Comments by "looseycanon" (@looseycanon) on "Security guard SHOOTS shopper for defying mask rule inside store. WTF" video.

  1. That is one way of looking at things, however, let me draw Chuck Norris in to this... a few years (decades) back, Chuck was called as expert witness in a case involving the use of firearm against someone unarmed but trained in martial arts. Whether in such circumstances the use was justified. The prossecutor requested a demonstration of effective use of martial arts against someone with a firearm. After four times, when the prossecutor couldn't aim an unloaded sidearm, courtesy of the bailif, at Chuck, before he had Chuck's foot in his chest, the case was decided in favor of the gun holder. So much legal anals There is a similarity here. Much like with martial arts. Unless the person in question show's signs of his condition (be it kimono with a black belt or unstoppable caugh), one can't tell, whether the other person is dangerous or not. There is a considerable portion of infected people, who are completely asymptomatic and thus may appear harmless, but can actually be harmful to be around. That combined with a standing order (if still enforced) could lead to exonoration. There is a major pandemic about. There are people on the fringes of the society, who refuse to wear masks/vaccinate, who actually do spread the desease. Not all of them, but they are the more common ones. If we take all of this in to consideration, Could a reasonable juror find, that it was someone could believe, he/she is in imminent mortal danger? Given the general coverage of the epidemic by the media, I'd say yes and therefore the use firearm of firearm should be considered legal and thus called for. (obligation to retreat aside, as that isn't really an option here, given the shooter's occupation.)
    1
  2. Never be swayed by the argument "he/she didn't have the weapon legally!". how was the shooting otherwise? What if the guy was a fellon and thus barred from holding firearms, but the shooting were clean (say the other guy drew first)? Are we really going to question, whether someone should have had means to defend him self, before wondering, whether the use of said means was appropriate given the SITUATION?! Should a felons life be forfeit, simply because he/she did something wrong in the past and did not get death penalty then? No, even a felon is a human in my eyes and should be extended the same courtesy as anyone else!
    1