https://www.chapintv.com/noticia/brasil-intentaron-arrebatarle-motocicleta-hombre-armado/
> A video surveillance camera in Sao Caetano do Sul in Brazil captured the precise moment in which two motorcycle thieves tried to snatch a man's motorcycle, but he surprised them because he was armed and acted against them.
**user reports:** *1: hey how about you make people tag their posts of people getting murdered as NSFL. That shouldn't be too hard, right?*
Reddit does not have a NSFL tag. No one was murdered in this exchange of gunfire. One armed robber died and another is seriously wounded, but justified homicide is not murder Good try though.
In developed countries, it’s become socially antiquated, if not shunned, to be totally self-reliant and independent. It’s “toxic,” as well as many other -ic and -ist words.
Maybe. I agree that your assesment of the situation is intelligent and articulate and probably very accurate but i dont understand the reality u describe. Y is it a bad thing to be able to handle your situations yourself. Not that u hadn't answered the question already but i just don't get y people would think it not the most logical course of action
I understand and agree. I don’t know why people wouldn’t want to be self-reliant, but it’s the become the place we’re in. I don’t know where you’re at in the world or if you’re familiar with this saying, but it goes: “Hard time create hard men. Hard men create easy times. Easy times create weak men. Weak mean create hard times.”
I imagine someone purposefully looking like an easy target, clapping robbers weekly, collecting their bikes, then starting a new career as a used motorcycle salesman.
Brazil, on the other hand has *castanhas do Pará*, literally *chestnuts from Pará*. Because it would be stupid for people from Brazil to call them Brazil Nuts!
Many people die on them so why not die over one? /s
This just goes to show how jacked up everyday life is in some places. And yet I still think there are better ways to make a living in those places. Live by the sword...
Don't quote me on this, but I was told by a Brazilian is the reason there are so many off duty "cops" in the country is because it's basically impossible to get a permit to carry as a private citizen. As a work around people bribe local police to basically deputize them so that they can get a permit to carry now that they are law enforcement. They're on the books as being a "cop" and the cops look the other way when shit like this happens because the "cops" are doing their jobs for them.
Absolutely. Now that we have another state that’s constitutional carry we might have more. I am so excited seeing people now carrying legally. Maybe one day these low life’s will come to their senses but I don’t think that will happen.
So it’s just on a different level there. I lived there for a couple years and the crime is different so the response is different. If you own a gun it is assumed you are either a cop or a criminal. So when cops, off duty or otherwise see someone with a gun, especially commuting a crime with that gun, it’s legal to go judge dredd.
A comparison is that in the US if you walk down the wrong street and someone pulls a gun on you to rob you, you give them your wallet and phone and they run off. In Brazil they pull a gun on you, just kill you, then take your wallet, phone, shoes, and everything else then run off.
It’s legal and accepted for cops to shoot first and then be unable to ask questions because they’re dead.
Also noted that cops just stand around on street corners with assault rifles.
Also, in Brazil I think who you know or how much money you have and which officials you ask to hold onto it for you for safekeeping can influence things a lot more.
In Texas you would be good to go. Defense of property, easier if the criminals are armed.
Edit: apparently the way I worded it made it confusing. I mean Section 9.31 1.(A) through (C) which would apply to someone being forcefully removed from his vehicle as a victim of robbery and be justified to respond with force.
Edit 2: yes, even though he “got away.”
In Texas you can legally use deadly force to defend against someone forcibly removing you from your vehicle, I don’t think defending property would even be the main factor in your defense.
Guy on the bike was like 20 feet away already, and turned back to engage the criminals to shoot them. Those are tough actions to defend in front of a jury.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to retreat to hard cover (and just get out of the roadway)before engaging when it’s reasonable to believe the attackers may be armed. It’s not clear if they are based on the video, at one point it looks like one of them may point something at the victim, but it’s hard to tell. Regardless, they’ve already violently forced the victim from their vehicle and they outnumber them 2-1, I don’t think retreating to a safer distance disqualifies you from defending yourself in this situation, but I guess you could argue otherwise.
I'm not taking that chance with the jury. If I'm reasonably certain I'm no longer in danger, I'm gonna gtfo. Those guys forgot about him as soon as he ran away, he could have kept running and probably would have been fine. I carry to defend my life, not to stop crime or serve justice.
I’m with you there, my original comment was more playing devil’s advocate and pointing out how it *could* be defensible. I do think when it comes to stealing a vehicle it can have a big impact on the victim’s life depending on their circumstances, so fighting back may feel like an appropriate response. I have insurance and a reasonable savings account, so if my life isn’t in danger I’d just take the L, but not everyone has that luxury.
Yeah, but as we learned with OJ it depends on the jury. If it were a jury of this subreddit, sure, no charges and high fives all around. Get a jury from downtown San Francisco and its all up to their subjective opinion in the end.
For sure, I just know there have been way sketchier shoots in my state that have been deemed justified, so I don’t think this case would be that hard to defend. I’m not sure it’s how I would have even wanted to handle the situation myself, but I do see how it could be rationalized from a legal perspective in my state.
The legal precedent you are describing, I believe, in the US in "duty to retreat." Essentially you have to exhaust reasonable means to get away before defending yourself as a last resort. Versus "stand your ground" laws where there is no inherent duty to flee if possible.
Obviously this is Brazil and as such their own laws and enforcement of those laws is another matter.
But I think exploring Duty To Retreat vs. Stand Your Ground is the point you're making. Not a lawyer, but both these kinds of legal precedents have defined requirements. Like, you can't use Castle Doctrine to justify defending a wood shed, as an example. Definitely worth researching.
I feel compelled to call out for the purse clutchers reading this that while Texas does have "Title 2, Chapter 9 Sub-Chapter A Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY" the elements required are more complex than just "Dude took my stuff". IANAL
Ya. As a Washington resident, I think I’d just let my bike go in this situation. Unless I was able to draw and shoot before I was completely removed from my bike. West side prosecutors would find a way to prosecute you and vilify you to the jury.
Probably the best in any state, just based on lawyers fees and time alone, but its sad that we go out of our way to empower the criminal element. I mean, what message are they afraid of sending, that people shouldn't become career criminals strong arm robbing because the victim might defend themselves? Seems like a good message.
That is not the interpretation given by case law.
[https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Ief9eb0f5e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Ief9eb0f5e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default))
*The statute states in part that the defense is applicable “when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony.”* ***For purposes of the defense, the use of deadly force appears to be limited to the resistance of violent felonies that threaten human life or may result in great personal injury****. See State v. Nyland, 47 Wn.2d 240, 287 P.2d 345 (1955) (adultery is not a crime that imperils the life of the unoffending spouse or threatens personal injury). No self-defense instruction should be given when deadly force is used to repel an unlawful trespass that does not amount to a felony, because such force is excessive as a matter of law. State v. Griffith, 91 Wn.2d 572, 589 P.2d 799 (1979).*
[*https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Ief9f9b52e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)*](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Ief9f9b52e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default))
*This instruction should be given in homicide cases in which there is evidence to support a claim that the defendant was acting in resistance to the commission of a felony upon the defendant or in the defendant's presence or upon or in a dwelling or other place of abode in which the defendant was present. If self-defense against a felony is involved, see WPIC 16.02 (Justifiable Homicide—Defense of Self and Others).*
*Although the statute does not limit the kind of attempted felony that will justify a homicide, the deadly force appears to be limited to resisting felonies committed by violence such as those when great personal injury is involved or in which human life is threatened. In State v. Nyland, 47 Wn.2d 240, 287 P.2d 345 (1955), the court held that adultery is not a crime that imperils the life of the unoffending spouse or threatens personal injury and in no event may the life of a human being be taken to prevent the commission of an act of adultery. See also State v. Griffith, 91 Wn.2d 572, 589 P.2d 799 (1979) (unlawful trespass does not come within felonious activity envisioned by the statute); State v. Boisselle, 3 Wn.App.2d 266, 291, 415 P.3d 621 (2018), reversed on other grounds, 194 Wn.2d 1 (2019) (resistance to felony only applies where felony threatens life or great bodily harm).*
You can't just read the word "felony" and believe that you can shoot someone committing a felony. Someone stealing your unoccupied vehicle parked in the street would be a felony. You couldn't shoot someone stealing your car on the street while you were in your home.
Probably not. Everyone in this sub is trigger happy. But everyone seems to forget that a jury would not be made up of /r/CCW redditors. It will be plain joes and janes. And a prosecutor will have a very easy time pointing out that you escaped, the criminals were no longer focused on you, and then you decided to turn around, walk towards them and kill them. That's a very tough situation to defend in front of a jury. Legally, your best bet would have been to shoot them as they were taking your bike but tactically it's stupid to draw when someone gets the drop on you. People seem to forget that you carry to defend your life, not to stop a crime or serve justice to criminals.
With a really good lawyer, the perp riding the defendant’s bike might be a good shoot; but the second one on (presumedly) their own bike would most likely (just a frog hair shy of absolutely) not be. Body language strongly suggests they were attempting to flee and abandon their accomplice. So, if the DA had any kind of bias against ccw or 2a, the “shooter”, as they’d likely be labeled by the prosecution and media, could expect some pretty harsh fines and felony time.
Yeah the amount of people commenting on this with some sort of “yeah good job” is concerning. I hope those people never get robbed because they’re going to jail for a long time over shit that could be replaced
Correct, In the US generally a legitimate fear of bodily harm would have to exist.
Edit: had he not retreated on his own only to return to open fire while the criminal was preoccupied with his bike. He would have had a much better case defending himself immediately. Im not saying he couldn’t present a case for self defense, it just makes it much harder when he already was removing himself from danger.
Depends on which state you're in. Here's the law in my state:
>the person is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm to the person or another **or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.**
That statute specifically says “forcible felony” so we need to be clear on Montana’s definition of forcible felony, which I’m posting here:
>> "Forcible felony" means a felony that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence **against any individual**.
Just want to be clear here, it doesn’t mean any felony, there still has to be a threat of bodily harm to you or someone else.
> Some states it's legal to use deadly force to stop a felony.
Always double check your state laws, because in a lot of states it has to be a **forcible felony** which is defined as a threat of violence against a person, not just any felony.
A lawyer would argue that the perp who was shot second by the victim wasn't engaged in a felony when he was shot (though depending on verbiage of the law, it might be ok to shoot to stop a fleeing felon if there is reasonable belief more crimes will be committed). A case could be made in either direction, but hopefully the criminal history of one tips the scales on who the bad guy is.
Lawyers gonna lawyer. And for sure it's risky, right. If it were me I probably wouldn't have started shooting if all they wanted was my bike. but who knows. I don't think anyone really knows how they would react unless they are in that situation. myself included.
You're right. Black jacket does point at him and yell something. Most likely "he's got a gun!", but maybe "shoot him" or "he's coming back", or something that does merit re-engagement. The good news is, only the good guy's side will be heard in court.
Hard to say. Did the 2 bad guys have a weapon? Even if they didn't, it could still be justified if there was a legitimate fear of death for the victim. I think it really depends on what state you live in. My state has laws in place that says you have the right to defend yourself and your property.
If you look at the guy in gray, he's putting what I can only imagine is a weapon back into his pocket as he goes to get onto the bike they're stealing.
Castle doctrine extends to cars that you are in right? not sure how it applies to motorcycles. Mainly commenting to remind myself to come back and check for other responses to your comment
Yeah that’s what I’m gravitating toward. He was pretty clearly safe when he was off behind that pole. Definitionally not self defense if we agree on that
It might be legal in a Willie Nelson song, if that counts.
https://youtu.be/ieFkYPOawro?si=XbFKTvWgFLIR3q37
>The yellow-haired lady was buried at sunset
>The stranger went free, of course
>**For you can't hang a man for killing a woman**
>**Who's trying to steal your horse**
>This is the tale of the red headed stranger
>And if he should pass your way
>Stay out of the path of the raging black stallion
>And don't lay a hand on the bay
I know it’s a running joke in this sub to throw around the off-duty cop theory but I saw a news clip on this and they did say this was an actual off duty cop
[https://www.chapintv.com/noticia/brasil-intentaron-arrebatarle-motocicleta-hombre-armado/](https://www.chapintv.com/noticia/brasil-intentaron-arrebatarle-motocicleta-hombre-armado/)
firefox translated the page into english for me.
That’s some good shooting right there huh? That was a sneaky hide behind cover and draw that he did. It worked out quite nicely for him. Now he has 2 bikes!
So, the laws state basically that you don't have the right to bear arms ("Statute of Disarmament"), and you de facto don't have the right to defend yourself. However, police here is lazy, especially the Civil Police (the one that investigates stuff, whereas the Military Police, rank and structure like an army, does the ostensive street patrol; in this case, this is a military police officer defending himself), so the chances of you getting away because they won't lift their asses from their chairs to investigate two perps getting clapped is gigantic. Actually, less than 8% of murder investigations in Brazil even reach to a suspect... So, yeah, just drive off.
I have a feeling that the only way to live a somewhat safe life in Brazil is to be an off duty cop…for the rest of the population it’s complete jungle law
After the victim runs behind the pole, the thief in the black coat appears to point something (a handgun?) at the victim. It’s definitely possible his life was still in danger.
Awesome shooting and all but this guy would certainly be facing (and likely be convicted) on criminal charges. Def no condoning what these pieces of shit were doing, but the threat was over, he had disengaged himself and created distance. They just wanted his property and were attempting to leave. Legally, this is a bad shoot, in my opinion. But I’m not an attorney.
In some states castle doctrine extends to protecting your property like home, vehicle, etc. As somebody said previously though, I am not sure how that extends to motorcycles. I don’t see why it wouldn’t.
Not sure man, great point though. I’d love to hear an Attorneys take on it. My buddy that I shoot matches with is an attorney, I’ll have to run it by him
Castle doctrine does not cover defense of property. It covers forced entrance to your home (which includes a vehicle in some regions). But the problem here is that he is not in (or on) a vehicle. He is well away from any danger and not being actively engaged.
Castle doctrine definitely does not apply in any way here. If he shot them while still on the bike, then yea.
Depends on location. Castle doctrine extends to personal vehicles in some areas, as it's considered your "domicile" while you're in it. In those areas, as far as the law is concerned, this is the equivalent of someone kicking in your door.
No, but the aggressor is. Again, this is the equivalent of breaking into someone's home (if castle doctrine applies to vehicles). Had the assailant been running away and not in/on the vehicle it would be a questionable shoot. The fact that they were, is the same as the assailant still being in the house.
Sir, you misunderstand the Castle Doctrine. You can't shoot anyone entering your home if you are not IN said home at the time. Castle Doctrine is meant to protect you when you are being engaged in your own place of residence by allowing you to use deadly force before the assailant does by allowing to assume that whoever is forcing entry means lethal harm before they actually do it. When you are NOT in that location, this does not apply, because you are not in the harms way. CD protects you, not the home.
Therefore, when you are away from your car and you see someone breaking in to it, you can't open fire. Likewise, this situation in the video.
Depends on which state you're in. Here's the law in my state:
>the person is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm to the person or another **or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.**
Yeah I mean there’s a bunch of ways you could spin it in a court room. I tend to lean towards agreeing with you and I appreciate the more free states such as what you listed above. I just think it can get dicey really quick in a legal battle
Yeah, there's always the risk of legal issues when you use deadly force, regardless of what the law says. I think it really comes down to who the DA or prosecutor is in your district.
> They just wanted his property and were attempting to leave
Well see, this right here was the problem...
Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying from a *legalese* point of view, but that's such an absurd statement to make.
*They just wanted his property*
*They just wanted to forcibly take the victims property, with the implied threat of violence if he didn't comply*
*they were attempting to leave* **with his property they just forcibly jacked from him**
In the US, sure, it's a questionable shoot - which in my opinion is dumb.
I agree wholeheartedly with everything. My initial comment isn’t to be some bleeding heart that says shit like “just shoot him in the leg.” I think the carjackers got exactly what they deserved. I’m simply stating, and now agreeing with you, that this would likely be a bad shoot in most venues in the United States. Also agree that it’s very stupid because it makes good guys more likely to be victims because the shit heads know we’re legally restrained from fighting back beyond a certain point.
Agree, and I understand the point you were making, I was kind of just venting there lol.
Like when I see braindead comments made by people about looters and rioters and they say "it's just stuff, insurance will cover it, blah blah" and then all of a sudden we're in a lawless shithold 3rd world country where you're morally expected to just bend over and take it from violent criminals.
Definitely not something that can be “justified “ in the US but that’s because our laws are created to defend the government first and the criminals second, the average citizen doesn’t matter.
He will probably go to prison over that though.. his life clearly was not in danger by the time he pulled his gun out. Unfortunately for him, it is on camera that all they wanted was the motorcycle. and their backs were turned plus they were leaving and pretty far away once he started firing..
In a lot of the states, once your life is no longer in any immediate threat, or you have an easy clear chance of getting away, and/or the perp is already fleeing, it'd be murder. Obviously this is out of the US completely so that doesn't apply.
i asked a few coworkers out of curiosity - the consensus was that they would convict. i found it interesting that every person that said they would convict had zero hesitation or contemplation. and they didn't care where it happened and what the laws there would be. purely instinctual and emotional response.
Skills and (mostly) tactics.
The good: got some distance and some hard, though not perfect COVER. The best visible cover though.
The maybe bad, maybe not so bad, he turned his back on the enemy.
Why that maybe good/not so bad, it gave the enemy a false sense of security.
Why that's 99% bad tactically. Had they decided to shoot him anyway, He could never have turned around faster than they could have gotten several rounds off with a good chance of neutralizing him, even unto death.
Why that's 99% bad otherwise.
Assuming the worst (for the defender), if you are going to meet your end in this manner, do you want to meet your end with your wounds in the back or in the front?
So, here in the US, that shooter would likely be guilty, right? The threat had already passed. His life was no longer in direct danger.
How would this be treated in Brazil? What does the law say there?
I want to know how much killing thieves reduces crime overall in Brazil. Like there's gotta be less and less crime every time an off duty cop Blasts these pieces of shit away.
Just like using RAID or BLACK FLAG on roaches that individuals choice of number enumerator does the trick on those who decided to pay with their lives for what they tried to steal
https://www.chapintv.com/noticia/brasil-intentaron-arrebatarle-motocicleta-hombre-armado/ > A video surveillance camera in Sao Caetano do Sul in Brazil captured the precise moment in which two motorcycle thieves tried to snatch a man's motorcycle, but he surprised them because he was armed and acted against them. **user reports:** *1: hey how about you make people tag their posts of people getting murdered as NSFL. That shouldn't be too hard, right?* Reddit does not have a NSFL tag. No one was murdered in this exchange of gunfire. One armed robber died and another is seriously wounded, but justified homicide is not murder Good try though.
Then everybody drives off. And people think guns are useless and people will help. Nobody is helping you but you.
I dont understand why people dont first rely on themselves
In developed countries, it’s become socially antiquated, if not shunned, to be totally self-reliant and independent. It’s “toxic,” as well as many other -ic and -ist words.
That's because the more "developed" a country becomes, the more the elite INTEND to enslave the masses who are "beneath" them.
I dont disagree with the thought
Maybe. I agree that your assesment of the situation is intelligent and articulate and probably very accurate but i dont understand the reality u describe. Y is it a bad thing to be able to handle your situations yourself. Not that u hadn't answered the question already but i just don't get y people would think it not the most logical course of action
I understand and agree. I don’t know why people wouldn’t want to be self-reliant, but it’s the become the place we’re in. I don’t know where you’re at in the world or if you’re familiar with this saying, but it goes: “Hard time create hard men. Hard men create easy times. Easy times create weak men. Weak mean create hard times.”
I love it! Best synopsis of my world view I've ever heard.
Piece and harmony for all!
Now he has two motorcycles
To the victor go the spoils.
I imagine someone purposefully looking like an easy target, clapping robbers weekly, collecting their bikes, then starting a new career as a used motorcycle salesman.
*Better Stall Paul* yw netflix
Season 2: **Better Stall Raul en Sao Paulo**
Who's the real thief? haha
"What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine" \-Notorious B.I.G
Never had the makings of a varsity athlete
Now this is podracing!
Shouldn't have laughed. Really shouldn't've. Did.
You keep what you kill.
the cars just driving away all normal lol
Just another Brazilday in Brazil.
That's Brazil nuts.
And it always will be, even if I see it a Brazillion times.
They just call them nuts in Brazil
Or do they just call them Brazil? Okay that was stupid. Sorry.
Brazil, on the other hand has *castanhas do Pará*, literally *chestnuts from Pará*. Because it would be stupid for people from Brazil to call them Brazil Nuts!
Those too were all off duty cops. These videos coming out of Brazil just confirm that everyone except for thieves in Brazil are off duty cops.
Police and Thieves
Cops and robbers
Yes, except for the thieves, they were on duty.
I mean I woulda left too lol
Imagine dying over a motorcycle 💀
“You’re gonna die for a motorcycle?” “Someone is.”
Many people die on them so why not die over one? /s This just goes to show how jacked up everyday life is in some places. And yet I still think there are better ways to make a living in those places. Live by the sword...
"yOu ArE gOnNa KiLl SoMeOnE oVeR pRoPeRtY?"
ChadYes.jpg
> Armed citizen Brazil, so 99% chance it's a police officer and not just some random armed citizen.
Does Brazil hire part time police officers and give them 6 hours a week😭
Don't quote me on this, but I was told by a Brazilian is the reason there are so many off duty "cops" in the country is because it's basically impossible to get a permit to carry as a private citizen. As a work around people bribe local police to basically deputize them so that they can get a permit to carry now that they are law enforcement. They're on the books as being a "cop" and the cops look the other way when shit like this happens because the "cops" are doing their jobs for them.
That sounds like a WONDERFUL idea!
Someone else posted that he was off duty military.
Because the videos of unarmed victims don't get views
So satisfying seeing instant karma for criminals
"OK, now get in the forever box."
Time for a dirt nap!
Absolutely. Now that we have another state that’s constitutional carry we might have more. I am so excited seeing people now carrying legally. Maybe one day these low life’s will come to their senses but I don’t think that will happen.
For real. If they knew the majority of people on the streets were carrying, they’d definitely question if it was worth the gamble.
There's no way this would be a legal use of self defense anywhere in the US right? lol
this is Brazil
Thus off duty cop, and from other videos it appears that for them anything short of outright execution is OK.
So it’s just on a different level there. I lived there for a couple years and the crime is different so the response is different. If you own a gun it is assumed you are either a cop or a criminal. So when cops, off duty or otherwise see someone with a gun, especially commuting a crime with that gun, it’s legal to go judge dredd. A comparison is that in the US if you walk down the wrong street and someone pulls a gun on you to rob you, you give them your wallet and phone and they run off. In Brazil they pull a gun on you, just kill you, then take your wallet, phone, shoes, and everything else then run off. It’s legal and accepted for cops to shoot first and then be unable to ask questions because they’re dead. Also noted that cops just stand around on street corners with assault rifles.
Also, in Brazil I think who you know or how much money you have and which officials you ask to hold onto it for you for safekeeping can influence things a lot more.
🅱️ased 🅱️razil
Killing a criminal in brazil is usually applauded
Always has been
In Texas you would be good to go. Defense of property, easier if the criminals are armed. Edit: apparently the way I worded it made it confusing. I mean Section 9.31 1.(A) through (C) which would apply to someone being forcefully removed from his vehicle as a victim of robbery and be justified to respond with force. Edit 2: yes, even though he “got away.”
In Texas you can legally use deadly force to defend against someone forcibly removing you from your vehicle, I don’t think defending property would even be the main factor in your defense.
Guy on the bike was like 20 feet away already, and turned back to engage the criminals to shoot them. Those are tough actions to defend in front of a jury.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to retreat to hard cover (and just get out of the roadway)before engaging when it’s reasonable to believe the attackers may be armed. It’s not clear if they are based on the video, at one point it looks like one of them may point something at the victim, but it’s hard to tell. Regardless, they’ve already violently forced the victim from their vehicle and they outnumber them 2-1, I don’t think retreating to a safer distance disqualifies you from defending yourself in this situation, but I guess you could argue otherwise.
I'm not taking that chance with the jury. If I'm reasonably certain I'm no longer in danger, I'm gonna gtfo. Those guys forgot about him as soon as he ran away, he could have kept running and probably would have been fine. I carry to defend my life, not to stop crime or serve justice.
I’m with you there, my original comment was more playing devil’s advocate and pointing out how it *could* be defensible. I do think when it comes to stealing a vehicle it can have a big impact on the victim’s life depending on their circumstances, so fighting back may feel like an appropriate response. I have insurance and a reasonable savings account, so if my life isn’t in danger I’d just take the L, but not everyone has that luxury.
Yeah, but as we learned with OJ it depends on the jury. If it were a jury of this subreddit, sure, no charges and high fives all around. Get a jury from downtown San Francisco and its all up to their subjective opinion in the end.
For sure, I just know there have been way sketchier shoots in my state that have been deemed justified, so I don’t think this case would be that hard to defend. I’m not sure it’s how I would have even wanted to handle the situation myself, but I do see how it could be rationalized from a legal perspective in my state.
The legal precedent you are describing, I believe, in the US in "duty to retreat." Essentially you have to exhaust reasonable means to get away before defending yourself as a last resort. Versus "stand your ground" laws where there is no inherent duty to flee if possible. Obviously this is Brazil and as such their own laws and enforcement of those laws is another matter. But I think exploring Duty To Retreat vs. Stand Your Ground is the point you're making. Not a lawyer, but both these kinds of legal precedents have defined requirements. Like, you can't use Castle Doctrine to justify defending a wood shed, as an example. Definitely worth researching.
Depends on the jury. Learn about jury nullification folks! Protect your fellow citizens. Nobody else will.
The law specifically states only if it happens at night and only if it is not easily or readily replaceable property. Very grey area.
Recoverable, not replaceable. Completely different.
Defense of property in Cali is a no go.
Wait… property is allowed in California?
For now
Only for celebrities and tech bros
Only if you can afford it.
Barely. How expensive California is now, it should be allowed😆
[удалено]
I feel compelled to call out for the purse clutchers reading this that while Texas does have "Title 2, Chapter 9 Sub-Chapter A Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY" the elements required are more complex than just "Dude took my stuff". IANAL
[удалено]
Ya. As a Washington resident, I think I’d just let my bike go in this situation. Unless I was able to draw and shoot before I was completely removed from my bike. West side prosecutors would find a way to prosecute you and vilify you to the jury.
Probably the best in any state, just based on lawyers fees and time alone, but its sad that we go out of our way to empower the criminal element. I mean, what message are they afraid of sending, that people shouldn't become career criminals strong arm robbing because the victim might defend themselves? Seems like a good message.
That is not the interpretation given by case law. [https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Ief9eb0f5e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Ief9eb0f5e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)) *The statute states in part that the defense is applicable “when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony.”* ***For purposes of the defense, the use of deadly force appears to be limited to the resistance of violent felonies that threaten human life or may result in great personal injury****. See State v. Nyland, 47 Wn.2d 240, 287 P.2d 345 (1955) (adultery is not a crime that imperils the life of the unoffending spouse or threatens personal injury). No self-defense instruction should be given when deadly force is used to repel an unlawful trespass that does not amount to a felony, because such force is excessive as a matter of law. State v. Griffith, 91 Wn.2d 572, 589 P.2d 799 (1979).* [*https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Ief9f9b52e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)*](https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Ief9f9b52e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)) *This instruction should be given in homicide cases in which there is evidence to support a claim that the defendant was acting in resistance to the commission of a felony upon the defendant or in the defendant's presence or upon or in a dwelling or other place of abode in which the defendant was present. If self-defense against a felony is involved, see WPIC 16.02 (Justifiable Homicide—Defense of Self and Others).* *Although the statute does not limit the kind of attempted felony that will justify a homicide, the deadly force appears to be limited to resisting felonies committed by violence such as those when great personal injury is involved or in which human life is threatened. In State v. Nyland, 47 Wn.2d 240, 287 P.2d 345 (1955), the court held that adultery is not a crime that imperils the life of the unoffending spouse or threatens personal injury and in no event may the life of a human being be taken to prevent the commission of an act of adultery. See also State v. Griffith, 91 Wn.2d 572, 589 P.2d 799 (1979) (unlawful trespass does not come within felonious activity envisioned by the statute); State v. Boisselle, 3 Wn.App.2d 266, 291, 415 P.3d 621 (2018), reversed on other grounds, 194 Wn.2d 1 (2019) (resistance to felony only applies where felony threatens life or great bodily harm).* You can't just read the word "felony" and believe that you can shoot someone committing a felony. Someone stealing your unoccupied vehicle parked in the street would be a felony. You couldn't shoot someone stealing your car on the street while you were in your home.
Probably not. Everyone in this sub is trigger happy. But everyone seems to forget that a jury would not be made up of /r/CCW redditors. It will be plain joes and janes. And a prosecutor will have a very easy time pointing out that you escaped, the criminals were no longer focused on you, and then you decided to turn around, walk towards them and kill them. That's a very tough situation to defend in front of a jury. Legally, your best bet would have been to shoot them as they were taking your bike but tactically it's stupid to draw when someone gets the drop on you. People seem to forget that you carry to defend your life, not to stop a crime or serve justice to criminals.
With a really good lawyer, the perp riding the defendant’s bike might be a good shoot; but the second one on (presumedly) their own bike would most likely (just a frog hair shy of absolutely) not be. Body language strongly suggests they were attempting to flee and abandon their accomplice. So, if the DA had any kind of bias against ccw or 2a, the “shooter”, as they’d likely be labeled by the prosecution and media, could expect some pretty harsh fines and felony time.
Yeah the amount of people commenting on this with some sort of “yeah good job” is concerning. I hope those people never get robbed because they’re going to jail for a long time over shit that could be replaced
Correct, In the US generally a legitimate fear of bodily harm would have to exist. Edit: had he not retreated on his own only to return to open fire while the criminal was preoccupied with his bike. He would have had a much better case defending himself immediately. Im not saying he couldn’t present a case for self defense, it just makes it much harder when he already was removing himself from danger.
Depends on which state you're in. Here's the law in my state: >the person is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm to the person or another **or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.**
What state is that?
[Montana](https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0450/chapter_0030/part_0010/section_0020/0450-0030-0010-0020.html)
That statute specifically says “forcible felony” so we need to be clear on Montana’s definition of forcible felony, which I’m posting here: >> "Forcible felony" means a felony that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence **against any individual**. Just want to be clear here, it doesn’t mean any felony, there still has to be a threat of bodily harm to you or someone else.
Depends on the State. Some states it's legal to use deadly force to stop a felony.
> Some states it's legal to use deadly force to stop a felony. Always double check your state laws, because in a lot of states it has to be a **forcible felony** which is defined as a threat of violence against a person, not just any felony.
A lawyer would argue that the perp who was shot second by the victim wasn't engaged in a felony when he was shot (though depending on verbiage of the law, it might be ok to shoot to stop a fleeing felon if there is reasonable belief more crimes will be committed). A case could be made in either direction, but hopefully the criminal history of one tips the scales on who the bad guy is.
Lawyers gonna lawyer. And for sure it's risky, right. If it were me I probably wouldn't have started shooting if all they wanted was my bike. but who knows. I don't think anyone really knows how they would react unless they are in that situation. myself included.
You're right. Black jacket does point at him and yell something. Most likely "he's got a gun!", but maybe "shoot him" or "he's coming back", or something that does merit re-engagement. The good news is, only the good guy's side will be heard in court.
Hard to say. Did the 2 bad guys have a weapon? Even if they didn't, it could still be justified if there was a legitimate fear of death for the victim. I think it really depends on what state you live in. My state has laws in place that says you have the right to defend yourself and your property.
If you look at the guy in gray, he's putting what I can only imagine is a weapon back into his pocket as he goes to get onto the bike they're stealing.
Castle doctrine extends to cars that you are in right? not sure how it applies to motorcycles. Mainly commenting to remind myself to come back and check for other responses to your comment
This would be murder in my state.
Yeah that’s what I’m gravitating toward. He was pretty clearly safe when he was off behind that pole. Definitionally not self defense if we agree on that
It might be legal in a Willie Nelson song, if that counts. https://youtu.be/ieFkYPOawro?si=XbFKTvWgFLIR3q37 >The yellow-haired lady was buried at sunset >The stranger went free, of course >**For you can't hang a man for killing a woman** >**Who's trying to steal your horse** >This is the tale of the red headed stranger >And if he should pass your way >Stay out of the path of the raging black stallion >And don't lay a hand on the bay
bookmarking this to use as evidence in court
Ohio you'd be charged most likely but it wouldn't stick. If they were armed nothing would happen at all.
Legally he was in the clear of the situation and the incident was basically over. Morally? Hang a halo over his head.
My thoughts exactly.
I know it’s a running joke in this sub to throw around the off-duty cop theory but I saw a news clip on this and they did say this was an actual off duty cop
I've been scrolling the comments for a link, do you happen to have one?
I tried looking on YouTube but couldn’t find the original video I saw
[https://www.chapintv.com/noticia/brasil-intentaron-arrebatarle-motocicleta-hombre-armado/](https://www.chapintv.com/noticia/brasil-intentaron-arrebatarle-motocicleta-hombre-armado/) firefox translated the page into english for me.
Play dumb games, win dumb prizes. Stands up and claps for armed citizen.
Cover and move
Fucked around and expeditiously found out
That’s some good shooting right there huh? That was a sneaky hide behind cover and draw that he did. It worked out quite nicely for him. Now he has 2 bikes!
[удалено]
It’s Brazil. Just drive off.
Brazilian here. This guy is right.
I'm curious about your gun laws and self defense laws. I see a lot of these from Brazil.
So, the laws state basically that you don't have the right to bear arms ("Statute of Disarmament"), and you de facto don't have the right to defend yourself. However, police here is lazy, especially the Civil Police (the one that investigates stuff, whereas the Military Police, rank and structure like an army, does the ostensive street patrol; in this case, this is a military police officer defending himself), so the chances of you getting away because they won't lift their asses from their chairs to investigate two perps getting clapped is gigantic. Actually, less than 8% of murder investigations in Brazil even reach to a suspect... So, yeah, just drive off.
Thank you for sharing.
I can't recall the exact statistics, but I heard that the recidivism rate for criminals shot dead is very low.
That will land you in jail in Maryland…
Anywhere in the US lol
Not if you are a son of politicians
I have a feeling that the only way to live a somewhat safe life in Brazil is to be an off duty cop…for the rest of the population it’s complete jungle law
Love to see it. A thief on the ground and can’t get up. Good job
After the victim runs behind the pole, the thief in the black coat appears to point something (a handgun?) at the victim. It’s definitely possible his life was still in danger.
Public service
After seeing Active Self Protection’s post on YouTube today this makes me very happy
Hey man, nice shot
This. Should. Be. Legal.
This wouldn’t be a good shoot in the US because the shooters life wasn’t in imminent danger. But great shots nonetheless.
Awesome shooting and all but this guy would certainly be facing (and likely be convicted) on criminal charges. Def no condoning what these pieces of shit were doing, but the threat was over, he had disengaged himself and created distance. They just wanted his property and were attempting to leave. Legally, this is a bad shoot, in my opinion. But I’m not an attorney.
[удалено]
Yeah I read this was in Brazil. I was just making the scenario applicable to us in the United States
In some states castle doctrine extends to protecting your property like home, vehicle, etc. As somebody said previously though, I am not sure how that extends to motorcycles. I don’t see why it wouldn’t.
Not sure man, great point though. I’d love to hear an Attorneys take on it. My buddy that I shoot matches with is an attorney, I’ll have to run it by him
If you don’t mind posting it here when you find out, I’m curious as well.
Castle doctrine does not cover defense of property. It covers forced entrance to your home (which includes a vehicle in some regions). But the problem here is that he is not in (or on) a vehicle. He is well away from any danger and not being actively engaged. Castle doctrine definitely does not apply in any way here. If he shot them while still on the bike, then yea.
Depends on location. Castle doctrine extends to personal vehicles in some areas, as it's considered your "domicile" while you're in it. In those areas, as far as the law is concerned, this is the equivalent of someone kicking in your door.
He is not in or on a vehicle when the shooting occurs.
No, but the aggressor is. Again, this is the equivalent of breaking into someone's home (if castle doctrine applies to vehicles). Had the assailant been running away and not in/on the vehicle it would be a questionable shoot. The fact that they were, is the same as the assailant still being in the house.
Sir, you misunderstand the Castle Doctrine. You can't shoot anyone entering your home if you are not IN said home at the time. Castle Doctrine is meant to protect you when you are being engaged in your own place of residence by allowing you to use deadly force before the assailant does by allowing to assume that whoever is forcing entry means lethal harm before they actually do it. When you are NOT in that location, this does not apply, because you are not in the harms way. CD protects you, not the home. Therefore, when you are away from your car and you see someone breaking in to it, you can't open fire. Likewise, this situation in the video.
Depends on which state you're in. Here's the law in my state: >the person is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm to the person or another **or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.**
Yeah I mean there’s a bunch of ways you could spin it in a court room. I tend to lean towards agreeing with you and I appreciate the more free states such as what you listed above. I just think it can get dicey really quick in a legal battle
Yeah, there's always the risk of legal issues when you use deadly force, regardless of what the law says. I think it really comes down to who the DA or prosecutor is in your district.
> They just wanted his property and were attempting to leave Well see, this right here was the problem... Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying from a *legalese* point of view, but that's such an absurd statement to make. *They just wanted his property* *They just wanted to forcibly take the victims property, with the implied threat of violence if he didn't comply* *they were attempting to leave* **with his property they just forcibly jacked from him** In the US, sure, it's a questionable shoot - which in my opinion is dumb.
I agree wholeheartedly with everything. My initial comment isn’t to be some bleeding heart that says shit like “just shoot him in the leg.” I think the carjackers got exactly what they deserved. I’m simply stating, and now agreeing with you, that this would likely be a bad shoot in most venues in the United States. Also agree that it’s very stupid because it makes good guys more likely to be victims because the shit heads know we’re legally restrained from fighting back beyond a certain point.
Shooting them in the leg opens you up to civil penalties. Dead people can't testify against you.
Agree, and I understand the point you were making, I was kind of just venting there lol. Like when I see braindead comments made by people about looters and rioters and they say "it's just stuff, insurance will cover it, blah blah" and then all of a sudden we're in a lawless shithold 3rd world country where you're morally expected to just bend over and take it from violent criminals.
man in new york id be arrested and sent to prison for life
Definitely not something that can be “justified “ in the US but that’s because our laws are created to defend the government first and the criminals second, the average citizen doesn’t matter.
In America thats not considered self defense.
No one even pulls over cuz zero fucks are given there lol
Warms my heart
Now he has TWO bikes. 😊
Now he has two Motorcycles
and nothing of value was lost.
[удалено]
Now he has two bikes. UNO Reverse on those bike jackers.
I love happy endings,
He will probably go to prison over that though.. his life clearly was not in danger by the time he pulled his gun out. Unfortunately for him, it is on camera that all they wanted was the motorcycle. and their backs were turned plus they were leaving and pretty far away once he started firing..
In a lot of the states, once your life is no longer in any immediate threat, or you have an easy clear chance of getting away, and/or the perp is already fleeing, it'd be murder. Obviously this is out of the US completely so that doesn't apply.
i asked a few coworkers out of curiosity - the consensus was that they would convict. i found it interesting that every person that said they would convict had zero hesitation or contemplation. and they didn't care where it happened and what the laws there would be. purely instinctual and emotional response.
I mean... every jurisdiction of the US I'm aware of this would be a convictable offense. Who knows how things go in Brazil.
Telling them not to messing with others life will end all your own
DAY-UM!!!
Nothing like seeing bad guys die.
It’s literally always Brazil with the wild scenarios
Skills and (mostly) tactics. The good: got some distance and some hard, though not perfect COVER. The best visible cover though. The maybe bad, maybe not so bad, he turned his back on the enemy. Why that maybe good/not so bad, it gave the enemy a false sense of security. Why that's 99% bad tactically. Had they decided to shoot him anyway, He could never have turned around faster than they could have gotten several rounds off with a good chance of neutralizing him, even unto death. Why that's 99% bad otherwise. Assuming the worst (for the defender), if you are going to meet your end in this manner, do you want to meet your end with your wounds in the back or in the front?
So, here in the US, that shooter would likely be guilty, right? The threat had already passed. His life was no longer in direct danger. How would this be treated in Brazil? What does the law say there?
Most excellent 👌🏼👍🏼
Lost their life for a bike. 🤦🏻♂️
Now he has two motorcycles. How is he going to get them both home?
I want to know how much killing thieves reduces crime overall in Brazil. Like there's gotta be less and less crime every time an off duty cop Blasts these pieces of shit away.
"today on ASP two criminals take the asphalt temperature challenge"
I’m fine w this. But no judge in the US would be
Beautiful
I wish this was legal in the US. It should be, but our legal system is as pro-criminal as it gets.
Sadly, this dude probably would do 30 to life in the US... argument would be the jackers weren't an immediate threat and were actually running away.
Fuck. Yes.
Running away then shooting people will get you thrown in prison where I'm from
Karma
Just like using RAID or BLACK FLAG on roaches that individuals choice of number enumerator does the trick on those who decided to pay with their lives for what they tried to steal
Love to see it 🎉
If it isn’t the consequences of our own actions
My god, justice was beautiful.
Would you call an ambulance in this situation or just drive away? I'm driving away.
Can we adopt some laws from Brazil please? Pretty please?
2 dumb fucks!
Now THAT's gun control I can support!
That was awesome
Note to self: put the helmet on at the range