Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns When Self-Defense Isn’t

Standing up in the face of grave danger is a brave action. Bravery doesn't mean absence of fear

Neither does stupidity.

I'll forgive you of your stupidity this time.

Thank you. Most appreciated.

To be afraid is not stupidity

If stupid were a crime it would catch up a hell of a lot of people over a bunch of nonsense. And charging the homeowner here would be nonsense.

If you say so.

Absolutely correct!
But, being afraid certainly does tend to bring out the stupidity in those who have not properly prepared themselves for it. Watch the security video attached to the news story for a noteworthy example.

There's likely a lot of lessons to be learned from this story. But the story isn't finished yet, and the transpired facts remain incomplete.

Some of the lessons can also be personal. Some people may opt to leave the cover of their home's interior to protect.their property. I don't begrudge them that, or claim to know the legalities. I'm not inclined to charge outside into unknown danger unless a family member is in danger out there. Even then my approach is at least hoped and planned to be discreet from an unanticipated direction. I often observe suspicious things outside from unanticipated locations as it's already part of my MO.. JMO but I think a great deal of self defense can take place without the application of force. My best to the victim and his family. It's unfortunate he didn't remain as silent as possible in the immediate aftermath.

Solider train for combat yet the first they experience combat some never fire their weapons some cry and others close their eyes.

How does one really prepare for such until they are actually have experienced it.

So, it’s from brave hero, deserving of thanks and a free drink, to inept conscript with a big mouth, unequal to his task?

The responsibility one assumes when choosing to discharge a firearm in public is indescribably huge. One absolutely must do it right, or be awfully damn lucky, and cannot expect a participation trophy along with a free pass for costly mistakes.

You've never been in a fire fight have you

A very thoughtful and intelligent comment, sir.

The security video shows a lot more than the printed story provides. For instance, after leaving the relative safety of his house to challenge the thieves, certainly not inappropriate for someone with some backbone, he takes concealment (and likely good cover) behind an auto in the driveway when the shooting starts. However, he then abandons that cover to advance on the crooks, appearing to unnecessarily go on the offensive, inconsistent with an act of self-defense.

You’re absolutely correct in observing that all the potential facts may not yet be known, though the provided facts are sufficient for this discussion. An official prosecutorial investigation into this matter should remain ongoing throughout the judicial process, including during trial, as things could change dramatically upon discovery of unforeseen evidence.

One potential fact which could prove troublesome, is the possibility that perhaps an elderly woman (not jwp475), who lives alone across the street, has not yet been discovered dead in her bed by concerned relatives who hadn’t heard from her in a while.

Taking the offensive when in defense is often a wise tactic. Take the fight to those that started it. Even a defensive boxer throws punched and goes on the offensive as well

And the costly mistakes in this case were...? Maybe I missed it, did an uninvolved innocent person in the neighborhood get shot by the homeowner? Are there complaints of property damage from his bullets? I know what could have happened, what actual damage did happen?

Maybe he could tell us how he reacted when he was in a firefight.

That would be a very useful approach to secure victory in a military engagement or a barroom brawl. But, don’t try to claim you were acting in self-defense after taking the offensive.

However, when acting in the lawful defense of others (not applicable here), taking the offensive may well be reasonably necessary to save them. The standard used in assessing the lawfulness any such action will always be its reasonableness in view of all the surrounding circumstances.

But, keep in mind that there is no such thing as a kick-ass mentality exception in the law of self-defense.

The home was acting in self defense, tge bad guys fired at him first. By moving off of the porch he was drawing fire away from his home and family.

The charges will not stick

You gotta work on improving your reading comprehension skills. You apparently missed this earlier, even though you copied it into one of your comments:


You also missed, or have forgotten, the fact that “the home” (as you now identify him) was actually charged with reckless endangerment (presumably for wrongfully endangering his neighbors by his blind, wild shooting at nothing in particular). He was not charged with ADW on the bad guys, though he certainly could have been, based solely upon the last shot or two he fired.

i see now why exchippy is an "ex- prosecutor" and has been forced to resort to shilling out as an ambulance chaser. that guy wouldn't have even been charged around here, and we would ahve still been looking for the bad guys, if we didn't already have them