LogFAQs > #888814771

Zeus posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

...somebody who hits somebody else's Jeep with a baton, then gets threatened and shot at? Granted, that's obviously an excessive response in the eyes of the law, no doubt there, but is the media serious with this?...

It's a little murky but yeah, there's certainly an element of bias there. In general, if you're being attacked, you're certainly within your rights to threaten with a legal weapon. However, if the person desists or surrenders, you're clearly in the wrong to shoot at them. Both participants should be charged with crimes, even though the shooter didn't initiate the violence.

And, if you're shooting in a public area with non-involved civilians around, reckless endangerment should be on the table.

You are responsible for the bullet that is discharged, legally, even if fired in self defense. If it hit an innocent by stander then yes, you are responsible. But simply discharging a weapon when your life is in danger (hypothetically, not in this story) is not considered endangerment. Also, personally, I was taught to always know what's behind your target, as in, drop the ground and fire up if you have to (there are still risks involved in this, but it is better than going straight through, or missing in a direct line). Also, always carry hollowpoints. It isn't foolproof, and missed slugs still carry a lot of risk, but the impacted ones should do more damage to target and less penetration.