So, how would you explain this?

Interesting question, and I would suppose it would depend entirely on the jurisdiction's laws where it occured.

In Nevada, as long as the assailant is armed it can be argued that he was still a threat and was only seeking cover. Had this happend here, the stipulation that an assailant is a threat when armed with a firearm at ANY distance comes into play, together with the definition of a deadly force threat as being readily capable of being carried out, and the 21-foot rule goes out the door, and the guy (the defender) would not be charged and would not have to defend himself in court. The assailant/s would represent a threat as long as they are armed, regardless of their direction of travel, and with the consideration that they (the assailants) had already demonstrated a willingness to use their firearms as a deadly force threat in the commission of a crime, the defender should not have any difficulty in upholding his actions.

Perhaps in Clark County (Las Vegas area) some attorneys may be able to make something out of this by coming down hard on the defender, since the gun laws there closely reflect those of southern California, but anywhere else in the state: no case.

 

The guy doesn't know if the criminal still has his gun or not. Being on the ground doesn't mean he can't get up and shoot him or running with a bat or a gun doesn't mean they are forever gone. I would say IMHO, The old guy still felt there was an imminent threat and in the state of Florida that is what the Stand your ground law is really about.

 

As a side note, there has never been any restriction in Nevada on shooting someone in the back.

The logic there is that a criminal (or several) could confront their victim, and the one with a gun can turn his back to the victim, look over his shoulder, and point a gun from under his arm. If the victim then shot the criminal, it would be a back shot and not a frontal shot. Hence there is no restriction on the location of the entry wound.

No kidding.

 

I wouldn't have done anything different, except shot them more times with a much bigger gun. But I live out here in Reno, same as Happy. That's just how it's done in Northern Nevada. It's a pretty nice place to live, & baby gangstas don't fare to well around here.

 

I am in Ohio and from the way I understood the laws when I took the class, you cannot shoot someone here that is trying to flee. (I am not a lawyer or a cop.) The first shot the guy took seemed to be ok because that was an obvious threat. I don't think going after the guy while still shooting is ok. I hate laws like that because as someone else said, the guy can still shoot behind while he is running. How is that not still considered a threat?

 

I am from Ohio and living in Florida and when I lived there I always thought that was a poorly written law. I am glad the Stand your Ground Law is what it is in Florida. I am not an advocate of just shooting people running away, that being said a lot more could be happening than JUST some criminal running!

 

I am in NC and my cch instructor asked the question "is it ok to shoot an attacker in the back?" To my surprise, the answer was yes.

Even when running away the attacker can still point the gun backwards and kill you!

 

But when it comes down to the heat of the moment. And lives are on the line. Do you really think he was considering the laws in his head. Would you? Im shore I wouldn't.

 

If he'd shot them with a bigger gun instead of that little .380 pocket gun, they probably wouldn't have fled. Funny, right at the very end, he turns his gun on its side and looks at it. He was probably thinking the same thing..."either I need to get a bigger gun or one with more capacity, or both." HaHa. Good job by him though!

 

Very true. I hope if ever in a similar situation I would be able to keep my self from breaking the law. Tryn to protect myself or others.

 

All in all, I think he did good. Since we can't see what's going on off camera when they're back outside, I do wonder about his last shot out the door, but aside from that...

That's a reason why people who don't have any training need to get training. Not just go to the range, or some 1 day class, but one that actually tries to put you in stress situations. Nothing except the real thing can truly prepare you for the real thing, but every bit of training is a step in the right direction, as is practice, including dry fire and practicing drawing.

Exactly. Zimmerman, whether right or wrong, has been bad enough. The lady in FL that shot her ex husband and got 20 years hasn't exactly been great, though that's gotten a lot less attention. Someone trying to do the right thing but clearly breaking the law would be a very, very bad thing.

 

In Las Vegas, we had a landmark case about 4 years or so ago involving a somewhat similar situation.

Homeowner returns in the evening and enters his home, sees the home in disarray, draws his pistol from CC and enters the home. Intruders had apparently broken the sliding glass doors in the back of the home and gained entry this way.

Two intruders rush past the homeowner to exit out the patio door, fleeing the home. Homeowner fires several shots and kills one intruder inside the house, dead on the spot (totally legitimate shooting/killing under Nevada law: trespass in the home). Second intruder flees into the back yard, over the property wall into a neighboring house. Homeowner runs out the front of his house, sees the intruder, pursues him over 2 blocks, shoots and kills the second intruder.

He was charged with open murder (no-bail offense), lost his guns, lost his CCW, went to prison for a couple of years and eventually was able to get out on appeal and was later tried on manslaughter charges. Although convicted, he was able to commute sentence to a year plus time served, and is now free. But he has not had his gun rights restored.

The intruders were unarmed.

The lessons here are: you shoot not necessarily to kill but to stop the threat, if the perp is running but is still armed (as in the internet cafe shooting) then he is still a threat; second lesson is: civilians are not empowered to pursue with force; third lesson: always bear in mind the laws the allow or limit your right to use deadly force...always.

And as a parting note, I have heard it said that every bullet you fire has a lawsuit attached. My version is: the first bullet you fire in self-defense will change your life, and it will be the most expensive bullet you have ever fired.

Food for thought.

 

Like someone else said in the heat of the moment the only thought I'd have is "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6". I'm not saying I'd empty a 15 round mag into someones body on the floor, but if they are holding a weapon and moving, I'm shooting. Too big of a chance that cover is being take, they point the gun backwards, pretty much what has been said.

Granted my other thought, which holds no legal water, is that someone that does **** like that, being the thugs not the old man, are just rapid animals that need to be put down anyway. You lose your humanity and your rights and privileges when you pull **** like armed robbery. But thats my personal thought.

 

Yea I would never chase a BG down. That's just asking for it. And yea if a family member was shot in front of me. Yea im shooting to kill the person who did it. Blind rage. And I would love to do some real life pressure situations training.

 

On the first part, I would recommend that CCW permitees research and find out if "panic fire" is allowed in their jursidictions. In Nevada, the rule of "panic fire" entitles a civilian to empty a magazine in the heat of the moment, or to continue firing until the civilian believes the threat has ended. It does not however protect the shooter from prosecution if the shooter went up to a suspect he/she just shot, and shoots them in the head (manslaughter, and there is case law on this here). If a mortal blow is given, it must have been given while the suspect presented a clear and imminent threat to the shooter.

I applaud the old guy in the video, although I would recommend he rethink his aim or his choice of gun, but then again, the skill to develop rapid target aquisition and servicing of the target can only come from practice, and nothing prepares you for the "real" thing...except the real thing.

On the second part of your post, while I am sure many would agree with your standpoint, and indeed it does seem logical (and I do not disagree), fortunately or unfortunately we live in a society that is governed by rules, and what makes us different from the human trash is that we follow the rules, and the rules say that some people are alive only because killing them is against the law.

 

In legalese, there is something called "temporary insanity" defense. This has successfully been used in some (albeit very few) situations where an attack occured and a family member of the victim either attacked the attacker, or killed the attacker, in "the heat of the moment, under the influence of emotion". These are keys to the "temporary insanity" defense.

For those seeking more than just standing at the firing line shooting at stationary targets, try IDPA or USPSA shooting competitions. The stress is there (believe me!) and it builds until you hear the shot timer, and after that all you can focus on is cover, shooting position, and identifying and servicing the targets. It is not "real life" situational stress, but it is pretty durn close, as close as you can get without being robbed on the street.

Cheers!