What does that mean in reality? That I should allow attackers to beat me unconscious before deciding that they're a threat and defending myself? The standard we should all be held to is the law, and in this case I think it was a bad shoot. But as always, it seems to be turning into a defense of the ability to defend yourself and specifically, SYG laws.
Not really. Self-defense is a broad topic, and shooting others a very narrow one. No one questions the right to self defense AFAIK (there may be some hard-core pacifists running around, but not here). You agree the OP was not a clean kill. Agreed, but I would say the issue of self defense doesn't even come up. The OP (to me, anyway) asks 'when can you kill someone?' not 'when can you defend yourself?'
Since I live in Florida and have a weapons permit, I don't need to speculate on when it is or is not illegal to display my firearm. "Brandishing" or improper exhibition of a firearm is illegal, but self-defense situations are exceptional. I also disagree that the assault was necessarily "non-lethal". As I said earlier, being violently shoved to the ground can be lethal in a number of circumstances. We also don't know Glockton's motives, or what would have happened had Drejka not drawn his gun. Also, as I said before, I am not in the business of harassing people for parking infractions, so I wouldn't be in that position to begin with. If, on the other hand, someone shoved me violently to the ground, I would have drawn my firearm and pointed it at them. If they disengaged, I would then try to gather my wits and get to a safe position. If not, I would open fire and stop firing when I was no longer threatened. I would assume by default that anyone violently shoving me out of the blue is planning to kill or rob me, and act accordingly.
About that hilited...I don't think that falls under imminent threat of death/serious bodily injury.
So you would 'assume' that someone shoving you plans to kill you? And if they intend to rob you, same? There's no middle ground at all for a less grave assault? They literally do not exist? Your spectrum of self-defense response is to shoot someone, or threaten to do so? Do I have that right?
Because any situation for which I'm willing to use pepper spray, I am willing to draw my gun and then re-assess the situation. Obviously if someone attacks me even with a gun drawn on them, then they were probably intent on killing/harming me anyway.
Ok. Pepper spray, being lighter, cheaper, less dangerous to bystanders, and generally non lethal, is not an option for you...because you have the option to shoot them instead?
Not at all. I respect all people's lives, starting with my own, and I conduct myself accordingly. You won't find me assaulting people or shoving them to the ground. Maybe you're the one who has a lack of respect for all of the victims of violent crimes who either didn't or couldn't fight back.
Yours truly is a great fan of fighting back. Not a fan of killing, though.
Let me try it this way: Do you carry your gun 24/7? In the shower, sleep with it under your pillow, etc. Carry it where it may be prohibited? If not, and your concern is sincerely self-defense, what is your plan for the times when you cannot reach your gun?
Say. for instance, you are suddenly accosted and do not have access to your gun, or it malfunctions, or is taken from you, or whatever. Since you have a legitimate and deep concern for self preservation, to the point of being willing to kill others, what efforts and preparations have you made for those eventualities? Something at least comparable to the expense of a firearm, permits, range time, etc? This is your life we are talking about, so what other efforts have you made to defend it?
read the thread....
