ill tell you from personal expereince, pointing a firearm at someone is extremely life changing.  Mine happened in my home, with an intruder.  Ill tell you from that moment on, it changes you, the fact that i was that close to takin ghis life.  I was glad he ran, and even more glad when i get my court order to show as a states witness against him.  

I have read all these posts on both threads about what they would have done.  Its easy to say that when they are monday morning quarterbacks.  Its easy to say what you would have done, when it wasnt you.  Remember, guns take all blame for our actions.  Even if they are used in self-defense, the gun is still to blame, not the crack head, or home invasion suspect.  

Oh, i still find it funny when metro got there a few minutes later they asked my why i didnt just kill him.  They said it would be a little more paper work, and a bit more clean up, but the job would be done.  It was just the guys bad day, first getting an SKS to the face, then while running away, having an undercover cop see you running exactly when the APB came out.  I say one thing, Merto was where i needed them when i needed them.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A so considered the worst case scenario.  I'm sure in some states, just having the tire tool is enough. To be sure, get out of the car and then shoot the bastard. Tj WRONG...if you can safely get out of the car, then you can safely flee on foot from the situation. NOT A GOOD shoot. I would venture to guess that the only 100%-no-way-you-could-get-busted good shoot would occur when the perp physically dragged you from the vehicle. Remember folks, you must make use of ANY oportunity to escape the situation, and when all of those have failed, and you life is still in IMMINENT danger, should you find your front sight, and fire till slide lock. Exiting the car and firing is an offensive use of your weapon...NOT GOOD. Use of deadly force in the portection of property (ugly blue car) is NOT justifiable. The perp concentrated on the car itself, and not the driver. Until he turns his attention of the driver of the car, OR one of its passengers, no good shoot can happen. REMEMBER folks, there was a camera running, and an intersection full of witnesses. if some jerkoff is beating the stuffing out of your car, and you exit, gun in hand, and gun him down, ON CAMERA< IN FRONT OF WITNESSES, it would not be good. deadly force for vandalism=not justifiable. I will also assume that being the idiot he is, and in all likelyhood and actual coward...if you exited you car, gun in hand, he would have hi-tailed it. and we arent going to shoot a fleeing perp in the back. My first instinct would be to yell, "i have a gun, fuck off". dollars to donuts, he splits. Now if our crackhead decided then to turn his attention to me, the driver, rather than the car itself, the instant he raised his crowbar in my direction....front sight, slide lock. whether my driver window was up or down. He had been warned, he has made the choice to take his crowbar up against a firearm, and i hope he loses. Remember folks, by owning and carrying firearms, we are obliged to hold ourselves to a higher standard of self control...meaning you blow off the tough guy at the mall, that says "what are you looking at" or the asshole on the freeway that flips you off, then tailgates you for blocks. The first thing we want to do when carrying a firearm is to aviod trouble at ALL COSTS. Our firearms are only for when we have taken all reasonable measures to avoid trouble, yet trouble has us pinned against the wall, fearing for our lives. period period period. I pray to God that i never have to use my firearm against another human being, however in the same breath i pray that if i do, he will clear my mind, and steady my hand. If you carry a firearm for personal defense, i suggest you pray the same prayer.

I have a lot to differ with you on your post, I just don't have time to get it all in tonight.  I'll get back to you tomorrow...

Thomas, forgive me for "editing" your post, but to take it out of context was not my intent, but rather to point out which comment i was responding to....I assume that if someone is taking time to read this thread, they will read the whole of it...bad assumption, i know.

Now please people, do NOT take my statements for a judgement of what is "RIGHT" and "WRONG" but rather what i feel would be fool proof as a defense of a justified shooting in court.

As far as i am concerned, that idiot needs to be shot..

But shooting him and NOT doing time for it is our goal.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A so considered the worst case scenario.  I'm sure in some states, just having the tire tool is enough. To be sure, get out of the car and then shoot the bastard. Tj WRONG...if you can safely get out of the car, then you can safely flee on foot from the situation. NOT A GOOD shoot. I would venture to guess that the only 100%-no-way-you-could-get-busted good shoot would occur when the perp physically dragged you from the vehicle. Remember folks, you must make use of ANY oportunity to escape the situation, and when all of those have failed, and you life is still in IMMINENT danger, should you find your front sight, and fire till slide lock. Exiting the car and firing is an offensive use of your weapon...NOT GOOD. Use of deadly force in the portection of property (ugly blue car) is NOT justifiable. The perp concentrated on the car itself, and not the driver. Until he turns his attention of the driver of the car, OR one of its passengers, no good shoot can happen. REMEMBER folks, there was a camera running, and an intersection full of witnesses. if some jerkoff is beating the stuffing out of your car, and you exit, gun in hand, and gun him down, ON CAMERA< IN FRONT OF WITNESSES, it would not be good. deadly force for vandalism=not justifiable. I will also assume that being the idiot he is, and in all likelyhood and actual coward...if you exited you car, gun in hand, he would have hi-tailed it. and we arent going to shoot a fleeing perp in the back. My first instinct would be to yell, "i have a gun, fuck off". dollars to donuts, he splits. Now if our crackhead decided then to turn his attention to me, the driver, rather than the car itself, the instant he raised his crowbar in my direction....front sight, slide lock. whether my driver window was up or down. He had been warned, he has made the choice to take his crowbar up against a firearm, and i hope he loses. Remember folks, by owning and carrying firearms, we are obliged to hold ourselves to a higher standard of self control...meaning you blow off the tough guy at the mall, that says "what are you looking at" or the asshole on the freeway that flips you off, then tailgates you for blocks. The first thing we want to do when carrying a firearm is to aviod trouble at ALL COSTS. Our firearms are only for when we have taken all reasonable measures to avoid trouble, yet trouble has us pinned against the wall, fearing for our lives. period period period. I pray to God that i never have to use my firearm against another human being, however in the same breath i pray that if i do, he will clear my mind, and steady my hand. If you carry a firearm for personal defense, i suggest you pray the same prayer. I know you are new but would ask you not edit my post when using a quote to change the context and then critque the new context with a totally different meaning. You left this entire line out then took off on your own interrpetation: We actually covered this in CCW class and there are no absolutes. Generaly, you're considered not in iminent danger until he hits the window on your side of the car. Outside the car on the same side of the car, he's fair game. Outside the car on the other side of the car, not a good shoot. As a CCW it is our responsibility to try to de-escalate any scenario.  Getting out of the car in order to get away from the badguy is de-escalation especially in light that he bashed the drivers window which makes driving off endangering others.  If he pursues you to the other side of the car, he is escalating the scenario.   In this case the camera is your friend since without it you would have to prove he escalated the scenario prior to the use of a firearm. Tj

And by the way, i agree with the above statements completely. Any time someone PURSUES you with a dangerous object, it is a reasonable assumption that your life is in imminent danger, hense, a good shoot.

take it for what it's worth, but thru double hearsay, my understanding is that the guy is in custody, due to an unrelated matter.

One of my employees is a navy reservist. A fellow reservist, and current Metro officer, indicated to her that he recognized his face from another arrest downtown.

I hope this video can come to some use against him, but unless there's a police report or contact information from the PT cruiser driver, i doubt it.

Another thing i thought on today was the hypothetical that there is more than just you in the car.  Assuming there was a passenger or perhaps even a young one behind one of those windows the BG shattered, i think would also make for a reasonable defense for a COM magdump.  Smashing a window with a passenger behind it not only shows disregard for human life, but could also be defined as an attempt on that life, or to do gross bodily injury...hense, good shoot.

And you are right when you say there are NO absolutes.  There are SO many factors that come into play in defense of a shooting...and the worst part is trying to convince a jury of your peers that you were justified.  The problem is, it is likely that any jury will not be made up of people that YOU would consider as YOUR peers...but rather, uneducated, gun fearing sheep.  I dont know who said it, but i think there is some substance to the statement that "sometimes court cases are too important to be in the hands of jurors."

BTW< nice to meet you TJ...people just call me Arin.

I would have probably shot. As, I think, most of would do in that situation. If I would have exited the vehicle and that individual came at me with the crowbar I would shoot, no doubt about it. I think justifiably so. The individual was obviously violent and unstable. He’s actions were unpredictable at best. You have now way of knowing what his next course of action would be. If confronted with an individual with a crowbar that has already displayed lethal intentions, is that a justifiable shoot. I SAY HELL YES.

Quoted: If confronted with an individual with a crowbar that has already displayed lethal intentions, is that a justifiable shoot. I SAY HELL YES.

As long as 12 others agree with you, then you're golden ;)

One thing about the 'good shoot' vs. 'bad shoot' scenario. Many times, this determination is based upon what the investigating officer or detective concludes--whether you were justified or not. If they find that the shoot was justified, the inquiry ends. If they are not sure, it's submitted to the DA's office, who makes their determination. The screening ADA makes his/her determination as to whether your facts comprised a 'good/bad' shoot. If his/her opinion is that the shoot was justified, charges are denied. If not, charges are filed, and you're off to the (legal) races. Grab your wallets...and ankles.

Having a video to walk this scenario is quite a rarity. Assume that you did NOT have the luxury of the tape, everything becomes so colored by ever-changing memories.

From my reading of the threads, and from my multi-viewings of the video:

GOOD SHOOT FACTS:

1. D has a deadly weapon
2. D was staring at the victim, as he was hitting her vehicle. It would give the impression that she, NOT the vehicle, was the intended target, removing this from the 'property crime' designation.
3. D attempted to hit driver's window (but hit door frame; thus, the glass did not break).
4. D was yelling "LA CRIPS" or "Rollin' 60's" as he was striking, indicating gang affiliation.
5. D was yelling "What are you gonna do" or some other challenging type statement.

BAD SHOOT FACTS:

1. The video can be a double-edged sword--it can be interpreted to mean that D did NOT have the requisite intent to harm the driver of the PT Cruiser.
2. This was a PROPERTY only crime!

I'm just throwing it out there, as there is no right or wrong. As ishoottolive posted earlier, some pertinent law:

NRS 200.120 “Justifiable homicide” defined. Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein.

NRS 200.130 Bare fear insufficient to justify killing; reasonable fear required. A bare fear of any of the offenses mentioned in NRS 200.120, to prevent which the homicide is alleged to have been committed, shall not be sufficient to justify the killing. It must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person, and that the party killing really acted under the influence of those fears and not in a spirit of revenge.

NRS 200.190 Justifiable or excusable homicide not punishable. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the person indicted shall, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and discharged.

NRS 200.160 Additional cases of justifiable homicide. Homicide is also justifiable when committed:

     1.  In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

     2.  In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode in which he is.

NRS 200.200 Killing in self-defense. If a person kills another in self-defense, it must appear that:

     1.  The danger was so urgent and pressing that, in order to save his own life, or to prevent his receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary; and

     2.  The person killed was the assailant, or that the slayer had really, and in good faith, endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given.

Now what about being a 3rd party to this.  Say in the vechile to the side or behind.  According to the teaching, you can indefense of another.  

Do you draw, and aim?

Do you draw and rest it o the roof?

What about when or if  he comes after your vechile?

in defense of another, draw and aim,verbal commands,  if BG ceases and desisits, no shoot.

if BG advances in your direction wielding deadly object, good shoot.

HOWEVER< BG must be in adequate vicinity of you that you could expect bodily harm or death from whatever weapon he was carrying.

IE< bad guy, crowbar by his side, 30 feet away, yelling at you...no shoot
bad guy crowbar raised above his head, 10 feet away, yelling at you, shoot.

remember that in defense of a shooting, you MUST deal with OTHER people's reality, namely 12 of your peers.  One must take into consideration whether or not 12 other people would have agreed with you, and hypothetically acted in a similar manner given the situation.

Was that Tyronne Biggs from the Chappelle show? You know he would do about anything for crack.

thanks,
Ron

Great reference Doc that character is so funny but I still would have drawn.

Quoted: . . .remember that in defense of a shooting, you MUST deal with OTHER people's reality, namely 12 of your peers.  One must take into consideration whether or not 12 other people would have agreed with you, and hypothetically acted in a similar manner given the situation.

This still beats hell out of being carried by six of your peers to the awaiting hearse.

Dave in Henderson

They announced on the news tonight that this tape is a HOAX.

The guy was paid to smash the car and the driver was in on it.

Quoted: They announced on the news tonight that this tape is a HOAX. The guy was paid to smash the car and the driver was in on it.

link?

Quoted: They announced on the news tonight that this tape is a HOAX. The guy was paid to smash the car and the driver was in on it.

What news? I didn't see it, but then I don't watch every channel either.

Dave in Henderson

Quoted: They announced on the news tonight that this tape is a HOAX. The guy was paid to smash the car and the driver was in on it.

I knew it was a hoax the first time I saw it.  Take a look at the editing.  After his little diatribe he says something like "Check this out" and goes for the tire iron.  Before the cut, there is a car pulling into the parking lot and is right behind him.  After the cut, the car is gone.  Obviously some time elapsed between the two scenes and the car was not a "random" victim.

The two potential crimes I saw on the video were disturbing the peace (obvious) and insurance fraud.  If I were a cop, I would check with insurance companies to see if there was a vandalisim claim made on a blue PT Cruiser in the recent past.  If the driver was an accomplice, he probably put in a claim for the damage (unless it was stolen which I doubt).  Not counting the paint and body damage, the broken glass alone was several thousand dollars.  That backglass and windshield alone sells for over $500 wholesale and the insurance companies get billed almost $2000.  I am sure a body shop would estimate the total damage at over $5k.

Any metro cops out there with some free time?

You have to be kidding me. You guys actually think it was a hoax.  Take it from me, a person that grew up in "da hood" of south central, this was no hoax.  I saw individuals like that on a daily basis. As for the crow bar, when you out on the streets you always have to have a weapon close by.

The perpetrator was legit and the victim was scared out of their mind. In addition, If it was a hoax, which I doubt, he should get a freaking Oscar because I have never seen a POS want a be gansta act that well.

members.cox.net/angelrobles/holdinitdown.wmv

If the video doesn't come on hit the refresh button on your browser.