• Get 30% off the first 3 months with code HIDE30

    Offer valid until 9/23! If you have an annual subscription on Sniper's Hide, subscribe below and you'll be refunded the difference.

    Subscribe

  • Having trouble using the site?

    Contact support

Shoot or no shoot?

#51
First
Is this a rhetorical question?

Second
Why is gun violence mentioned in this article?

In Rhode Island? I reckon you take your licks and hope you live.
The other option im betting, was to face the wrath of the justice system. One of the thunderdome gang was filming, so I'm betting had she defended herself in any way, she would be the one in a mug shot.

Me? In my State?
Hard left on the wheel and hold her there while I let that 6.7 Powersmack spool up hard. Run the rest down for miles cause....after the first one, the rest are free.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yasherka, Foul Mike, sgtsmmiii and 4 others
#52
308pirate said:
When said person is detaining you so that others can drag you out, articulating the need for deadly force using the car as a weapon is very easy.



Either one of those actions triggers castle doctrine in my state.

In any case I'm not going to contemplate the finer points of the law while I'm being surrounded. I'm going to do whatever I have to do to prevail.
Click to expand...

I, for one, would not try to articulate using a vehicle as a deadly weapon against someone parked out front to escape another person, who actually posed an eminent threat, standing at my door.

If you can convince a jury that any reasonable person in your situation at the time would've arrived at the same conclusion, you should be good.

It's all in how you articulate it...
 
#53
Skunk said:
I, for one, would not try to articulate using a vehicle as a deadly weapon against someone parked out front to escape another person, who actually posed an eminent threat, standing at my door.
Click to expand...

It's pretty simple in my mind: injure/kill one to escape and avoid injuring/killing more of them or injure/kill one, and the next, and the next, and the next.............

I wonder if we're talking past each other because you've had certain vehicle pursuit/ram policies placed on you and they're reflected in your thinking? I don't know. But I'm curious to know.
 
#54
Skunk said:
I, for one, would not try to articulate using a vehicle as a deadly weapon against someone parked out front to escape another person, who actually posed an eminent threat, standing at my door.

If you can convince a jury that any reasonable person in your situation at the time would've arrived at the same conclusion, you should be good.

It's all in how you articulate it...
Click to expand...

A jury of your democrat peers fully expects you to submit to a beating.
 
#55
MtnCreek said:
Actually interested in hearing your thoughts on this. Surrounded by a group like this, blocked from escape and some in that group are trying to open the door. The car's not going sideways so you're left with forward or reverse. In my humble opinion whoever in this group that is blocking my escape is SOL. ???
Click to expand...
Yeah, I see your reasoning. Like I said above, I think it comes down to how well you can articulate your thought process. If after the fact you say, "well, I thought for sure the person at my door was going to kill me, so I did what I had to do to escape the threat and save my life" you may be ok.

If you say, "well, I thought for sure the person at my door was going to kill me, so I set my sights on the dude out front and ran him over" you may not fair so well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maggot
#56
Skunk said:
Yeah, I see your reasoning. Like I said above, I think it comes down to how well you can articulate your thought process. If after the fact you say, "well, I thought for sure the person at my door was going to kill me, so I did what I had to do to escape the threat and save my life" you may be ok.

If you say, "well, I thought for sure the person at my door was going to kill me, so I set my sights on the dude out front and ran him over" you may not fair so well.
Click to expand...
Best way is to just keep your mouf shut and let your lawyer liar speak for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sgtsmmiii, DeadAss, TurboTrout and 3 others
#58
Skunk said:
I hope you guys can see, and I'm sure you can, why it's so important to not say a damn thing to anyone until you've spoken to your defense council, who if he/she is worth a shit, can help you properly word your statement.
Click to expand...
See post 57, LOL.
 
#61
So basically the Toecutter and The Acolytes are chasing you down on motorcycles... Um yeah I'm shooting...

TC.PNG
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: geek65, Jefe's Dope, Im2bent and 2 others
#62
Skunk said:
I, for one, would not try to articulate using a vehicle as a deadly weapon against someone parked out front to escape another person, who actually posed an eminent threat, standing at my door.

If you can convince a jury that any reasonable person in your situation at the time would've arrived at the same conclusion, you should be good.

It's all in how you articulate it...
Click to expand...

They are all part of the same group engaged in a felony

If you run the idiot blocking you over and kill them, my understanding is that murder charge is on his knuckle head buddies, not the woman decided she didn’t want to get raped/robbed/killed/etc at the top sign.

Also a good reason to record when things look to get sporty. All too easy for that yute to toss his boost mobile phone down a gutter and them all to say you were road raging on them, depending on the race makeup and who knows who, and if it’s election time, good chance the victim ends up in jail.
 
#63
308pirate said:
It's pretty simple in my mind: injure/kill one to escape and avoid injuring/killing more of them or injure/kill one, and the next, and the next, and the next.............

I wonder if we're talking past each other because you've had certain vehicle pursuit/ram policies placed on you and they're reflected in your thinking? I don't know. But I'm curious to know.
Click to expand...

The deadly force policy I have to operate under says deadly force may be used "only when necessary" and that's "when the subject of such force (i.e. the person I'm using deadly force against) poses an eminent danger of death or serious physical injury" to me or someone else. So, in short, I can only use deadly force against the person actually posing that threat to me.

If person A, at my car door, is posing the imminent threat of death/serious physical injury to me, I'm not justified is using deadly force against person B, who's out in front of the car.

In taking action to save your own life while in a car, if you don't have a pistol, as you mention, you do what you've gotta do to live. Someone may become a streak on the highway.

We're splitting hairs, I know, but that's what'll happen once the lawyers get involved. There's a difference in saying, "person A was going to kill me, so I did what I had to do to get away from person A" and saying, "person A was going to kill me, so I ran over person B."

The action is the same, but the wording shows the difference between a purely defensive life-saving action, and an offensive one.

It's all in how you articulate it...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sean the Nailer and 308pirate
#64
Skunk said:
The deadly force policy I have to operate under says deadly force may be used "only when necessary" and that's "when the subject of such force (i.e. the person I'm using deadly force against) poses an eminent danger of death or serious physical injury" to me or someone else. So, in short, I can only use deadly force against the person actually posing that threat to me.

If person A, at my car door, is posing the imminent threat of death/serious physical injury to me, I'm not justified is using deadly force against person B, who's out in front of the car.

In taking action to save your own life while in a car, if you don't have a pistol, as you mention, you do what you've gotta do to live. Someone may become a streak on the highway.

We're splitting hairs, I know, but that's what'll happen once the lawyers get involved. There's a difference in saying, "person A was going to kill me, so I did what I had to do to get away from person A" and saying, "person A was going to kill me, so I ran over person B."

The action is the same, but the wording shows the difference between a purely defensive life-saving action, and an offensive one.

It's all in how you articulate it...
Click to expand...

And the person preventing you from escape from their cohorts, who mean to cause you great harm or death, that blocking person isn’t party to the crime?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maggot and 308pirate
#67
Skunk said:
Sure, they're a party to the crime. They're just not actually the one posing an imminent danger to you at the time of your action.

Like I said, splitting hairs/mincing words... have your lawyer help you craft your statement.
Click to expand...

No splitting hairs

So if two people are commuting a rape, the one holding the woman down, better not hurt him as you’re trying to fend off the one with his pants down?

I may not be a lawyer, but I don’t think it works that way. Think it’s “murder, party to a crime”

7.1 Parties to Crime – Criminal Law

open.lib.umn.edu open.lib.umn.edu
 
Last edited:
#68
Skunk said:
I hope you guys can see, and I'm sure you can, why it's so important to not say a damn thing to anyone until you've spoken to your defense council, who if he/she is worth a shit, can help you properly word your statement.
Click to expand...
This x1000%

I tell people all the time to keep their traps shut. After a decade in LE, I can tell you one very simple truth:

The LE is there to investigate criminal action, and if needed take peopleto jail. Period. They are not your friend. You don't know what other people have told them from their perspectives. Witnesses suck. Maybe they thought they saw something, but it didn't actually happen because of their view of the incident.

Don't think for one second you're gonna be buddy-buddy with a cop who is on scene investigating an incident where you may (or may not) have criminal culpability. The Blue might not back you even though you "Back the Blue".

The 5th Amendment, to be free from self incrimination is a thing. Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Give your identification info and respectfully say you're invoking your right to remain silent and will only talk to legal representation.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 34SF, E. Bryant, Jefe's Dope and 9 others
#71
Skunk said:
I, for one, would not try to articulate using a vehicle as a deadly weapon against someone parked out front to escape another person, who actually posed an eminent threat, standing at my door.

If you can convince a jury that any reasonable person in your situation at the time would've arrived at the same conclusion, you should be good.

It's all in how you articulate it...
Click to expand...

Worked for the guy in NY a few years back. He's a free man and the thug is still in a wheelchair.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: DarnYankeeUSMC, Maggot and Skunk
#72
BoltRunner said:
I've loved James Bond cars since I was a kid, would love to have one of his rides in an incident like this... Couple guys on motorcycles pull out baseball bats and I start shooting fuckin rockets at them :cool:
Click to expand...
I was looking for the one where he shoots out an oil slick behind the car, but rockets or machine guns will work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoltRunner
#74
Dude, I know that I'd stand to lose my freedom, and my finances over criminal/civil suits...especially if I were living in a liberal fucktard state (which is why I don’t).

However I'm armed about 99.999% of the time, at home or away it doesn't matter.

In this case as soon as my car is surrounded and someone goes for my door I'm playing monster truck with whoever is in the way. If I'm physically unable to drive; I'm emptying the magazine at as many moving targets as possible...just like one of the shitty hog hunting videos I make.

You're talking about the safety of my family here. I've got one purpose in life, and that's to see to their health and well-being. Don't promise me with a good time. I take huge shits anyway...boys in the pen wouldn't be fighting over this ass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 308pirate, camotoe, AMGtuned and 2 others
#75
TurboTrout said:
No splitting hairs

So if two people are commuting a rape, the one holding the woman down, better not hurt him as you’re trying to fend off the one with his pants down?

I may not be a lawyer, but I don’t think it works that way. Think it’s “murder, party to a crime”

7.1 Parties to Crime – Criminal Law

open.lib.umn.edu open.lib.umn.edu
Click to expand...

In your scenario there are two people both criminally responsible for the act they're committing; a principal in the first degree and a principle in the second degree (the accomplice). The fact they're both criminally responsible DOES NOT justify you in shooting either of them.

If you smoke either or both of them and your defense is, "well, I did it because... party to a crime... blah blah," you will be convicted of some kind of unjustified killing.

Now, if you explain that you shot rapist-with-his-pants-down because you: A) believed he posed imminent (happening or gonna happen) danger of death or serious physical injury to the woman, B) you believed had you not acted she may be permanently injured or not be breathing a minute later, and C) your whole thought process was based in reasonableness... You'll probably be ok. However, just because turd #2 was there does not justify you in shooting him unless you can establish the same (A, B, C) for him.

In a nutshell, deadly force works like this:

A) Believe bad guy is going to seriously harm or kill you, or someone else, right now (Imminent danger of death/serious physical injury)
B) Believe your action is absolutely necessary to prevent the above (no warning shots, no shooting in the leg/arm, not shooting solely to disable a vehicle. You're using deadly force against the PERSON that poses the imminent threat!)
C) A "reasonable" thought process to bring you to that conclusion
 
#77
Skunk said:
In your scenario there are two people both criminally responsible for the act they're committing; a principal in the first degree and a principle in the second degree (the accomplice). The fact they're both criminally responsible DOES NOT justify you in shooting either of them.

If you smoke either or both of them and your defense is, "well, I did it because... party to a crime... blah blah," you will be convicted of some kind of unjustified killing.

Now, if you explain that you shot rapist-with-his-pants-down because you: A) believed he posed imminent (happening or gonna happen) danger of death or serious physical injury to the woman, B) you believed had you not acted she may be permanently injured or not be breathing a minute later, and C) your whole thought process was based in reasonableness... You'll probably be ok. However, just because turd #2 was there does not justify you in shooting him unless you can establish the same (A, B, C) for him.

In a nutshell, deadly force works like this:

A) Believe bad guy is going to seriously harm or kill you, or someone else, right now (Imminent danger of death/serious physical injury)
B) Believe your action is absolutely necessary to prevent the above (no warning shots, no shooting in the leg/arm, not shooting solely to disable a vehicle. You're using deadly force against the PERSON that poses the imminent threat!)
C) A "reasonable" thought process to bring you to that conclusion
Click to expand...

And the guy who’s party to the people who are trying to attack/kill you, who’s blocking your path of escape, running his ass over is 100% needed to save my life, unless I’m to neutralize everyone trying to pull me out via hand to hand combat (as most people don’t carry). By intentionally blocking me in so his buddies can attack or kill me, that’s causing me serious harm/death.

Any court that finds otherwise, it was going to convict you no matter what anyways.

If a organized group/gang tries to block me in and breach my car, its gas pedal all day

Only question is do you risk calling the police after, or risk not calling the police, in the day and age we live in it’s a valid factor for ones risk matrix. Seeing how the cops smiled and waved during the burning of cities, but were super fast to draw on any destroy the life of anyone who even laid a finger on a BLM thug, or dared to open their business during unlawful lockdowns, it’s a odd time
 
  • Like
Reactions: AMGtuned
#78
TurboTrout said:
And the guy who’s party to the people who are trying to attack/kill you, who’s blocking your path of escape, running his ass over is 100% needed to save my life, unless I’m to neutralize everyone trying to pull me out via hand to hand combat (as most people don’t carry). By intentionally blocking me in so his buddies can attack or kill me, that’s causing me serious harm/death.

Any court that finds otherwise, it was going to convict you no matter what anyways.

If a organized group/gang tries to block me in and breach my car, its gas pedal all day

Only question is do you risk calling the police after, or risk not calling the police, in the day and age we live in it’s a valid factor for ones risk matrix
. Seeing how the cops smiled and waved during the burning of cities, but were super fast to draw on any destroy the life of anyone who even laid a finger on a BLM thug, or dared to open their business during unlawful lockdowns, it’s a odd time
Click to expand...
"

Only question is do you risk calling the police after, or risk not calling the police, in the day and age we live in it’s a valid factor for ones risk matrix"


Good point. To you just crush a few and hope you get away or report it and hope the cops dont fuck you over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thejeep
#79
TurboTrout said:
And the guy who’s party to the people who are trying to attack/kill you, who’s blocking your path of escape, running his ass over is 100% needed to save my life, unless I’m to neutralize everyone trying to pull me out via hand to hand combat (as most people don’t carry). By intentionally blocking me in so his buddies can attack or kill me, that’s causing me serious harm/death.

Any court that finds otherwise, it was going to convict you no matter what anyways.

If a organized group/gang tries to block me in and breach my car, its gas pedal all day

Only question is do you risk calling the police after, or risk not calling the police, in the day and age we live in it’s a valid factor for ones risk matrix. Seeing how the cops smiled and waved during the burning of cities, but were super fast to draw on any destroy the life of anyone who even laid a finger on a BLM thug, or dared to open their business during unlawful lockdowns, it’s a odd time
Click to expand...

Maybe wearing a mask and having a really dirty license plate are good things. My plate doesn't even have numbers in relief. The thing is entirely flat and a hefty application of mud would render it completely unreadable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AngryKoala
#81
308pirate said:
Maybe wearing a mask and having a really dirty license plate are good things. My plate doesn't even have numbers in relief. The thing is entirely flat and a hefty application of mud would render it completely unreadable.
Click to expand...
I dont know if they work with hand held cameras but you can buy a license plate shield thats supposed to protect you from the traffic cameras. Im going to get one because I dont buy EZ Pass, dont carry change and Im sick of getting toll charges in the mail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 308pirate
#83
Maggot said:
"

Only question is do you risk calling the police after, or risk not calling the police, in the day and age we live in it’s a valid factor for ones risk matrix"


Good point. To you just crush a few and hope you get away or report it and hope the cops dont fuck you over.
Click to expand...

It’s not “getting away with it”, you still got victimized, it no doubt traumatized your kids, maybe you, and to a lesser extent the damage to your car, your reaction to hit the gas and save your life and the life of your kids in the above situation was 100% justified, sadly we don’t have a justice system we have a legal system, one that will destroy a innocent life just as fast, and often even worse, than those street thugs.

I see the “system” getting worse and worse till we just go balkans, then start to reset to a new good government, like 1776, then over the following 200 years just goes the same path to statism to Balkan, rinse and repeat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 308pirate
#84
Skunk said:
The deadly force policy I have to operate under says deadly force may be used "only when necessary" and that's "when the subject of such force (i.e. the person I'm using deadly force against) poses an eminent danger of death or serious physical injury" to me or someone else. So, in short, I can only use deadly force against the person actually posing that threat to me.

If person A, at my car door, is posing the imminent threat of death/serious physical injury to me, I'm not justified is using deadly force against person B, who's out in front of the car.

In taking action to save your own life while in a car, if you don't have a pistol, as you mention, you do what you've gotta do to live. Someone may become a streak on the highway.

We're splitting hairs, I know, but that's what'll happen once the lawyers get involved. There's a difference in saying, "person A was going to kill me, so I did what I had to do to get away from person A" and saying, "person A was going to kill me, so I ran over person B."

The action is the same, but the wording shows the difference between a purely defensive life-saving action, and an offensive one.

It's all in how you articulate it...
Click to expand...
So just let the car roll forward until the person blocking your way decides to move. They won’t be able to hold the car still.

In the alternative, the person blocking your way is acting in concert with the one wanting to pull you out of the car. So they are also placing you in imminent danger. You can take them out in order to escape and the other one is responsible for the homicide under the felony murder rule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skunk
#86
OREGUN said:
Regarding that particular woman, why was her door unlocked and why didn’t she run those motherfuckers down while she was still in her several thousand pound vehicle?
Click to expand...
My doors may be unlocked when I drive and it's not from negligence. Yank the door open to my vehicle in an aggressive manner and reach inside and I consider it no different than a home invasion. I will shoot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maggot
#88
Maggot said:
I dont know if they work with hand held cameras but you can buy a license plate shield thats supposed to protect you from the traffic cameras. Im going to get one because I dont buy EZ Pass, dont carry change and Im sick of getting toll charges in the mail.
Click to expand...

Let me know how it goes. I've been eyeing the same thing.

Beware not all traffic/plate cameras work on the visible spectrum. Some are IR. Keep that in mind when shopping.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blue Sky Country
#90
They also make a s
308pirate said:
Let me know how it goes. I've been eyeing the same thing.

Beware not all traffic/plate cameras work on the visible spectrum. Some are IR. Keep that in mind when s
Click to expand...

308pirate said:
Let me know how it goes. I've been eyeing the same thing.

Beware not all traffic/plate cameras work on the visible spectrum. Some are IR. Keep that in mind when shopping.
Click to expand...
Apparently they make a spray to put on the covering lens that also helps.
 
#92
Rhode Island has some weird self defense laws. If the person trying to kill you is not armed you are allowed to defend yourself by punching back. Lulz I don't see her Bruce Leeing these assholes. They have a castle doctrine but if the person attacking you is a room mate you have to retreat you can't just start shooting :(
www.thomasianlaw.com

Self-Defense in Rhode Island

Read our blog or contact The Law Office of Thomas C. Thomasian, Esq today to learn about the self-defense laws in Rhode Island.
www.thomasianlaw.com
 
  • Sad
Reactions: geek65
#94
Disparity of force anyone?

Threat of great bodily harm or death is checked, this one is game over for the go ahead to stop based on self-defense for fear of imminent death or great bodily harm.

They can whine about not being armed all the way to the morgue. Be decisive and brutal in the execution of the task at hand, stop, the, threat. Once the threat is stopped you stop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: geek65 and camocorvette
#96
The moment that door was pulled open I would have wanted to be shooting.

Our legal system probably would say that wasn't okay. If I got dragged out and then shot them, maybe.

She should have just driven through them.

That whole group should have gotten lead poisoning
 
#97
Tono said:
Not sure what I would do. I know that I would not get out of the car...

One thing I have done is change the default setting on the "unlock car doors" when shifting into park or shutting off the engine. Just makes it a bit harder for someone to get to you.

Some of comments so far reminds me of the self defense shooting in Austin that took place when the "defendant's" car was surrounded by "protestors" one armed with an AK. I wonder how the defendant would respond to this thread, now that he has been indicted? Remember this is Texas. Albeit the left leaning city of Austin.

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...who-shot-protester-indicted-on-murder-charge/
Click to expand...

The only reason he was indicted is because the prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence from the grand jury and intimidated the lead detective who wanted to exonerate the defendant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoDopes and supercorndogs
#100
slowly roasted over an open fire . that brazen bull torture device would be fitting .
1628314214431.png

but I still stand behind my favorite idea , sacrificed to an active volcano clean no mess no clean up no stank nothing to have to bury no remains .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

U
Shooting at Joel Osteen's Megachurch
Replies
76
Views
3K
TexPatriot
T
PatMiles
California: No. 1 in Gun Control, No. 1 in ‘Active Shooter Incidents’ in 2023
Replies
41
Views
946
bulletbluesky
B
Blue Sky Country
Convicted child rapist and multiple felon arrested after making threats to kill Trump during visit to Arizona border.
Replies
7
Views
352
TexPatriot
T
PatMiles
Wisconsin Teacher Who Made Out with Fifth-Grader Faces Life in Prison
Replies
58
Views
2K
Milf Dots
Milf Dots
7.62willdo
To serve and protect…..
Replies
28
Views
799
W54/XM-388
W54/XM-388
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts