0
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jan 0001
0 points (NaN% liked)
0 readers
0 users here now
founded a long while ago
It is certainly a weird conclusion. You CAN defend yourself. You CAN defend yourself with a gun. You CANNOT defend yourself with a gun indoors?
No no. You can defend yourself with a gun indoors. You just can't shoot it. Perhaps a pistol whipping?
More that the nature of the indoors location had an increased likelihood of hitting a innocent bystander.
Maybe you're more justified in somebody if it's a 2-on-1 situation and you feel like your life is threatened, but pull out a gun and start blasting and you also put the lives of anyone within a certain distance around your target in danger.
Given the lack of apparent weapons on the "assailants", drawing on them might have been sufficient to disengage and assess without actually needing to fire the weapon at all
Doesn’t that infringe everyone’s right in the building not to get shot while shopping?
Only the ones that aren't threatening someone else.
Was it only the idiot YouTuber and the guy defending themselves or were there other people in danger?
It's ok, the prankster blocked it with his stomach and saved everyone. He's a hero.
Sounds to me like two idiots out other people in danger.
One idiot put one idiot in danger - don't victim blame.
So shooting in a mall is safe for everyone else?
Why would a single round fired into an assailant be unsafe for anyone other than that assailant?
Do you believe bullets travel on some trajectory not subject to the rules of physics, curving around randomly?
Give him some slack. He doesn't like it, and so he feels unsafe, and would rather not have to think about danger at all.
Now that we're human, we've evolved beyond such things as danger, personal responsibility, right to self defense, etc.
/s, in case that isn't clear to anyone.
The country I live in would throw the shooter’s ass in jail for that shit.
YouTuber was no saint, but shooting someone for getting in your face is a sign you’re weak as hell.
You're taking, but all I hear is Satan's Maggoty Cum Fart.
It's always a great look when you have to resort to an ad hominem.
You mean, your actual username?
It’s okay if you have nothing else to add to this conversation.
pat pat
I guess we’ll see what the court says next month!
To be clear, the court has already said he was perfectly justified from the self-defense perspective. I look forward to it clearing him of the "firing indoors" nonsense.
The charge he was found guilty of by the jury?
The same charge pending judge review due to its inconsistency with having acted in self-defense?
So they didn’t find him guilty of that charge?
As we've covered, the same charge I look forward to the court clearing him of next month. If you're still having trouble with the concept beyond this, I'm going to leave it to you to figure out.
It sounds like we both are saying that he was found guilty but both are looking forward to what the court says, I’m not sure why you’re being disagreeable.
That's why in most places only hollow point bullets are legal for self defence. They are designed to mushroom out and break up when they hit something. This makes them ideal self defence rounds for 2 reasons. They have a ton more stopping power against an unarmored tarket (odds are your mugger isn't wearing kevlar). Aditionally they usually don't really survive going through walls. Even just sheet rock walls are usually enough to completely kill the momentum of any fragments that might make it though. If you use FMJ rounds for self defence then you're going to catch a completely different charge.