you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 143 points 1 year ago (22 children)

Theoretically, what would happen if an armed US citizen was confused or scared and thought he was being kidnapped. The perpetrators refused to identify, and he shot and killed them. They weren't dressed properly and were trying to put him in an unmarked, unlicensed vehicle.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 134 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    honest answer: they will be shot and killed in return. in the rare case they are not killed they will be given the most lacking “proper trial” possible. even in castle doctrine states with no obligation to retreat, things like the 2nd amendment are only really (in effect) applicable on a civilian to civilian case. The state will always “extra judicially” take care to shock and awe in retaliation. cf: philly move bombing, waco, and the recent bombing of “drug runner boats” in international waters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    That is the answer, and I don't think confusion would play any part here.

    If the kidnapping victim in this scenario somehow survives, they'll surely be held in custody pending trial. When it comes to legal firearm use, they would need to make the case that A) they reasonably felt in imminent danger for their lives, and B) that they acted to eliminate the threat. Even in an ideal world where a jury acquits them, they still get to live with "I killed someone".

    If you're carrying, you have to have already been doing everything right before any incident where you are forced to eliminate a threat to your person. If you did anything provocative, you're fucked. After the threat is eliminated, you need to stop shooting, because if you take any harmful action after threats have been eliminated, you're fucked.

    But the fact is that if you're in that situation, where you have to draw and fire, there's going to be multiple people (threats) on you. The odds that you are able to eliminate all of those threats before being killed yourself are low.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    The van and the ppl have no record of ever existing 🤷🏻‍♂️

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Well great, cause I suddenly can’t remember ever firing my gun, must have just lost some ammo while walking around.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    Even if they aren't slaughtered on the spot, they would become a most-wanted fugitive and their normal life would be over. Kristi Noem would be proud to announce on Fox that the standing orders for the manhunt were to shoot them dead on sight. They would have to hide in the woods or some other concealed place and at least be familiar with SERE concepts if they wanted to survive another 72 hours.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    That is a workable strategy. Outnumber, execute them quickly, throw the bodies in the car and torch it. Shows others the consequences of their actions, sends a message.

    However, it is escalation. Next time there are more. Maybe in an APC.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)