[Axius]

Originally Posted by 1MOREMOD

Seems phil either needed to act while dude was in car causing immediate threat or let it go. In no way does, he had a illegal gun carry any weight if he leaves and isn't pointing it at you. Can you run over anyone you find out had an illegal gun because they could be a threat, minority report? Shoes aren't worth the risk you incur going back, neither is vengeance worth going to jail. Yeah I'm in for shoe theft? Wtf

If you had your gun holstered at your side waist, do you think you would have time to draw and shoot? Honest question. I ask that question to myself. I like to say yes, but in the heat of the moment..., I'd rather him take my shoes, as much as I'd like to shoot him in the face for pointing a gun at me.

[1MOREMOD]

Originally Posted by Axius

If you had your gun holstered at your side waist, do you think you would have time to draw and shoot? Honest question. I ask that question to myself. I like to say yes, but in the heat of the moment..., I'd rather him take my shoes, as much as I'd like to shoot him in the face for pointing a gun at me.

No wouldn't try it unless situation changed and not getting in gun fight over shoes. Unless actually feared he would shoot as well. Unfortunately this is how a lot of concealed carry situations seem to want to play out. Can't quick draw Mcgraw dudes so just play safe.

[Axius]

Originally Posted by 1MOREMOD

No wouldn't try it unless situation changed and not getting in gun fight over shoes. Unless actually feared he would shoot as well. Unfortunately this is how a lot of concealed carry situations seem to want to play out. Can't quick draw Mcgraw dudes so just play safe.

Smart man.

It just amazes me that people think just because someone is a CCL holder they should automatically respond to a situation and have it end in their favor. Life doesn't work like that. Only luck does.

[1MOREMOD]

No you misunderstood, I would bite his neck. Then practice my new wing Chun on his ass so he drops the weapon and then I torture him with knuckle raps.

[trixdout]

Originally Posted by fravel

#1. Simply being in possession of a loaded firearm doesn't automatically make anyone a threat.

#2. Once the kid left the vehicle Phil was no longer in danger. He could have very easily drove off. This will hold true in any court in the country. There are actually examples where carjacking victims have been convicted of a crime because they used their vehicle to injure/kill the perp rather than flee.

Now, having said that, I completely agree that the kid is a POS and he deserves what he got, but unfortunately Phil will be the one who really pays for this.

P.S. Based on your responses here I can guess that you aren't a CHL holder, but if you ever decide to exercise that right, I strongly suggest you read-up on when lethal force is justified, for your own sake.

So the fact that he was 17 and had a loaded gun, doesn't make him a threat? He is not legally allowed to have a gun.

SO my question...... What were his intentions?! FFS.

Law interpreting in this thread is getting ridiculous.

[1MOREMOD]

Originally Posted by trixdout

So the fact that he was 17 and had a loaded gun, doesn't make him a threat? He is not legally allowed to have a gun.

SO my question...... What were his intentions?! FFS.

Law interpreting in this thread is getting ridiculous.

You already saw what his intentions were he stole the shoes and took off. He isn't a threat if he takes off. You are safe after it has happened? You are the one with poor interpretation skills. Take c5s bet.

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by trixdout

So the fact that he was 17 and had a loaded gun, doesn't make him a threat? He is not legally allowed to have a gun.

SO my question...... What were his intentions?! FFS.

Law interpreting in this thread is getting ridiculous.

Are you Phil?

[Navy Doc]

Originally Posted by trixdout

I don't get how the kid is not an immediate threat. At any point, if Phil chose to tale him all the way where ever this kid would stop, the could have fired the gun at him. I see an immediate threat at any point of this incident up until the cops would have arrested the kid.

How is everyone looking past the fact that this kid had a gun that was not legally his.

Let us start trial with prosecuting the kid for attempted first degree murder.

The kid more than likely had all intentions of bringing the gun with him to buy those pairs of shoes. He obviously didn't think of taking the gun last second. That's attempted murder. Running over the kid was self-defense.

Self defense is when you defend yourself against a threat. Someone walking away from you is not a threat. If someone broke into your house make sure you shoot him in his chest, not his back while he is running for your house. Shooting him the back gives you little ground to stand on with self defense. Same thing in this instance. The immediate threat was not there. If Phil would have beat the kid, in his vehicle, after the gun jammed his defense of self defense would hold up. The fact that he has a gun doesn't mean he is a threat. Should we all attempt to kill anyone that has a gun? Phil should have simply called the cops. Maybe even attempt to follow the kid........ That's a big maybe.

No one is overlooking the fact that the kid was a dumbass and needs to pay for his actions. To say that the kid had planned to take the gun with him is speculation. Speculation typically doesn't hold up in a court of law.

Neither of their lives will be the same. gonna go out on a limb that Phil has a lot more to lose in this situation.

[Verbiage]

Originally Posted by Navy Doc

gonna go out on a limb that Phil has a lot more to lose in this situation.

I see what you did there.

[fravel]

Originally Posted by trixdout

So the fact that he was 17 and had a loaded gun, doesn't make him a threat? He is not legally allowed to have a gun.

SO my question...... What were his intentions?! FFS.

Law interpreting in this thread is getting ridiculous.

Age of the kid has no bearing on whether or not he is a threat.

Possession of a loaded gun in and of itself does not make him a threat.

It's not a matter of interpretation, the law is quite clear on this one. The second the kid exited the vehicle Phil was no longer in danger. If Phil had reacted while the kid was still in the car it would be a different discussion, but he didn't. Deadly force was no longer justified when Phil decided to use it.

[catcher22]

That's messed up he had to run all the way home and nobody lent him a hand