Can't believe CNN actually covered this.

[5.56blaster]

I love Monday morning quarterbacks. Bad guy got what was coming to him. Bet this was not his first run in with the law. Maybe he will learn something from it.

 

[Z_Man]

I would also add that there is no way this woman started the fight, to suggest that she started the fight is the "victim mentality" where you are a victim by default, and to do anything to change that narrative is criminal. The rules in MD, where most of us live, are such that you cannot use deadly force to protect property, I do not agree with that policy, but it is what it is.

the guy who went to take a car, that was not his, committed a felony even if she left the car running with the door open. It is unfortunate that this is not enough to warrant lethal force being used upon you, by citizens who are trying to uphold society.

 

[Bafflingbs]

That was a good shooting. Her life was in eminent danger. He was justified in the use of deadly force. Good job!

 

[Rack&Roll]

No, the woman did not "start the fight". She was willing to stand up for herself and prevent the heathen taking her lawful property. The round was well-placed, and I'm confident the authorities will agree with me on that and reject your expert opinion. I'm willing to bet money on it if you have the gumption to back your words with cash.

As far as the "smell of trolling"; I could say I am surprised that you accuse me of deliberately trying to frustrate you when you disagree with my statements, in the hope that a moderator will help you out of your dilemma. But I would be lying if I did.

I will say it again, s-l-o-w-l-y....there was a theft. Only after that did the car owner start the "physical confrontation" part of this situation. The female car owner was facing a total of four men, and the use of her car as a weapon that could be used to harm her if she intervened.

She started this "fight" with escaping thieves--her decision.

CCW Citizens have their own decisions, based on the law and their obligations.

I ask you again: do you hold a CCW from this state or any other?

 

[Bafflingbs]

Based on my, almost 21 years in law enforcement, say it was a theft, not a carjacking. The woman did not have physicle control of the vehicle, when it was stolen. That being said, when she decided to jump on her hood, she put herself in eminent danger. The ccw citizen, took the appropriet action with the information he had.

 

[Blaster229]

Based on my, almost 21 years in law enforcement, say it was a theft, not a carjacking. The woman did not have physicle control of the vehicle, when it was stolen. That being said, when she decided to jump on her hood, she put herself in eminent danger. The ccw citizen, took the appropriet action with the information he had.

Let me ask this and let's see if this is the same for the shooter.

You are CCW.
Someone is stealing your car.
You jump on the hood.
You claim your life was in danger, so you shot while holding on.

A person is able to use deadly force in a situation that THEY put themselves in? That won't fly.

Good shoot? Was it a good shoot for the actual shooter if he saw her do it?

 

[Rack&Roll]

Doesn't matter if it was a purse snatching or a car snatching--you can't use lethal force to retrieve property, except in Texas (and there are caveats to that).

This CCW citizen shooting ended with just the Bad Guy being shot. But if there was a miss and a round hit an attractive young mother clutching her baby and both were killed then CCW is at risk nationwide.

Instead, if the female car owner had been hurt--or killed--the lesson goes out that leaping onto the hood of your car to stop a thief is the wrong thing to do.

We keep our CCW cards and people learn that their lives are worth more than property.

 

[Kinbote]

You didn't ask me if I CCW'ed when I responded the last time; you went back and added that. However, since the first rule of CCW is "Never talk about CCW", I'll have to ignore that impertinent question.

Based on your disapproval of the shooter and the victim (the real victim, not the turdbird "victim" that got justly blasted)in this circumstance, I've done quite a few things over the years that would make you clutch your pearls. Or not clutch them, if someone on the street wanted to take them off you.

I don't care how much you want to exonerate or excuse the thief, or how you want to explain he should not have been hindered in his theft, or was unjustly attacked by that terrible woman trying to steal his car from him, and didn't deserve to be shot by the unsafe gun-wielding assassin, or whatever Bizzarro-world scenario you are trying to construct. I told you I am willing to bet money the authorities agree with me. You can take that bet or admit you're riding your crazy train alone, although, of course, you do know better than the local law enforcement down there.

You can try to Fifty Shades of Gray it all you want, but the woman and the man in this story both behaved bravely and have certainly earned my respect for their actions. You are welcome to sneer at them and criticize them as much as you like.

 

[Rack&Roll]

Let me ask this and let's see if this is the same for the shooter.

You are CCW.
Someone is stealing your car.
You jump on the hood.
You claim your life was in danger, so you shot while holding on.

A person is able to use deadly force in a situation that THEY put themselves in? That won't fly.

Good shoot? Was it a good shoot for the actual shooter if he saw her do it?

Generally, you will not be able to escape legal punishment for using lethal force for a fight that YOU instigate. If you jump on your own car hood, you are instigating a confrontation over property.

The most frequent examples are bar fights. If you are a CCW holder and start an argument in the parking lot of a bar--an argument that escalates into a fist fight where you believe you will now be killed--you can use your weapon to save your own life but you will be charged with a crime for starting a fight that led to a death.

The fact that saved George Zimmerman from manslaughter in FL was that Treyvon Martin STARTED the physical fight in that case.

 

[Rack&Roll]

You didn't ask me if I CCW'ed when I responded the last time; you went back and added that. However, since the first rule of CCW is "Never talk about CCW", I'll have to ignore that impertinent question.

Based on your disapproval of the shooter and the victim (the real victim, not the turdbird "victim" that got justly blasted)in this circumstance, I've done quite a few things over the years that would make you clutch your pearls. Or not clutch them, if someone on the street wanted to take them off you.

I don't care how much you want to exonerate or excuse the thief, or how you want to explain he should not have been hindered in his theft, or was unjustly attacked by that terrible woman trying to steal his car from him, and didn't deserve to be shot by the unsafe gun-wielding assassin, or whatever Bizzarro-world scenario you are trying to construct. I told you I am willing to bet money the authorities agree with me. You can take that bet or admit you're riding your crazy train alone, although, of course, you do know better than the local law enforcement down there.

You can try to Fifty Shades of Gray it all you want, but the woman and the man in this story both behaved bravely and have certainly earned my respect for their actions. You are welcome to sneer at them and criticize them as much as you like.

You are welcome to employ Cowboy Concealed Weapons Doctrine all you want. Just don't ask me to donate to any defense fund.

And if you think this woman "behaved bravely", by all means, write her a letter.

 

[Ack Ack]

I didn't see anyone use lethal force to protect or retrieve property. However, once the woman was on the hood of the car, the bad guy used lethal force to steal property by continuing to drive. Then, the good guy used lethal force to stop the bad guy.

I won't argue that jumping on the hood of the car was a good idea, but it has no bearing on the CCW holder's actions because the bad guy was now using lethal force.

 

[john_bud]

Had the car owner been white, would Al and Jesse be showing pictures of the "victim" gunned down by an evil white man? After all the poor child was just on his way to church to sing in the choir, feed the poor, give blood and then donate a kidney to save the pope's life.

Get real! He was a criminal thug stealing a car and was willing to kill the owner to obtain it. I have no sympathy for him. Don't forget that the REAL victim might have lost her job, home, etc if she lost her transportation. Speculation only, but probable.

 

[Rack&Roll]

I didn't see anyone use lethal force to protect or retrieve property. However, once the woman was on the hood of the car, the bad guy used lethal force to steal property by continuing to drive. Then, the good guy used lethal force to stop the bad guy.

I won't argue that jumping on the hood of the car was a good idea, but it has no bearing on the CCW holder's actions because the bad guy was now using lethal force.

Nope, you are wrong if you think this was a "good shoot". We just got lucky this time.

Our CCWs will be outlawed again if a few people make too many mistakes coming to the rescue of people who make very poor decisions in their lives.

Can't be any more clear than that.

 

[Kinbote]

No one in free states will lose the right to CCW, and this state doesn't have Shall Issue anyway. That fellow in the video was just washing his car, heard a woman scream, turned, drew his weapon and put a single well-placed round on a small, moving target right where it belonged, all in a few seconds. That was an outstanding job, anyway you look at it, and he surely needs no advice from you on how to CCW. Quite the reverse, actually.

That woman doesn't need a letter from me to let her know she was brave to stand up for herself. Only the most ignorant dumbass would need to have that fact spelled out for him.

If more people in maryland were willing to fight for what is rightfully theirs, you wouldn't be in the sad, sorry position you are now, telling folks to surrender without a fight anything the bad guy wants to take. That's a shameless and craven attitude, but I'm sure the criminals appreciate it.

 

[wrc]

Generally, you will not be able to escape legal punishment for using lethal force for a fight that YOU instigate. If you jump on your own car hood, you are instigating a confrontation over property.

The most frequent examples are bar fights. If you are a CCW holder and start an argument in the parking lot of a bar--an argument that escalates into a fist fight where you believe you will now be killed--you can use your weapon to save your own life but you will be charged with a crime for starting a fight that led to a death.

The fact that saved George Zimmerman from manslaughter in FL was that Treyvon Martin STARTED the physical fight in that case.

I'm curious how you consider this a fight that she instigated?

 

[thomfantomas]

good samaritan sadly we all know an incident like this occurring in this state that victim would've been a helpless victim..............

 

[jbrown50]

Some of you posters here are fearful of a fellow CCW'er making a mistake and it negatively reflecting on the rest of us. Could one mistake by one CCW'er really make that much of a difference in how legal carry is viewed as a whole? Is the validity of our stance really that weak?

The CCW'er in this instance saw a felony being committed in his presence and an innocent life being threatened. He acted appropriately. He also had the ability to put the shot where it needed to be and no innocent bystanders were hurt. It was the criminal who set the ball rolling. It was the criminal who would have been 100% responsible for what ever happened.

Witnesses told Channel 2’s Ross Cavitt that they couldn’t believe how brazen the carjackers were. They said the car wash was full of customers at the time.

Why are criminals becoming so much more brazen nowadays? Could it be that as a result of our fears of what could go wrong if we confront them that we're confronting them less?

 

[Blaster229]

I'm curious how you consider this a fight that she instigated?

He probably did not mean that.

She did not instigate the theft, however she instigated the shoot. She needlessly and recklessly placed herself in a dangerous, life threatening position. This in turn made someone else react and put himself in a bad spot (by having to shoot someone) and possibly her.
It was a stupid thing to do that could have had BAD consequences for everyone involved.

 

[esqappellate]

Nope, you are wrong if you think this was a "good shoot". We just got lucky this time.

Our CCWs will be outlawed again if a few people make too many mistakes coming to the rescue of people who make very poor decisions in their lives.

Can't be any more clear than that.

Folks should look at the law of Georgia for an informed discussion. It provides as follows:

West's Code of Georgia Annotated Currentness
Title 16. Crimes and Offenses (Refs & Annos)
Full text of all sections at this level Chapter 3. Defenses to Criminal Prosecutions (Refs & Annos)
Full text of all sections at this level Article 2. Justification and Excuse
Current selection§ 16-3-21. Use of force in defense of self or others, including justifiable homicide; conflicting rules


(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:

(1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;

(2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or

(3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.

 

[Rack&Roll]

No one in free states will lose the right to CCW, and this state doesn't have Shall Issue anyway. That fellow in the video was just washing his car, heard a woman scream, turned, drew his weapon and put a single well-placed round on a small, moving target right where it belonged, all in a few seconds. That was an outstanding job, anyway you look at it, and he surely needs no advice from you on how to CCW. Quite the reverse, actually.

That woman doesn't need a letter from me to let her know she was brave to stand up for herself. Only the most ignorant dumbass would need to have that fact spelled out for him.

If more people in maryland were willing to fight for what is rightfully theirs, you wouldn't be in the sad, sorry position you are now, telling folks to surrender without a fight anything the bad guy wants to take. That's a shameless and craven attitude, but I'm sure the criminals appreciate it.

You seem to be guided simply by emotions. Reacting emotionally-- that's how the lady ended up sprawled on her car, dude.

I'm curious how you consider this a fight that she instigated?

It was her right to try to stop FOUR men engaged in property crime, but her safety was not at issue until she moved TOWARD the property thief, not away from him.

And who knows how many in this gang was armed?

Isn't this board all about hammering home the notion of personal responsibility?

Some of you posters here are fearful of a fellow CCW'er making a mistake and it negatively reflecting on the rest of us. Could one mistake by one CCW'er really make that much of a difference in how legal carry is viewed as a whole? Is the validity of our stance really that weak?

The CCW'er in this instance saw a felony being committed in his presence and an innocent life being threatened. He acted appropriately. He also had the ability to put the shot where it needed to be and no innocent bystanders were hurt. It was the criminal who set the ball rolling. It was the criminal who would have been 100% responsible for what ever happened.

Why are criminals becoming so much more brazen nowadays? Could it be that as a result of our fears of what could go wrong if we confront them that we're confronting them less?

You noted that the car wash was FULL of bystanders on a busy city street. Cops withhold fire in many circumstances for a reason, and the decision matrix is no different for CCW citizens.

I'll say it again. We got lucky this time.