Two years after an attacker shot five volunteers before a Black Lives Matter march in Portland, Oregon, killing a 60-year-old woman and leaving one of her young friends paralyzed, a new visual investigation of the attack reveals that the assailant tried to provoke a stand-your-ground situation, daring three women to fight him, before suddenly opening fire when they refused.
I’ve seen it. From your link:
The presence of the weapon means this was not shoplifting. This was armed robbery. He witnessed an armed robbery in progress.
An armed robbery in progress is 1. Reasonably considered to be a 2. credible, 3. criminal, 4. imminent, 5. threat of death or grievous bodily harm to every person within range of the criminal’s weapon. No lesser amount of force could reliably stop that threat, so lethal force was also 6. necessary for that threat to be stopped before the criminal wanted it to stop.
Are you aware of the criteria for “defense of others”? These armed robbers provided all 6 of the criteria necessary for anyone to fire on them until the threat they posed had ended.
That’s not vigilantism. That video demonstrates he had a solid understanding of the laws governing use of lethal force in defense of self and others.
Welp, as I said you aren’t going to change my mind, and I’m not interested in changing yours. I’ve already taken this discussion further than I would have liked, so good day to you, Sir or Madam.
It’s clear that one of us doesn’t understand self defense.
I think that everyone should be taught the laws governing the use of force, in high school, before anyone is old enough to legally acquire a firearm.
Everyone. Not just gun owners. I think everyone needs a consistent understanding, because there are obviously some major misconceptions in the public’s current knowledge if half the general public thinks he’s a murderer and half think he’s completely exonerated.