Thread replies: 12
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: 1478080025921.jpg (78KB, 1052x979px) Image search:
[Google]
78KB, 1052x979px
Why does everyone seem surprised when I explain to them how easy it is to be shot?
It's as if they never considered that putting someones life in danger by acts of aggression could get them killed.
Example: My sister was telling the story about how her boyfriend had an episode of road rage like it was something to be proud of. Her boyfriend had got out of his car at a stop sign, power walked over to the car behind him, then proceed to slam his hands down on the hood yelling at the driver to back the fuck off. He did this simply because the other vehicle was riding his bumper.
If you were the driver of that car you would have all the legal justification needed to engage the person with deadly force. Some may say it would be a 'bitch' or 'pussy' thing to do, but on a legal standpoint it would be justified on more than one count.
To be honest I'm most surprised at how people think doing something like that road rage incident is acceptable.
I just think the more people that know how much of a danger they are putting themselves in by doing something as stupid as that the better the country would be.
>>
>Man puts hands on car.
>I feel justified that he can die.
Hope you have a fantastic lawyer anon. The law is never cut and dry.
Shooting anyone even when it's deemed your life felt threatened will still tie you up for dozens of hours and thousands of dollars.
Is it worth shooting someone if it costs you $20,000 and months of your life in court time.
>>
>>31926285
Is road rage reason enough for brandishing to be legal?
>>
OP is both right and wrong
yes it's true that people take too many risks with instigating violence for no reason when it can turn deadly easily. but if that specific situation had turned deadly, no, it would not have been entirely legal for the shooter.
like, put it this way: Someone aggresses you > "if I were more a more impulsive man I could have shot him" > does not mean YOU - a stable individual - have to shoot him
>>
>>31926299
>and I base that on absolute nothing.
It depends where you are, for sure. But there are many Instance of people not being charged, not having their weapon confiscated as evidence etc if they are clearly in the right. Fuck off with your misinformation.
>>
File: 414229.jpg (116KB, 1008x881px) Image search:
[Google]
116KB, 1008x881px
>>31926285
>road rage
I never get this kind of action : because you drive a car/motorcycle you can rage more then if you're not ?
Why people rage more when on the road ?
>>
>>31926285
>slam hands on hood
>reason for deadly force
Nope.
>>
>>31926285
I don't think that your situation would be justification for lethal force, but I know what you mean. The same people who say it was wrong for a victim to shoot an armed robber because he just wanted the victim's belongings. I think it's just the average persons' disconnection with the real world. Their world is just smartphones, shopping, and safe living. Nothing bad will happen to them, and if something comes up, the police will be there to save them.
>>
>>31926299
I believe this thread is about being shot not being tried for shooting someone.
fucking autism.
>>
>>31926285
I just pull over and let them pass. I must be doing it wrong.
>>
>>31926847
"He was banging on my hood and windows, saying he was going to kill me!"
Depending on your state, naturally, but self defense is defense of self and property- and all the reason you need. Big moral: If they're not alive to contradict you, you'll probably win.
>>
>>31927053
I think you will only have a case for self defense when they break the boundary between you and them. For as long as they are just chimping outside the confines of your car, you're reasonably safe. However the moment they break a window or force a door open, then you could argue your life is being threatened.
Thread posts: 12
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2