TexasCHLforum.com

https://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/ ... mTR3lQYJg5

Mom holding little 3 year olds hand as a woman they did not know attempts to stab the little boy in the eye.
She then attempts to stab the other child. At this point the father reacts and prevents injury to the second child.

When surprise attacked it takes precious seconds to come to grips with what has happened and is happening.

So would you have drawn and fired to prevent the second attack. If you had fired and killed the woman would you have been charged as she paused before attacking the second child? Does stopping the attack mean she was no longer a threat?

So is this in Georgia the country? I think I would have beat that lady to death had that been my child. Shooting would be too quick.

03Lightningrocks wrote: Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:59 pm So is this in Georgia the country? I think I would have beat that lady to death had that been my child. Shooting would be too quick.

Good point!

I can't say what I'd have done -- I wasn't there. That said, it appears that the parents were completely unaware (what I'd call awareness level white or green, not concerned that any threat might present itself). This level of awareness, while great while a person is asleep or at rest in their home, is insufficient to deal with the real world when we are out in it because, unfortunately, there are people out there -- apex predators -- that prey on their own species. Had the mom possessed a modicum of awareness before the attack on her child, she and the father would have been better situated to defend the child and stop the attacker. As it was, all they COULD do is react after the attack was underway. Their normalcy bias and lack of situational awareness left them questioning the reality they were facing instead of dealing with it straight away.

Even if you weren't armed a good hard kick to the knee and as large as she is, she'd fold like a cheap lawn chair! Wonder what mental health establishment was suppose to be watching her!

After watching the video, I would say that since she has attacked and is still holding the knife that I would have indeed drawn on her.... To me she has already shown that she is a threat.... The end result would all depend on her reaction.... I would think (hope) that I would be justified in doing so.. (Here in Texas).

That wasn't an apex predator, that was a hyena. Holding a knife, already proven predilection to use it, still within 21 feet, advances a 2nd time.....all available options are on the table....

https://lawofselfdefense.com/shoot-or-n ... dSgEz78bJQ

Law of self defense answers my question, shoot or no shoot on knife attack on children.

He says you may have had two seconds here to legally fire. So no you really couldn't shoot the woman. He never mentions the 20 foot rule.

philip964 wrote: Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:29 pm https://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/ ... mTR3lQYJg5

Mom holding little 3 year olds hand as a woman they did not know attempts to stab the little boy in the eye.
She then attempts to stab the other child. At this point the father reacts and prevents injury to the second child.

When surprise attacked it takes precious seconds to come to grips with what has happened and is happening.

So would you have drawn and fired to prevent the second attack. If you had fired and killed the woman would you have been charged as she paused before attacking the second child? Does stopping the attack mean she was no longer a threat?

Honestly in these days of "mass attacks" I don't know why there is the assumption that a random stabber like that, even walking away, is no longer an immediate threat to the original or third parties. She is clearly still within 21ft. If the woman in black randomly stabbed a child like that, and walked away with knife in hand, why would a reasonable person believe the threat was over? She was still a threat. That was confirmed when the crazed woman turned around to strike again at the first child and then at the second.