A theoretical question, --- your opinion please?

[Dirtebiker]

A theoretical situation, -- A 65 year old man is at a fast food restaurant, some young man, (or men) cut in front of him in line. He tells them to get in line like everyone else, at which time they begin harassing and threatening him. ---- As the older man leaves the restaurant, he is followed by the younger men, pushed, and punched, etc...... The older man who is legally carrying a weapon, feeling that he life is threatened, pulls his gun and shoots one of the "punks" ---- Has he committed a crime? is he going to jail, or was he justified in his actions? ---- The younger men were not armed with a gun, ---- Your opinion please? ---- Thanks

Not really enough information for me to give an opinion.

 

[Dirtebiker]

No, he's not going to jail no matter what. I've been on the scene of a self defense shooting where the prosecutor cleared the shooter before the shooter even gave a statement. You won't be leaving with your gun, which is evidence, but you may very well get to walk away.

As to the OP - it depends. There is no blanket answer and the details will determine if it's a good shoot, questionable shoot, or bad shoot.

This^^^ and this ^^^^!
George Zimmerman walked away didn't he?

 

[Dirtebiker]

dupe

 

[cooltools]

Well, when asked why I carry a .45 I always respond " I'm too damn old to get my butt kicked " Not a good defense in court. Just saying.

 

[blacknwhite]

1 punch can kill.....if the old man feels like he is threatened for his well being......fire away.

 

[Denny347]

No answers to give. This story is way too vague. The amount of specific details needed for an answer would turn your question into a two page story.

 

[jamil]

1 punch can kill.....if the old man feels like he is threatened for his well being......fire away.

It's not just what he feels like. Did he react to the circumstances reasonably? Did he put himself in that situation? Did he smart off to them with the confidence that he knows he's armed? Is the 65 year old in good shape? Can he fight? Like others have said the details determine if he acted reasonably.

 

[Expatriated]

I'll put it this way-ive seen a lot more borderline shoots come out as justifiable.


The old man doesnt know when they will stop hitting him. He has no duty to wait until he is incapacitated or almost incapacitated before he can shoot. After all, if he guesses wrong and waits one punch too many, it may very well be too late for him to act.

 

[DRob]

Please see my signature line!

 

[Denny347]

Please see my signature line!

 

[maxmayhem]

you will probably have to wait for the committee to answer that aka the jury

 

[Expatriated]

Please see my signature line!

"Question everything you read on the internet"--Abraham Lincoln

 

[bd1024]

An excellent article from USCCA, if interested... It seems to cover just about all of the above.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/disparity-of-force/ --------------------Thanks for the link. A good article indeed!

 

[lrahm]

No answers to give. This story is way too vague. The amount of specific details needed for an answer would turn your question into a two page story.

I agree. With what little I see, it could be nothing more than misd. battery.

 

[Scottiedog422]

What level the physical altercation has reached would matter - threatened = no. Bleeding and unable to defend otherwise = maybe. Would have to convince jury that his life was in danger

 

[Bill of Rights]

Was there any question that he'd fired? Put simply, if the guy admits it's his, believe him. The question isn't what gun did it, but rather, was the shoot justified. At worst, take a test fire or two, then give the man back his property, or give him something he can use when the punks' buddies watch tonight's news and they identify the guy, if only by age and street. As I've said before, I'm no cop, not CSI, not any kinnd of textbook expert in criminal justice, but in the situation identified, where the defender doesn't dispute and readily admits he did defend himself and with *this* gun, to leave him without his gun afterward just seems counterintuitive (read: bloody stupid!)
I realize I'm going to fly in the face of all the "TV science", but do ballistics comparisons even really work? Doesn't every shot change the profile of the barrel a little, with additional deposited lead/copper, unless we're discussing two shots from the same just-cleaned/defouled barrel?

I'm not being a smartass here, the question is genuine.

Blessings,
Bill

Pictures can't be test fired and compared to bullets inside the bad guy, which will corroborate your story.

 

[looney2ns]

The Unarmed Assailant - A Deadly Threat