bystander shot robber in store in florida

[nvguncarrier]

http://www.wftv.com/news/18419272/detail.html#
news link


http://www.wftv.com/video/18419299/index.html
store video
wow what an eye opener this should be,, sure makes me think about the responsibility of carrying / shooting /and aftermath

[PPK]

I would not have talked to the press or even the police about what happened without first lawyering up.

[AGust82]

I agree. Every word you say to the media could be fuel for the prosecution effort and maybe sway the police on whether they'll even charge you.

[Scooter]

I find it funny that he didn't want his last mane used for fear of retaliation, but allowed his face to be shown on the news, his vehicle, and what appeared to be his home. And he's worried someone knowing his last name. Talking to the media after something like that just doesn't seem smart on any level.

[Bman505]

HA, didn't think of that. what an idiot. He needed to shut his mouth and find an attorney.

[Bman505]

Suppose you witness a crime in progress.

Some woman in a dark alley getting assaulted. Guy getting the crap beat out of him on the ground by a bunch of thugs.

You're carrying. To what extent can you get involved?

If you yell, "Hey! Stop that!" and they turn their attack towards you, thereby putting you in imminent danger, is that legal justification to brandish?

[Scooter]

Suppose you witness a crime in progress.

Some woman in a dark alley getting assaulted. Guy getting the crap beat out of him on the ground by a bunch of thugs.

You're carrying. To what extent can you get involved?

If you yell, "Hey! Stop that!" and they turn their attack towards you, thereby putting you in imminent danger, is that legal justification to brandish?

Brandish hell, you said imminent danger. Shoot first and let the police and God sort it out.

[bang bang]

I do believe that in some states that if you are a permit holder and see that someone else's life is in danger, you have the right to remove the threat even if it wasn't geared towards you. Am I correct on this??:confused:

[Jizzle]

this is a touchy subject. chances are if you do end up shooting and killing someone you will be sued in civil court by thier family or if the person is lucky enough to live you will be sued by him. That being said isn't enough of a down side for me to not get involved and excercise some "natural selection" and help someone in need even if it is no legal for me to do so. Thats just my personal opinion. and yes various states have laws regarding what stipulates legal use your firearm in self defese and in defense of others. in texas it's under the castle doctrine. and i think (and never take anything i say as god's truth), that it is also under the castle doctrine in new mexico.

on another note, whats this guy talking about.. he said "I'm upset", are u serious? You saved a woman's life. You took a negative number out of the equation of life. There is no down side to this. What kind of society are we in that doing the right thing makes us "upset"?

and never talk to anybody after you shoot someone. holy crap. afterwards you are SURE the situation is over holster the weapon and wait on the cops and politely decline to answer any questions until you are in the presense of your lawyer.[/

[Jizzle]

Suppose you witness a crime in progress.

Some woman in a dark alley getting assaulted. Guy getting the crap beat out of him on the ground by a bunch of thugs.

You're carrying. To what extent can you get involved?

If you yell, "Hey! Stop that!" and they turn their attack towards you, thereby putting you in imminent danger, is that legal justification to brandish?

why would u ever brandish without intent to use?

[PPK]

This guy really should have followed rule #28

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/ammunition/2009/02/petzal-rules-gunfighting

[Descreet38]

I was taught to ALWAYS be polite - so I only have two words for how I react in a shooting.

Attorney PLEASE!

[Jizzle]

here is the phrase that is very important to use in any situation where you are involved with the police. I've ran it through my lawyer and others.

Sir, I do not consent to the search or seizure of my person or my property. I will not answer any questions until I am in the presense of my attorney. Thank you.

It covers all ur bases.

[taltyman]

This guy really should have followed rule #28

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/ammunition/2009/02/petzal-rules-gunfighting
Removed the extra http so maybe this link will work better. That's funny and so true

[Jizzle]

This guy really should have followed rule #28

http://http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/ammunition/2009/02/petzal-rules-gunfighting

ya, rules 27 and 28 are iffy.

[PPK]

I should have caught that. Edited original message and I'll try to get it right next time.

Thanks Taltyman