Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
HankT wrote:
Here is what the OP wrote: "...Malec then drew his licensed sidearm, and with both hands on his weapon and pointed down and to the right again commanded Eilers to vacate the premises. It was at that point that Eilers lunged at Malec and he fired a single shot hitting Eilers in the chest..."
Here is what I wrote: "According to the OP, the defender fired when the aggressor lunged at him, the defender having previously drawn and having his gun pointed down.
If true, this would be a critical point. The aggressor was about to come into possession of a gun. It doesn't matter much if he draws it from his own holster, picks it up off a nearby table, or takes it out of your hands. He now has a gun.
Also, consider. If an aggressor lunges at a person with a drawn gun,onehas to assume he considers he can win the fight he is initiating. Without knowing his training skill and backround, why would a defender assume the aggressor doesn't know his business?"
No galloping or jumping, involved. The'assuming' is expressed, as compared to implied.
What brought my reply tomind in the first place was the number of comments about [big, tuff, pro-fighter] being enough inthe minds of some posters to use a gun. Yet, I know even that is notnecessarilya required disparity of force. My main point in posting was to introduce Ayoob's information.
One might say there was a secondary, not entirely conscious, purpose to suggest a legal defense angle to the OPer. But I don't know thatIwas purposing even that much;mainly I was using the circumstances reported in the OP toestablish the basis formy post.
HankT wrote:
Citizen wrote:Whoa, whoa, Citizen! Whoa, now.According to the OP, the defender fired when the aggressor lunged at him, the defender having previously drawn and having his gun pointed down.
How does the OP know this? Was the OP there at the scene? Did he get this information from others? If so, who?
Speculating about this crucial issue is kind of, um, dangerous if one wants to avoid unnecessary assumptions.
Where did this piece of information come from? And how reliable is it? Is it biased?
Well, as for bias, I see the the OP's account of the incident (sorry, ixtow) on Jim's Plight and here don't mention even one word about the aspect of alcohol at the Christmas celebration. Why is that? Why is that?
I think it just might be relevent how much alcohol was involved in the family celebration. Who was drinking? How much? Who was drunk?
Did the part about Eilers having "lunged" at Malec come from a person who was drunk on the night in question?
Whoa, Citizen. You usually don't get to galloping so quickly. Whoa.
I don't think we know just yet what Eilers actually did...
Here is what the OP wrote: "...Malec then drew his licensed sidearm, and with both hands on his weapon and pointed down and to the right again commanded Eilers to vacate the premises. It was at that point that Eilers lunged at Malec and he fired a single shot hitting Eilers in the chest..."
Here is what I wrote: "According to the OP, the defender fired when the aggressor lunged at him, the defender having previously drawn and having his gun pointed down.
If true, this would be a critical point. The aggressor was about to come into possession of a gun. It doesn't matter much if he draws it from his own holster, picks it up off a nearby table, or takes it out of your hands. He now has a gun.
Also, consider. If an aggressor lunges at a person with a drawn gun,onehas to assume he considers he can win the fight he is initiating. Without knowing his training skill and backround, why would a defender assume the aggressor doesn't know his business?"
No galloping or jumping, involved. The'assuming' is expressed, as compared to implied.
What brought my reply tomind in the first place was the number of comments about [big, tuff, pro-fighter] being enough inthe minds of some posters to use a gun. Yet, I know even that is notnecessarilya required disparity of force. My main point in posting was to introduce Ayoob's information.
One might say there was a secondary, not entirely conscious, purpose to suggest a legal defense angle to the OPer. But I don't know thatIwas purposing even that much;mainly I was using the circumstances reported in the OP toestablish the basis formy post.