Beatdown at walmart

[A.P. Photography]

true that, but if someones life is in danger or they feel threatend, they dont need no bill to shoot someone.....its not like there going to be in the situation thinking "oh the new bill got passed so im going to go shoot this guy". if someone has intentions of shooting you, there going to shoot you weather or not a bill has been passed or not......they wont care, the bill just makes it easier to not get sentanced for murder in court.

No no, the bill would authorize someone NOT in the fight to pull and dissolve the situation.

[Ruiner]

No no, the bill would authorize someone NOT in the fight to pull and dissolve the situation.

Correct. Everyone wants to act all tough and say that they will beat someone down into the ground...that it is okay to do so. However, it isn't okay and you might have someone stand up and tell you that (in one or more fashions) if you are doing so.

[Big Baller]

Correct. Everyone wants to act all tough and say that they will beat someone down into the ground...that it is okay to do so. However, it isn't okay and you might have someone stand up and tell you that (in one or more fashions) if you are doing so.

Isnt that already protected as Duress(SP). I thought that you could defend another person using deadly force if neccesary. I.E. you feared for their life.

(This is a question I'm not stating this as fact.)

Matt

[Ruiner]

Isnt that already protected as Duress(SP). I thought that you could defend another person using deadly force if neccesary. I.E. you feared for their life.

(This is a question I'm not stating this as fact.)

Matt

Yes and no. This just expands upon it and allows you to do it in the public realm more easily.

[lowjack]

Isnt that already protected as Duress(SP). I thought that you could defend another person using deadly force if neccesary. I.E. you feared for their life.

(This is a question I'm not stating this as fact.)

Matt

That law mainly applies to yourself or a family member. The point of this new law (if signed in) will allow for that to be broadened.

I like ruiner believe the same thing. If someone is going to cause serious bodily harm or death to someone else, they are going to get confronted with a gun. The key part of this and the way the courts will interpet it is if forewarning was giving.

Same senerio as Ruiners:
Some guy beating the life out of another, I pull a gun and say "stop, your going to seriously hurt him", dude does one of the following

1. doesn't stop or
2. Stupid enough to believe I won't shoot him.
3. Comes after me.

Solution : KABLAMM x 3.

4. Guy comes to grips calms down.

The same would hold true if the guy being beat got up grabed a tire iron and tried to go after the 1st dude.

The key to all this is to stop the fighting.

I believe the law lawmakers believe this is a good solution to keep the attackers, beaters, sucker punchers, what have you in check. If they do not value others lives then they risk having their own life taken in the defense of the person they are hurting. Make sense to me.