GA LAC With CWP Self-Defends Against Gangsta Rapper Thug

I have never been in such a situation, but it is not my plan to fire a single shot, and then check the outcome before firing again. It's going to be at least three shots, and I will keep firing until I am convinced that the threat has ended. No one should be expected to defend himself in a foolish way.

Ivan Sample said:

Since we do we go around taking shots at fleeing suspect-LEO doesn't do things like that.

Click to expand...

Thats not true, The US Supreme Court decided this issue in Tennessee v. Garner (1984).

Prior to the Garner case, police could shoot a fleeing suspect that had committed a felony. However, since the Garner decision, police can not shoot a fleeing suspect unless allowing him to escape is a danger to society.

Again in my state i know for a fact that I can not continue to fire(non leo) when they are no longer a threat, and I am sure its close to if not the same across the country for civilians. From my understanding even as a armed guard(OPOTA & Homeland Security) I don't have the ability to shoot a fleeing suspect either

It amazes me how much detail you were able to glean from an article or two, yet the jury that heard all the testimony couldn't come to the same brilliant conclusion. I yield to your mastery of conclusion-jumping.



You have no idea that the threat was over.

Ivan Sample said:

zack991-

That is the point that I was trying to make! The threat was over but he still took a shots any way. Which is illegal in alot of states.........

Click to expand...

My point was to the leo's" aren't allowed to shoot a fleeing felon. Yet the SC says they can as long as allowing him to escape is a danger to society. As for the threat was over, I was not there so I can read all the news articles I want. I will never be able to know what he felt as fear wise or how badly he was beaten in the past by the same guys. I will always give what I think was done being a good or bad thing, yet in the end it does not matter. I feel for the guy considering he was badly beaten last time and the thug got what was coming to him by looking to start another fight. I feel no pity for the dead thug. Over all he certainly violated a few laws that he was not charged for, yet he was found not guilty. He got lucky court wise, but again the thug got what was coming to him.

LEOs have a vastly different mission than we do. I watched a video where an officer in a squad car dealt with two convicted felons in a Cadillac armed with an automatic AK-47. Of course, they didn't have any proficiency with the weapon, so they couldn't hit anything, but he still returned fire through his own windshield. For several miles the chase wound on, where the felons would get the car into an area and slow down so the cop could catch up... and every time he got close, they'd let off a burst from the AK-47. Finally, they drove off the road due to vehicle damage around the same time his backup arrived. And he cuffed them, and put them in a car.

Think about this -- if any of us had to deal with that, we would use our right to self defense and shot those men in that car dead. Not pursue at risk and hazard to life and limb. Not detain, cuff, patdown, and proceed to arrest.

Our ability to commit murder in self-defense, as provided by the law, has limitations. LEOs operate under similar but different rules of engagement.

The above encounter is on video, on Youtube.

eye95 said:

It amazes me how much detail you were able to glean from an article or two, yet the jury that heard all the testimony couldn't come to the same brilliant conclusion.

Click to expand...

+1

Ivan Sample said:

Kirbinator-

You probably would have shot them dead-not everyone is like you so speak for yourself and keep your big mouth shut because you don't know what you are talking about.

Click to expand...

You seem to discount the effects of fear and adrenaline in a self defense shooting, both civilian and officer alike have fired until empty when threatened with imminent danger. Can you state with certainty that in a similar situation that you would be able to fire with precision and cold calculation so as to satisfy your own standards of engagement?

I was trained to first leave maybe even run before using deadly force. It states that in his own words that he did this! The very last thing that I would want to do is use deadly force unless it came to that point. Then I would shoot to stop the threat. That might mean that I only shoot once or twice but I will never shoot someone in the back three times. What some folks don't understand is there is alot information in the so- victim statement that contradicts his story. I read the statement about ten times and there is point where the so-call victim could have left with out firing a shot. I have read this statement to alot of people and they also read it for themelves and they came up with the same conclusion I did. This so-call victim should have been charge with something if not murder but something. The shooting was not justify according to what I read. I also know that I'm no expert but I did do is look at the whole picture. I know people have a difference of opinion and I can agree to disagree but you have certain members in here that think they know everything and that is what get under my skin. Yes, I got pissed off when I read about the same members doing this over and over. So I decided to do what they are doing! It doesn't make it right on my part.

I also realized that it more to the story then what is being printed. To me-to shoot someone in the back three times, I have a hard time with agreeing that that was self defense. Now if it would have been three times to the front, I would have understood that alot better or even in the head. I think what started out in self defense turn out to be wrong. I am not even listing the laws that this so-called victim violated by taking a gun from GA to California. Where california don't even recognized GA permits or even where the fight originated at. From GA to California is long distance for someone to get shot and killed. I just have a hard time believing it. Again this was a so-call gangsta rapper who rap about violence. In the rap industry, you going rap about what sells the most records being hard core or not. So I really don't by that argument either. All said and done, he was found not gulity and he should consider his self lucky.

Ivan Sample said:

If you get shot in your back three times are still going to advance on someone that shot you, hell no!

Click to expand...

That's the whole point. Shoot to stop the threat. Once the threat is stopped, stop shooting.

If the first shot hit his arm & turned him around, it's not unreasonable that the next shots hit his back.
As others (with far more training & experience than I) have pointed out, it's also not unreasonable to get off several shots in just a couple of seconds, without pausing to reassess after each shot.
Also possible that the victim was moving as he shot & got toward the side or back of the attacker.

Since the victim also shot at the 2 associates of the attacker, it seems they were threatening too.
With it being three on one it's perfectly legal / ethical to shoot to stop any of the attackers. (Yes, there's case law, but it's late & I'm not going to dig it up right this instant.)

None of us were on the jury, nor even in the courtroom, & I'll bet that none of us has talked to the victim.
We're only going by what's in the papers, which is notoriously unreliable. (DAMHIK*)

*(Don't Ask Me How I Know)... an acronym with applications to many & varied situations.


By the way, you might want to edit some of your posts before the moderators do it for you....:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules
(6) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS
...we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks...

(9) HATE IS NOT WELCOME HERE
Any posts attacking others based upon... anything other than opposition to gun rights is NOT WELCOME HERE!
We reserve the right to impose immediate bans for such behavior.

MKEgal-

I decided to delete the majority of my post in here and thanks for getting me back on track. For awhile there I was becoming something that I didn't want to become. This is just forum where people are going to speak out of turn and I will just keep reading and keeping my words to myself.

MKEgal said:

3 on 1 would make me think that he might even have been killed in this second attack.

Click to expand...

Indeed, Multiple assailants even though unarmed would make me fear for my life. One need not be assaulted with a weapon, or improvised weapon to be beaten to death.

Same goes for size disparity... you can't expect someone who stands 5'6" weighing 150 Lbs. to take on someone who stands 6'6" outweighing him by 100 lbs. without a lot of special training.

Gender disparity counts as well.

If three people approach me aggressively, take an offensive posture, and make a verbal threat to kill me, I will draw and fire given no reasonable avenue or time to retreat.

I am glad that my training and the line of work that I do always keep me up to par. I am aware of what goes on around at all times when I am out in the public due to the simple fact that I don't trust folks. The only time that my guard is down is when I am at home with my family. Yes, when I am out in the public I am always armed with my G-22!

I'm just glad we won't have to listen to his so called music. Gangster rappers are not the baddest mother fuckers on the block. That early forty something soccer mom is probably a better shot and better armed than most of these wanna be thugs.

I wasn't there and don't know the full story. It could have been justified self defense. It could have been retribution for the earlier assault the shooter suffered. My problem with this case and the shooter is that it appears that he fled the scene and was later apprehended with his weapon at the airport. Was he not going to report it or turn himself in? I am surprised even with the rap lyrics, that he was able to beat any charges and convictions.

MK-

Thank-you
+10000

Lac?

Hardly a law-abiding citizen if his possession of the handgun was a violation of California law. That said, I'm glad he doesn't seem to have been convicted, or perhaps even charged, with a crime from that or any part of the incident. Aside from driving to the airport instead of a police station, everything he did seems reasonable and justifiable.

I often wonder how reasonable it would be to flee a threatening situation in a strange location on foot. For all Berry knew, there were 50 more friends of that poor, gentle thug waiting around the corner to jump him as he ran away. Getting his car and leaving was probably the smartest thing to do, aside from possible legal implications.

Somehow I don't believe him when he said that he didn't know his permit wasn't valid in CA. I have to wonder how he even got the gun there? Flying into LA with a gun can't be easy. Last time I was there, they had helpful signs notifying passengers that guns are not allowed on planes on one's person or as carry-on baggage.

Ever notice how many of these sad "rappa stories", use the expression "up and coming"? Is this the medias way to solicit sympathy?

I'm really amazed that this worked out as well as it did for the victim given the current state of the CA firearm restrictions, especially in LA. (I liked the moon rock analogy)

Trekker said:

Ever notice how many of these sad "rappa stories", use the expression "up and coming"? Is this the medias way to solicit sympathy?

I'm really amazed that this worked out as well as it did for the victim given the current state of the CA firearm restrictions, especially in LA. (I liked the moon rock analogy)

Click to expand...

did you notice how most of the people in this thread that said "dolla" deserved it also keep saying things like "u aint be rappin no mo" and "rappa stories" and "live like a punk die like a punk".... seems a little biased, maybe even a little racist if you ask me.

people act like just because someone raps or sings about something morbid or offensive that it makes them bad people. Rap is entertainment and its done to make money, not to "portray the reality of the streets". Do you think actors deserve to be shot for acting in a gangmembers role, or the role of a murderer/rapist etc? The writer should be shot because he thought of it? I should be shot because i play video games where I kill people?

Keep in mind that pretty much the entire case was based on the shooters testimony and the fact that the man killed was a rapper who sang offensive lyrics. If this were a story about a 20 year old kid putting 3 shots into the back of an older man most people here would be going on and on about what he did wrong, but since its some "young black rappa gangsta punk ass" everyone jumps on the wagon and judges the situation on pretty meaningless crap.

The dude that got shot could have been a solid guy who helped people and didnt want to hurt anyone, and just put on the guise of a hardcore thug to get noticed, like 99% of all the other (extremely rich) rappers. You never know, but judging from what i read it doesnt seem like the self defense was legitimate.

Claytron said:

did you notice how most of the people in this thread that said "dolla" deserved it also keep saying things like "u aint be rappin no mo" and "rappa stories" and "live like a punk die like a punk".... seems a little biased, maybe even a little racist if you ask me.

people act like just because someone raps or sings about something morbid or offensive that it makes them bad people. Rap is entertainment and its done to make money, not to "portray the reality of the streets". Do you think actors deserve to be shot for acting in a gangmembers role, or the role of a murderer/rapist etc? The writer should be shot because he thought of it? I should be shot because i play video games where I kill people?

Keep in mind that pretty much the entire case was based on the shooters testimony and the fact that the man killed was a rapper who sang offensive lyrics. If this were a story about a 20 year old kid putting 3 shots into the back of an older man most people here would be going on and on about what he did wrong, but since its some "young black rappa gangsta punk ass" everyone jumps on the wagon and judges the situation on pretty meaningless crap.

The dude that got shot could have been a solid guy who helped people and didnt want to hurt anyone, and just put on the guise of a hardcore thug to get noticed, like 99% of all the other (extremely rich) rappers. You never know, but judging from what i read it doesnt seem like the self defense was legitimate.

Click to expand...

Claytron-I have been saying this earlier in my posts but I was criticized and bashed for what I was thinking. I had to step out of my boundries by cuzzing people out and some of my post were deleted (which I was totally at fault for my actions) because people in here thought that I reading to much into this matter. I totally agree with you 100% and its nice to read a REAL post.
+100

G. I. G. O.