It really won't. They're rabid and want to kill all Muslims.

If I were to go tinfoil hat for a moment, I like to think that this was an attack planned by the Zionists in order to turn public opinion to their favor, but that hero who jumped in threw a wrench into that part of their plans when it turned out he was a Muslim and an Arab.

Anyways back to reality: The world sucks, and it will continue to suck for the foreseeable and unforeseeable future.

You mean the country that was warning the west will get "attacked by hamas"?

Israel already blaming it on iran

~~every accusation is a confession~~ every self-glorification is an admission

Wow, maybe if all the "terrorists" want as a reward is for basic, agreed upon by all parties international resolutions to actually be followed, maybe "terrorism" is actually based and good?

White Dance Majors from Philly?

Glad to see you back on here :)

Yeah, the tactically sound action would have been to secure the shooter. As you would assume he had a sidearm the only valid move is to shoot him. However, that violates the states monopoly of violence so you would have assume that would end poorly.

Like, give the way things have gone if the defender was a woman you would expect her to face charges of some kind. I don't know about Aus, but I the US women defending themselves or others are frequently punished.

The state's intrest is not that this works well or has a happy ending. In this senario multiple state actors benefit from this going poorly. The primary intrest of thr state in this moment is to preserve their monopoly of violence.

Yes and no.

There would be some formal process, prosecutors and police might investigate and decide not to pursue, we don't have a grand jury system so it might go to court just to be dismissed by a magistrate but I don't think it would get that far because everyone would agree the circumstances were extreme (and a jury wouldn't convict)

I don't think so. He might have gotten arrested but I doubt he would even be charged, or more likely charges would have been dropped after investigation.

People have defended themselves with firearms to deadly effect and avoided prosecution. Thinking specifically of some elderly woman with an unlicensed shotgun who killed a guy in the last handful of years, her case would have been harder to make since she had the gun and, I guess, had forethought to use it as a self defense tool.

Technically if you have a registered firearm and you happen to have it out of secure storage for a legitimate reason, like cleaning the thing or heading out to a gun range, and if you find yourself needing to defend yourself in a situation where deadly force is necessary, then using your gun in self defense is theoretically permissible.

The hero in this situation didn't bring a weapon or plan for violence and he came under fire from the disarmed guy's accomplice almost immediately. He had no way of knowing whether the man he disarmed would pull out a handgun or a knife, but he did know the man was intent on murder and that the attack was ongoing.

So yeah, I think he could've shot him without breaking the law. That said I've written a lot of qualifying words here for a reason, the law is not applied evenly. A more common scenario is knives- I've seen contradictory outcomes from people killing in self defense, where one situation resulted in no charges filed and another almost identical situation resulted in prosecution.

He was smart not to shoot. Restrained, IMO. Having that gun in his hands could've easily gotten him shot by a cop regardless of righteousness, so it was wise to put it down once the shooter had retreated far enough away.

It depends on if anyone gets caught in the crossfire.

If someone dies because he started shooting he'd be arrested and would likely see court, but I'm unsure on if a jury would convict.

If he'd just shot the guy I don't think he'd see jail but he would probably be arrested and processed.