Let's hear it for the 2nd amendment!!! (Page 3)

Yeah but a pretty poor showing for a guy who was playing Call of Duty in an internet cafe.  Just sayin

You are making one hell of a generalization there, which happens to be false. 

Tony my friend, you're digging a hole.  The man is in control of his weapon and even makes a few adjustments to ensure he has a clean line of fire.

To have 3 hits on a moving target at that range shows the man was a good shot.

Are you suggesting that one cannot fire accurately while moving, or that one does not fire unless there is a 10 feet "safety" zone around the target?

Sorry, going to have to disagree with both of these. Based on personal experience and ability.

That made me laugh.  

I'll actually agree with Tony on one point.  When he first comes up on them he had every right to fire to eliminate the deadly threat.  However, when they turn and start running away their threat of deadly force is gone and him shooting at them from behind is borderline criminal.  It's very easy to legally turn a self defense situation into a murder, legally speaking.

I know the authorities are giving him a lot of slack and one can certainly argue that they still posed a threat to people outside.  But in a self defense situation when the bad guy turns around and runs its best to not continue shooting.

Now as to the second amendment, I carry because I want to have options.  If somebody tries to rob me I want to have more options than trusting the meth head will just take my wallet and leave in peace.  He may very well do that, but he may not.  My every day carry consists of a gun, a knife, OC spray, tactical flashlight, and my cell phone.  I have lethal and non lethal options available to me that I can use.  If I get robbed, I may very well just hand the bad guy my wallet and be done with it, but if I feel that he is escalating the situation I have the option to escalate with him.

Oh and to correct somebody earlier it was: good guy 2, bad guys 0.

I've been out of the loop all day.....just catching up.  A few comments that struck me as I read through this thread, admittedly, rather quickly.

Tony - that man is in absolute control of his gun and does a really good job of making sure of his target.  You can't argue that....the only people shot are the bad guys, and there are alot of people in there.

Tuwood - yep, he should have killed them both.  The argument you brought up will surely be brought by the surviving morons in a civil suit.  You kill them to end the threat...running away while still armed has been proven time and again to still represent a threat.  If someone points a gun at you in a threatening manner (as if there is any other way to point one) just keep shooting no matter what they do.....you'll be fine, they'll be dead.

Aces - YES!  Home invasions of the type most of us think of are very rare.  In my own home, I couldn't defend myself with a gun.  Our house is host to many children.  We set it up that way....pool, big swingset, etc.  My guns, at home, are in a safe at all times.  I couldn't live with an accident....no way.  And I completely agree with the idea that a gun accident is much more likely than someone breaking into my home while we are here....I'll gladly play the odds and error on the side of no kids getting shot by accident.

Still.....I carry a gun when I'm out and about.  My job actually requires that I do.....and I'll use it to protect myself, my family, or anyone else who is being victimized......and then I'll sleep just fine.  

I say again....if you are stupid enough to victimize innocent people and I'm around....you're in trouble.  I'm nowhere near alone.  

I don't care at all what the anti-gun people think.  Not one bit.

That's good, I know in Nebraska we don't have that yet.  I have a "duty to retreat" and then even if I'm legally justified in using deadly force I can be sued civilly.

But what jury is going to convict you civilly? If you did nothing wrong, if it was justified, why do you owe something. A local case long ago that was very public involved an old man then would go out looking for trouble. He found it. He was acquitted legally because he was in the wrong originally, but then the victim left after assaulting him... teenager known for violence beat up the old guy over a traffic incident, but turned around to come back for more and the man shot him dead... the second time it was self defense. He was convicted civilly... but his actions contributed to the altercation. If you are actually stopping a crime, saving a life, or defending your own from random violence, I'm curious of the rate of civil judgments for injuries or death.

If he was as well trained and practiced as this one apparently was, then yes.

II

MrT - I'm about to make a gross generalization so if I miss my mark, please let me know (no pun intended) - your statements seem to come from someone with no knowledge of weapons or tactical movement in a close quarters situation.

I've not served in the military or on a police force, but do know what these situations look like and this person shows no sign of being out of control, moves, and handles the pistol in a way perfectly consistent with accepted tactics on threat neutralization.

Just because it may look haphazard to you, or makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean it is so.

I'll stop now before I start sounding like I know more than I do

II