04-19-2022, 04:12 AM
What would be the outcome of the victim having a weapon here and using it?
This was an armed robbery.
However CA is not a stand your ground state and the victims were out and about, so the victim would have to demonstrate that his fear of harm to himself or someone else. at that time, was reasonable.
It looked to me like a victim was struck at the very beginning of the video, but I'm not sure.
A suspect has already brandished a weapon which carries implied threats, whether or not this suspect made any additionally.
If that's the case, the use of deadly force by another victim would likely be found justified.
The other side of that coin is that since nobody was really hurt, and the bad guys were just thieves, it's just as well they weren't shot, because it's just property.
That's not a view I generally accept, but that's me.
However, any crime where a victim isn't severely injured or killed is a near win, in my book.
Then there's the practical side of responding with a firearm.
Drawing or retrieving a firearm to use against someone who's already brandishing theirs is a very risky proposition, with some obvious potentially dire consequences if one isn't fast and accurate.
This precludes brandishing one's one firearm in self-defense.
If one pulls, they have to put the suspect down or be put down.
Yes, that's an individual call, and one a lot of people couldn't make work.
In that situation, should the victim prevail he would likely not be criminally charged.
CA law maintains one cannot be criminally punished for justifiable homicide.
That doesn't preclude civil liability in a wrongful death suit.
A court case is very often not about facts or the truth, but what a jury believes, for good or bad.
This was an armed robbery.
However CA is not a stand your ground state and the victims were out and about, so the victim would have to demonstrate that his fear of harm to himself or someone else. at that time, was reasonable.
It looked to me like a victim was struck at the very beginning of the video, but I'm not sure.
A suspect has already brandished a weapon which carries implied threats, whether or not this suspect made any additionally.
If that's the case, the use of deadly force by another victim would likely be found justified.
The other side of that coin is that since nobody was really hurt, and the bad guys were just thieves, it's just as well they weren't shot, because it's just property.
That's not a view I generally accept, but that's me.
However, any crime where a victim isn't severely injured or killed is a near win, in my book.
Then there's the practical side of responding with a firearm.
Drawing or retrieving a firearm to use against someone who's already brandishing theirs is a very risky proposition, with some obvious potentially dire consequences if one isn't fast and accurate.
This precludes brandishing one's one firearm in self-defense.
If one pulls, they have to put the suspect down or be put down.
Yes, that's an individual call, and one a lot of people couldn't make work.
In that situation, should the victim prevail he would likely not be criminally charged.
CA law maintains one cannot be criminally punished for justifiable homicide.
That doesn't preclude civil liability in a wrongful death suit.
A court case is very often not about facts or the truth, but what a jury believes, for good or bad.