As to damage to property from return fire, states differ on that. So long as the shooting is justified, some states nullify liability (on the part of the justified shooter) for property damage that results.
Let’s see now: An individual benefits (saving his life) by the firing of a shot in lawful self-defense (justified), a shot which goes on to cause damage to the property of a third, totally uninvolved person, yet that third person must bear the cost to repair the resulting damage to his property because the liability of the person causing that damage has been nullified by the shooting being justified? Interesting concept, that.
Perhaps he did not have theft insurance on his van? That still does not explain shooting back with eyes closed. Unfortunately he was dumb enough to tell police he shot back with his eyes closed. As general rule I would run away from gunfire or at least seek cover and stay there. Certainly, I would not leave cover and run toward the shooters.
Well, yes, it would be a bit silly for one who owns no guns to run toward gunfire.
Better to cower in the closet and let the girl friend take the punishment.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
That still does not explain shooting back with eyes closed.
BS, lots of people close their eyes shooting at deer. Closing his eyes has nothing to do with this being a clear cut self defense action and the charges are ridiculous
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
As to damage to property from return fire, states differ on that. So long as the shooting is justified, some states nullify liability (on the part of the justified shooter) for property damage that results.
Let’s see now: An individual benefits (saving his life) by the firing of a shot in lawful self-defense (justified), a shot which goes on to cause damage to the property of a third, totally uninvolved person, yet that third person must bear the cost to repair the resulting damage to his property because the liability of the person causing that damage has been nullified by the shooting being justified? Interesting concept, that.
He can always seek damages from the criminal who made the defensive shooting a necessity.
More bad mouthing and Monday morning quarterbacking yet again by Exchipy. Bad mouthing of the man in the arena. A man protecting both his home and property, obviously from people who were willing to kill him without hesitation, based on the fact that they immediately started shooting at him and into his home that contained his family.
If they are willing to shoot at him and try to murder him the instant he walks out onto his porch, it is absolutely reasonable to expect that they will kill anyone else present in the home as well to eliminate eyewitnesses and prevent from being identified.
Perhaps if you had some actual gunfighting experience, instead of just badmouthing people, (which is what you have a documented track record here of doing) you might have some credibility, but you don't have either.
Disgusting.
Mackay Sagebrush nails it as per usual.
Is it any wonder Ex- Chippy is an EX-Prosecutor & EX-Cop? 🤪 😂😂😂
Last edited by chlinstructor; 05/23/23.
"Allways speak the truth and you will never have to remember what you said before..." Sam Houston Texans, "We say Grace, We Say Mam, If You Don't Like it, We Don't Give a Damn!"
Perhaps he did not have theft insurance on his van? That still does not explain shooting back with eyes closed. Unfortunately he was dumb enough to tell police he shot back with his eyes closed. As general rule I would run away from gunfire or at least seek cover and stay there. Certainly, I would not leave cover and run toward the shooters.
NoElkSlayer / Jason Cardenas always runs from a fight while wearing DIAPERS. 😂😂😂
"Allways speak the truth and you will never have to remember what you said before..." Sam Houston Texans, "We say Grace, We Say Mam, If You Don't Like it, We Don't Give a Damn!"
Perhaps he did not have theft insurance on his van? That still does not explain shooting back with eyes closed. Unfortunately he was dumb enough to tell police he shot back with his eyes closed. As general rule I would run away from gunfire or at least seek cover and stay there. Certainly, I would not leave cover and run toward the shooters.
NoElkSlayer / Jason Cardenas always runs from a fight while wearing DIAPERS. 😂😂😂
Perhaps he did not have theft insurance on his van? That still does not explain shooting back with eyes closed. Unfortunately he was dumb enough to tell police he shot back with his eyes closed. As general rule I would run away from gunfire or at least seek cover and stay there. Certainly, I would not leave cover and run toward the shooters.
NoElkSlayer / Jason Cardenas always runs from a fight while wearing DIAPERS. 😂😂😂
Bwahahaha! Is he really Maser?
Yep. Outed a long time ago by Renegade50.
"Allways speak the truth and you will never have to remember what you said before..." Sam Houston Texans, "We say Grace, We Say Mam, If You Don't Like it, We Don't Give a Damn!"
I know, but some states bar the seeking of civil damages from a justified shooting.
I believe you’ll find that such a bar applies only to prevent the bad guy-shootee, Mrs. bad guy-shootee, and his blood relatives from seeking damages, and does not apply to an innocent third party.
I know, but some states bar the seeking of civil damages from a justified shooting.
I believe you’ll find that such a bar applies only to prevent the bad guy-shootee, Mrs. bad guy-shootee, and his blood relatives from seeking damages, and does not apply to an innocent third party.
"Self-defense laws in Florida also establish that people who legally used force are immune from criminal prosecution and civil actions." It doesn't say, "unless the civil action is brought by a third party who suffered damages."
Charging an innocent man of a crime and the only crime is that he was scared and admitted it.
Charges are BS and will not stick.
There is always a law that is broken by everyone every day, simply because there are so many and no one knows them all.
The fact that the home owner was charged shows that law enforcement has zero ability to use proper discretion.
And, if you and your family were living in a house across the street, what then?
“[Z]ero ability to use proper discretion?” Remember that this guy was only charged with reckless endangerment, not the ADW which could have been charged.
Then the criminal aggressors should be charged for any damages done during their crime, yes even if the unfortunate return fire caused damages.
