TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/ ... -be-victim" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course NYC is probably the worst place to face this situation, and I can't help but wonder if any charges would have been filed had it involved Bloomberg and an armed bodyguard?

On a side note, be wary of "Browser update required" popups on this site, which doesn't vet its advertisers well or just doesn't care.

Totally justified shooting by any Law Abiding American Citizen from the report.

New York City has lost all resemblance of being American in regards to Constitutional Liberties, freedom and any form of Justice. Unless you're politically connected like you mentioned about Bloomberg. New York City Serfs will have Justice when it's given to them or approved by their masters.

Johnson, 28, the driver of the Acura and new father of a boy last month, was shot in his midsection. He died at the scene. His sister, Yanique Johnson, describes him as “a loving, caring, carjacker.”

Fixed it for them.

No, this was not justified. He used his gun to scare them off. That's fine. But shooting into their car as they're trying to escape is murder. In New York, he will be convicted. In Texas he might not be, but it wouldn't be because what he did was right. The threat was over. He should have gotten the license plate and description of the car and called it in to the police.

You don't shoot people because you can. You shoot them because you must or you may die.

rbwhatever1 wrote:Totally justified shooting by any Law Abiding American Citizen from the report.

As long as the intended victim was not engaged in any illegal activity at the time of the incident, this looks like a good shoot. It would not surprise me to find out later that the facts differ from what has been reported.

baldeagle wrote:

Johnson, 28, the driver of the Acura and new father of a boy last month, was shot in his midsection. He died at the scene. His sister, Yanique Johnson, describes him as “a loving, caring, carjacker.”

Fixed it for them.

No, this was not justified. He used his gun to scare them off. That's fine. But shooting into their car as they're trying to escape is murder. In New York, he will be convicted. In Texas he might not be, but it wouldn't be because what he did was right. The threat was over. He should have gotten the license plate and description of the car and called it in to the police.

You don't shoot people because you can. You shoot them because you must or you may die.

I believe the events in the article are not in the correct order if they are accurate at all. The story states that the car jackers held the driver at gun point and fled when the tables turned. It says the driver then pulled a firearm and fired at the fleeing subjects.
I believe the car jackers approached the car armed and were shocked when the driver pulled his gun. Given the fact that the article did not mention either subject being shot in the back (Johnson was shot in his midsection and Lewis was shot in the head and midsection) I would be willing to bet the suspects retreated while keeping their firearms aimed in the general direction of the driver and their bodies turned in his general direction.
I do not believe there is enough information to say that they were no longer a threat.

jmra wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Johnson, 28, the driver of the Acura and new father of a boy last month, was shot in his midsection. He died at the scene. His sister, Yanique Johnson, describes him as “a loving, caring, carjacker.”

Fixed it for them.

No, this was not justified. He used his gun to scare them off. That's fine. But shooting into their car as they're trying to escape is murder. In New York, he will be convicted. In Texas he might not be, but it wouldn't be because what he did was right. The threat was over. He should have gotten the license plate and description of the car and called it in to the police.

You don't shoot people because you can. You shoot them because you must or you may die.

I believe the events in the article are not in the correct order if they are accurate at all. The story states that the car jackers held the driver at gun point and fled when the tables turned. It says the driver then pulled a firearm and fired at the fleeing subjects.
I believe the car jackers approached the car armed and were shocked when the driver pulled his gun. Given the fact that the article did not mention either subject being shot in the back (Johnson was shot in his midsection and Lewis was shot in the head and midsection) I would be willing to bet the suspects retreated while keeping their firearms aimed in the general direction of the driver and their bodies turned in his general direction.
I do not believe there is enough information to say that they were no longer a threat.

I would say that who gets the benefit of the doubt varies by location, with places like Texas siding with the victim and New York with the criminals.

Armed attacks on humans are violent. The violence doesn't end just because the violent one meets force and suddenly changes his (plural they're) minds in a come to Jesus moment in time. This entire incident probably took 4 or 5 seconds at the most and when one is outnumbered and being attacked with small arms at close range, decisions made & initiated in a split second cannot be stopped.

Of course this is NYC and the Citizen that refused to be a good victim may get hammered by the in-Justice system.

In my humble opinion, anyone who attempts armed robbery remains a threat to the victim and is also a threat to future victims, so stopping them is justified at any point.

rp_photo wrote:In my humble opinion, anyone who attempts armed robbery remains a threat to the victim and is also a threat to future victims, so stopping them is justified at any point.

The law disagrees. Acting outside of the law can land one in jail.

I would let them go if they're fleeing empty handed but if they're fleeing with stuff the robbery is still in progress.

jmra wrote:I believe the events in the article are not in the correct order if they are accurate at all. The story states that the car jackers held the driver at gun point and fled when the tables turned. It says the driver then pulled a firearm and fired at the fleeing subjects.
I believe the car jackers approached the car armed and were shocked when the driver pulled his gun. Given the fact that the article did not mention either subject being shot in the back (Johnson was shot in his midsection and Lewis was shot in the head and midsection) I would be willing to bet the suspects retreated while keeping their firearms aimed in the general direction of the driver and their bodies turned in his general direction.
I do not believe there is enough information to say that they were no longer a threat.

This is why I disagree.

Their target then pulled his own gun and shot-up Johnson’s green Acura TL with both men inside.

Since they were inside their car in the process of fleeing, the shooting is unjustified unless they were shooting at him. The article does not say that they were.

Incidents like this are why jury nullification is such an important right.

baldeagle wrote:

jmra wrote:I believe the events in the article are not in the correct order if they are accurate at all. The story states that the car jackers held the driver at gun point and fled when the tables turned. It says the driver then pulled a firearm and fired at the fleeing subjects.
I believe the car jackers approached the car armed and were shocked when the driver pulled his gun. Given the fact that the article did not mention either subject being shot in the back (Johnson was shot in his midsection and Lewis was shot in the head and midsection) I would be willing to bet the suspects retreated while keeping their firearms aimed in the general direction of the driver and their bodies turned in his general direction.
I do not believe there is enough information to say that they were no longer a threat.

This is why I disagree.

Their target then pulled his own gun and shot-up Johnson’s green Acura TL with both men inside.

Since they were inside their car in the process of fleeing, the shooting is unjustified unless they were shooting at him. The article does not say that they were.

This is the problem I have with the story. Obviously he already had the gun out or they wouldn't have fled. Regardless, if this were Texas they still would have been in the process of committing a felony for which lethal force is justified by law.
It's not a position I would want to defend, just like I wouldn't want to defend carrying past a 30.06 sign with 3/4" letters, but the law is the law.

In NYC the good guy will go to jail for possesion of a handgun unless he is LEO. Virtually nobody in NYC gets a gun permit. So, the good guy is a felon already the way I see it. In Texas I bet he would walk free. From what I have seen if he was a LEO in NYC the bad guys would be alive as NYC cops can't seem to hit anyone using a firearm.

"I was in fear for my life when I pulled that trigger. Those thugs stuck a gun in my face and tried to steal my car. I have no idea whether they intended to let me live once they took the car, I cannot read minds and had to assume that my life was about to end unless I took action. Even when the carjacking stopped, I believed my life was still in imminent danger. I believed they would try to kill me once they reached the safety of their car, they had that look of defiance and anger in their eyes. For my own safety, I was forced to protect my life by stopping them the instant I had the opportunity. I believed they continued to be a threat to my health and safety every instant they were in possession of the gun and in close proximity to me. I was in fear for my life when I fired my weapon. I swear it."