WELL...it's the feeling you get when an irrational guy with a tire iron gets violent and wants you to get out of your car, presumably to beat your brain in. it's not a perfect system i know, but considering the alternative, which is waiting till AFTER your suspicions are confirmed, it's the best we've got. and unless canadians are like jesus and can raise from the dead, it's the best you have to go on too. i'd much rather be in a courtroom explaining my story than 6 feet under...

 

Laws like that have to be subjective because there's a million and one ways for someone to threaten your life, and you never know what's going on inside someone's head.

Repeat after me: "I was in fear for my life so I shot to stop his actions."

 

^^ EXACTLY. and in this particular situation, where there was evidence of intent (deadly weapon, evidence of it being used, the nature of the confrontation, etc.) combined with the fact he probably had a history of violent behavior, i highly doubt the DA would even try to prosecute if the OP had chosen to use lethal force.

 

Don't we live in a society where you are innocent until proven guilty? Funnily enough in Canada we operate on this assumption and we have a pretty low crime rate (most murders are gang members killing other gang members). A law that involves someone's life shouldn't be subjective and I think the OP definitely took the best approach to the situation. I'm not saying don't defend yourself, I'm simply saying that killing someone is rarely the right answer especially if it's just about some material goods.

 

We're not talking about material goods. If someone was bashing my car, I wouldn't shoot them. If someone was about to bash my driver's side window with a tire iron while I was sitting in it....I'd shoot them right through the window without thinking twice.

That's why these laws are able to be subjective. When exercising your right to defend yourself, you have to be a good judge of what is "escapable without having to resort to deadly force" and what is not.

As far as the "innocent until proven guilty" theory and how it no longer applies to US society, I blame Kalifornia.

 

Yea...being a military veteran myself I can see how I know nothing about guns. . And you're right, we won WWII because of small arms, and they lost because of small arms, as opposed to better willpower and strategy and a nuclear weapon.

I do practice at ranges now btw, because as a separated military person, I can't go around shooting folks. Doesn't mean I don't know how. I still practice shooting while on the move and in various positions--quick aim, reflex, and precision. But yea...you're probably right. The only bullets that actually kill people are only the .45 and higher.

 

also, yes it is highly subjective dealing with irrational violent people, but in my mandatory concealed handgun license class they provided some general guidelines. if someone takes a martial arts stance or says they know martial arts and you don't, it will probably hold up
in court. also, if it's 2 against 1, or they have a deadly weapon (gun, knife, brass knuckles, baseball bat, tire iron, etc.) or, if the person would obviously incapacitate you due to a difference in strength (like arnold schwarzalphabet vs. we-man from jackass), and especially if you have a disability. none of that is set in stone though. the good thing is, if you do ever need to use your weapon, chances are the person you have to put down has a criminal record or at least has a warrant, because the chances of you being someone like that's first victim are slim. AGAIN, it's not perfect, but to legislate away self-defense because the circumstances aren't always crystal clear is a crime against humanity IMHO. basically the law is written such that if the system DOES fail, you at least are safe in knowing you can attempt to defend yourself without fear of prosecution. and that's not to say you wouldn't lose your case in civil legislation either, where things are even LESS cut and dry, but considering the alternative i'd take it any day...

 

Again, I'm not saying don't defend yourself, I'm simply not agreeing with the methods or the mindset (that being that anyone who ****s with you deserves to die).

 

I think we can all agree killing someone is NEVER the right answer...with one exception...which is any situation where someone is TRYING TO KILL YOU! if someone has a deadly weapon and is trying to get me out of my car, and i have no means of escape, it's very likely i am about to be killed. i don't want to speculate as to the specifics of this particular situation as to whether i definitely would or wouldn't shoot the guy, but on the face of it, it appears more likely than not...
don't get me wrong, i NEVER want to shoot ANYONE and thankfully I've not had to...but i hope and pray that if it ever came down to it, i would if i had to.

 

AND ambystom...this situation went well beyond just "messing" with someone. i hope your refusal to recognize this simply stems from supporting your belief system, because if you think about it, what the hell was that crazy MF doing out there in the middle of the street acting like that? he obviously wasn't in a real hurry or he wouldn't have come back for the extra violence. so, one can only assume he was there to get in a fight for no other reason than he was a crazed violent lunatic. the fact he came back armed is ample evidence alone that he was not simply "messing" with the OP.

 

I don't actually think the person in this situation was going to try to kill the OP. If he was, why would he smash in the taillights as opposed to simply breaking the front glass and beating the OP senseless?

 

Why would you try to think of a rational reason why an irrational person did anything? That's not logical in and of itself.

This guy had some issues, he chose to act them out physically. We'll never know what was going through his head, or what he was intending, if he was even intending anything at all or if he was just acting out in the heat of the moment.

If someone pulls out a weapon, you should always one up them on the use of weapon (in the event you have one). A bat would have been more appropriate, or something to that effect...but a gun works just as well.

 

Did you seriously not read anything in my post about how I wasn't saying that a handgun wasn't responsible for the outcome of the war?

P.S.: I know lots of separated military guys who don't know anything about guns. In fact, I know many that do that have never even had to fire a shot other than during training. Speaking of training, why exactly is it that now we always train with failure drills with the 9mm's instead of center mass like with the .45's? Just curious.

9mm's might expand (hollow points), but a .45 cal will never shrink. The muzzle velocity difference between the two speaks for itself as well. Also, we're talking self defense. Do you really want to have your judgment questioned as to whether or not you used excessive force when you had to damn near do a mag dump on your attacker?

I'll stop arguing with you because it's really a stupid to continue on this OT rant. Let's get back on topic.

Have the police said anything about what's going to happen with the guy? Maybe you should go visit him in jail and bring him a cake.

 

Agreed. Always counter the threat with a higher level of defense. In the case that you don't have an intermediate weapon, go higher, not lower. The last thing you want to do is think you can simply beat a guy with your bare hands when he's using a blunt object, only to have him end up taking your gun away from you.

Rule #1, never get shot with your own gun.

 

^^^ agreed on that. As for the gun stuff--I still aim for center mass--but you're right about the amount of bullets. Typically I'll triple-tap it. If they're still up after that, well, I always have another clip.