Armed Self Defense

the in n out shooting
note that the 'off duty' cop is not the same person as the 'retired' cop, that is not made clear
don't I see 4 people with guns besides the 'shooter' ?
you have the retired cop [injury made him unable to use gun], the off duty cop [shot and missed], the civilian [also missed], and am I nuts or when they show the off duty cop isn't there some other guy there with a gun? I'm thinking he maybe got shot, referred to as the 'good samaritan' later
I won't count the lady who picked up a jammed gun and didn't unjam it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vouWMPWpECE .

btw, the video is odd in that they didn't want to show the instant when a gun is fired, so it makes it jerky in those moments.

that's odd to me, I can see why they don't want to show mutilated, dead bodies, but to not show a gun firing seems a little too protective, someone who would be scarred by that shouldn't watch any of this

Here's an interesting one, out of uber-liberal Portland, Oregon, where a jury recently awarded a druggie in a flop house over a million bucks because the landlord removed his stray cat and took it to a shelter.

In this one, a business owner was asleep in his place of business and shot a burglar: now the burglar is suing for ten million.

https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2026/08/homeless-man-sues-for-10m-after-he-breaks-into-business-and-owner-shoots-him-3-times.html

Quote: odiousgambit

btw, the video is odd in that they didn't want to show the instant when a gun is fired, so it makes it jerky in those moments.

that's odd to me, I can see why they don't want to show mutilated, dead bodies, but to not show a gun firing seems a little too protective, someone who would be scarred by that shouldn't watch any of this

Could be a transgression of YouTube rules to show certain parts of violent acts. At least by creator channels

Quote: missedhervee

Here's an interesting one, out of uber-liberal Portland, Oregon, where a jury recently awarded a druggie in a flop house over a million bucks because the landlord removed his stray cat and took it to a shelter.

In this one, a business owner was asleep in his place of business and shot a burglar: now the burglar is suing for ten million.

https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2026/08/homeless-man-sues-for-10m-after-he-breaks-into-business-and-owner-shoots-him-3-times.html

haven't read it yet, but the first thought that comes to mind is "make sure they are dead"

in a variation from "dead men tell no tales" it's "dead men don't sue you for shooting them"

Quote: rxwine

Could be a transgression of YouTube rules to show certain parts of violent acts. At least by creator channels

good guess there is some accepted convention involved at least

Quote: missedhervee

Here's an interesting one, out of uber-liberal Portland, Oregon, where a jury recently awarded a druggie in a flop house over a million bucks because the landlord removed his stray cat and took it to a shelter.

In this one, a business owner was asleep in his place of business and shot a burglar: now the burglar is suing for ten million.

https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2026/08/homeless-man-sues-for-10m-after-he-breaks-into-business-and-owner-shoots-him-3-times.html

Finally read some of this

generally, you can't shoot an unarmed burglar in order to protect your property, in most states, without better reason than protecting that property. The 70 yr old man was able to claim that the 43 yr old burglar was failing to submit to orders, wasn't leaving either, and had decided to assault him and at the end was in the process of doing so. All this may have been why he evidently wasn't prosecuted, with jury sympathy in play. So some lawyers got a hold of this homeless guy and decided he could sue.

Again, make sure he's dead.

Quote: odiousgambit

Finally read some of this

generally, you can't shoot an unarmed burglar in order to protect your property, in most states, without better reason than protecting that property. The 70 yr old man was able to claim that the 43 yr old burglar was failing to submit to orders, wasn't leaving either, and had decided to assault him and at the end was in the process of doing so. All this may have been why he evidently wasn't prosecuted, with jury sympathy in play. So some lawyers got a hold of this homeless guy and decided he could sue.

Again, make sure he's dead.

Make sure 2nd, 3rd or 4fh bullet aren't when he is already lying face down on the floor. Forensics can protect you if bullet trajectory follows an obvious pattern of the burglar being in the final movements of going down, but the defense of shooting someone gets harder when it looks like he is being finished off while already incapacitated.

yes, that's a problem

otherwise numerous bullets can be justified on the basis of "being sure to end the threat" ... which is the way to phrase it. You do NOT say you were taught "shoot to kill" to anybody at the time or in court, according to experts.

He's definitely made the best gun blasting video outro I've seen.

https://youtu.be/OkogWvoJ9EU?t=1998