speedsix wrote:...if I'm near trouble, I'd rather have my friends weighing in at 230, rather than 95!!!

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
speedsix wrote:...if I'm near trouble, I'd rather have my friends weighing in at 230, rather than 95!!!
While that Fish case is certainly good food for thought, it did NOT occur in the State of Texas, AND it occurred under a VERY restrictive set of laws that have since been changed. Plus you can add in a LOT of other "irregularities"...Paladin wrote:You better make sure your "right" in the eyes of the law or your life is really in danger if you shoot an unarmed attacker.
Mr. Fish spent $600,000+ in court costs link
From what I've seen if you are being assaulted by someone with a gun, and you take it from them and shoot them with it, the shooter is not normally prosecuted.
Practically speaking, there tends to be a public outcry if an unarmed attacker gets shot. Unless the circumstances are something like the shooting occurred inside your own home or there were multiple attackers where you could not get away, expect the DA will want to prosecute.
I agree with you, and would like to add something. IF you were to shoot someone in an arm or leg, in a mistaken belief that you are "hurting them only as much as you have to", you are greatly mistaken. There are large arteries in both the human arm and leg, and an individual who has one ruptured from a gun shot (or other severe trauma) can easily die from blood loss. As staunch as I am about us as both Texans and American citizens having the RIGHT to use deadly force to defend ourselves and our loved ones/friends from vicious, unprovoked attacks, shooting someone is NOT on my list of things I really want to do in my lifetime. It is truly a last resort, as far as I am concerned, and I think quite a few others here will agree with me.srothstein wrote:
And if you do use the firearm as intended, even to shoot in the leg or arm, it is deadly force for real.part of this is the definition of a firearm and part is the fact that deadly force does not need to kill, just inflict serious bodily injury (which differs in some points based on jurisdiction).
Please tell me more about this civil suit against Harold Fish.drjoker wrote:Shooting an unarmed attacker is always an invitation to get sued in court. You might be declared innocent at the end of the day, but that's after $600,000+ in legal costs (see the previous poster's reference to Harold Fish).