself no matter what.
4. If I'm alone, as a man, it's different than if I'm with a wife or kids.

So in your all-or-nothing Yes-No question... I say no, but I say yes to many scenarios.

 

[leftwinger]

We really have to look out for the rural white "disaffected" incel male. They are the mass shooters and when you look at the UCR, they commit the most assaults and battery by far.

FALSE: most recent 8 were Tranny, Black or brown DEMS. As if the GOVT has activated that cell and is sending them out nowdays?

You must have seen BrokeLoser pictorial chart showing 100s' of "mass shooters" posted in here. Not much White on it.

 

[leftwinger]

Now should we feel the same way about being robbed by white collar theft? Because white collar theft takes far more money than street robberies.

Never hear of it? Back to the Enron setup or the Keating savings and loan crisis? 30-50 years ago? Got anything new? Menendez, Obiden............gold bars and young kids for weekend binges with coke and well...you know.

 

[protectionist]

Um. Slager is currently in Prison. He wasn’t cleared. It was a plea deal to avoid State Charges by going to Federal Prison.

Killing of Walter Scott - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you're charged with murder, and you don't get convicted, you're cleared of that charge. Duh!

 

[protectionist]

These situations are so tricky. There's always multiple extremely-specific factors.. and all can see it's the left that attempts to simplify it.

Let's say your basic situation happens...
1. If it's a knife and he's too close, and I back up and he tenses up and tries to advance forward, knife raised, and attack me, yes, I can shoot.
2. If it's a knife and he's too close and I back up and he stays, perhaps not yet.
3. If it's a gun drawn on me, I can shoot if the opportunity presents itself no matter what.
4. If I'm alone, as a man, it's different than if I'm with a wife or kids.

So in your all-or-nothing Yes-No question... I say no, but I say yes to many scenarios.

If he's within your 21 foot zone, and he's threatening you, shoot.

Tueller Drill - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[SavannahMann]

If you're charged with murder, and you don't get convicted, you're cleared of that charge. Duh!

You really aren’t that smart are you? He got a hung jury and was facing a second trial. He pled guilty to Federal Charges knowing that he would get convicted in the second trial. In pleading guilty he acknowledged that he took Scott’s life in violation of the law. He admitted to murdering Scott.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

If he's within your 20 foot zone, and he's threatening you, shoot.

Even that has multiple factors, but generally I disagree, although there could be instances where you might shoot.

If he's standing 18ft away, still? No, don't shoot yet. I'd imagine you'd have your hand on your gun giving clear verbal warnings to not come forward, or have your gun out but lowered.
If he's running full speed with a knife 20ft away? He'll be 10ft away within a second... yea, you might shoot.

And what does this person look like? Are they 150 lbs? Are the 250 of muscle? I guess personally I'd be confident I could take someone scrawny and slight down (previous Russian sambo/Jiu Jitsu training)... but that's just me.

I don't even own a gun, I just believe in having a random, armed populace in public in case some weirdo breaks out a gun in public. If there's 20 other bystanders, one is probably packing to take them out, and that's a good thing, despite what leftists say.

 

[protectionist]

You really aren’t that smart are you? He got a hung jury and was facing a second trial. He pled guilty to Federal Charges knowing that he would get convicted in the second trial. In pleading guilty he acknowledged that he took Scott’s life in violation of the law. He admitted to murdering Scott.

He was within his rights and DUTY, to shoot Scott to prevent a fleeing felon from escaping out into the community, and endangering it..

He also was a perfect example of white cops in majority black voting districts (N.Charlotte, SC), being railroaded, so the politicians can keep getting re-elected (in addition to avoiding race riots, spurred on by race hustlers)

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

PS -in plea deals, nobody "acknowledges" anything. They just strive for the reduced sentence.

 

[BrokeLoser]

We really have to look out for the rural white "disaffected" incel male. They are the mass shooters and when you look at the UCR, they commit the most assaults and battery by far.

FALSE: most recent 8 were Tranny, Black or brown DEMS. As if the GOVT has activated that cell and is sending them out nowdays?

You must have seen BrokeLoser pictorial chart showing 100s' of "mass shooters" posted in here. Not much White on it.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

View attachment 946352

You have to define "Mass shooting"..

Because what the general public thinks of as far as what a "mass shooting is" is not what the anti-gun lobbies use to try to elevate the numbers.

They manipulate this on purpose. Very dishonest people.

 

[SavannahMann]

He was within his rights and DUTY, to shoot Scott to prevent a fleeing felon from escaping out into the community, and endangering it..

He also was a perfect example of white cops in majority black voting districts (N.Charlotte, SC), being railroaded, so the politicians can keep getting re-elected (in addition to avoiding race riots, spurred on by race hustlers)

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

PS -in plea deals, nobody "acknowledges" anything. They just strive for the reduced sentence.

He was not within his rights. That is why he dropped the Taser next to the body. To make it look better for the investigators.

 

[FranklinRoosevelt_FTW]

He was within his rights and DUTY, to shoot Scott to prevent a fleeing felon from escaping out into the community, and endangering it..

He also was a perfect example of white cops in majority black voting districts (N.Charlotte, SC), being railroaded, so the politicians can keep getting re-elected (in addition to avoiding race riots, spurred on by race hustlers)

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

PS -in plea deals, nobody "acknowledges" anything. They just strive for the reduced sentence.

In theory, if somebody is stopped by the police and they run away, they are a clear and present danger to the community. The whole point of having law and order is when a police officer instructs somebody to stop they have to stop. Nowadays, police officers are not allowed to do their job. And that is why we have violent crime in America. Frankly, it’s been going on for decades. Again other countries do not have the violent crime we do in the USA.

The race angle from the left is completely insane one because there are white people who have been shot by cops and two there is no more racism in America. Hell even in the 1950s, the USA was a better place to live than most of if not all places in Africa for black folks… even when we had segregation(only existed in certain parts of the USA, not all of it), we had a stronger middle class for whites and blacks.



Back to the point… not considering case law but looking at this for a common sense perspective if a person gets into a fight with a police officer frankly they’re in deep trouble. The cop has a right to shoot them. If somebody is willing to fight a cop, what are they willing to do to a regular citizen?

In response, leftists will have a smirk on their face and bring up some technicality on a law, and they will be willing to put some cop in prison based on political ideology. To them common sense means nothing. Apparently they support anarchy.

Notice something with these lawsuits against police officers and cities or towns by lawyers like Benjamin Crump. All of a sudden, family members of the victim come out of the wool work they were never there for the victim until money was on the line. It’s disgraceful all of the millions of dollars paid out to BLM people for no good reason. it happened in New York City when a few hundred protesters were protesting against the police doing God knows what and they complained and they each got something like $250,000.

Meanwhile, there’s tons of impoverished black-and-white people in this country. Nobody’s talking about them.