normiss 622 #26 July 18, 2016 I don't think they were EVER a real threat to him. On top of the reasons you mention, he then moved out of the way, and his shots hit the rear of the car while they were fleeing the crazy man with a gun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #27 July 18, 2016 QuoteIt would be highly questionable for a police officer to shoot at a person who was simply leaving a challenge.An Atlanta police officer has just been charged with felony murder for doing exactly that. QuoteFor a citizen to do it, is unconscionable. I think he should be charged with attempted murder, or at a minimum aggravated assault. Not charging him sends a very loud message that such behavior is acceptable. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,340 #28 July 18, 2016 normissI don't think they were EVER a real threat to him. On top of the reasons you mention, he then moved out of the way, and his shots hit the rear of the car while they were fleeing the crazy man with a gun. It's somewhat debatable as to whether or not they were a threat to him. If he put himself in front of the car, it's possible. However, that act of putting himself there removes pretty much any possible claim of self defense. Keep in mind that it's possible for them to be a threat, but for him to not be able to legally defend himself against that threat, based on his actions. A lot of people fail to understand this basic concept. And shooting at the car after it has gone past (and isn't a threat anymore) has zero claim of self defense."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #29 July 18, 2016 normissI would advise quite differently. I'd duck under the dash and floor it, but that's me.I'd handle the situation the same way. Councilman24 seems to feel differently. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nolhtairt 0 #30 July 18, 2016 wolfriverjoe***Ordinary citizens have no power to detain people in public. That's reserved for the cops. I disagree. There have been many incidents where a "citizen's arrest" have been made after an actual crime was committed, until police could arrive. And usually with multiple witnesses to corroborate the arresting citizen's side of the story. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,121 #31 July 18, 2016 Some people don't seem to understand that owning a gun does not, in fact, turn you into Wyatt Earp. This being the US, I expect to see warning stickers on them someday, just like superman pajamas say hat they don't confer the power of flight. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,121 #32 July 18, 2016 How people justify the actions of this idiot with a gun is beyond me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #33 July 18, 2016 ryoder Waving a gun around to intimidate someone: One count of brandishing. Pointing the gun at people in a car: Two counts of assault with a deadly weapon. Shooting at people in a car: Two counts of attempted murder. Shooting in a residential neighborhood: Reckless endangerment of all his neighbors. ^^^ sounds about right - convict on these actions and he loses his right to own that particularly piece of property and those like it. Responsible gun owners need to stand up and say, "HERE, this is a perfect example of an individual that has demonstrated through his personal actions that he cannot own firearms....period" at the same time, any anti-gun fanatic that wants to use this as a rationale to pre-emptively disarm those that own responsibly....well, nevermind, it's likely already happening ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,121 #34 July 18, 2016 Quote at the same time, any anti-gun fanatic that wants to use this as a rationale to pre-emptively disarm those that own responsibly....well, nevermind, it's likely already happening Considering the population needs to be warned that if one is allergic to peanuts, one should not eat peanuts. I am not sure how that same population can be responsible enough to own guns en masse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #35 July 18, 2016 I think you were supposed to warn us of the possibility of peanut contents in your post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hajo 0 #36 July 18, 2016 SkyDekker How people justify the actions of this idiot with a gun is beyond me. Me too.. To put some gasoline into that fire for the guys who are on the gunslinger´s side: If I want to kill someone legally, I just stand in front of his car at night, pointing a gun towards him and start yelling loudly "don´t move!". If he then starts to drive I may defend myself and shoot him? Okay, if he drives backwards, I may have to run around his car ... If he steps out of the car and runs over my lawn, I may use the stand-your-ground excuse? What would you do if you park your car or stop because you want to check your phone and as you look up, some armed guy is holding a gun? Makes me feel better to live in an area where this is not a common issue ...-------------------------------------------------- With sufficient thrust, pigs just fly well Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,340 #37 July 18, 2016 nolhtairt***Ordinary citizens have no power to detain people in public. That's reserved for the cops. I disagree. There have been many incidents where a "citizen's arrest" have been made after an actual crime was committed, until police could arrive. And usually with multiple witnesses to corroborate the arresting citizen's side of the story. Very true. But there's a big difference between "arrest" and "detain." The key words "after an actual crime has been committed" are the important part. There was no crime committed here (at least not by the people in the car). For the "asshole with a gun" (in Yoink's very apt words) to detain people on simple suspicion is not a "citizen's arrest". It approaches kidnapping or unlawful restraint. To be honest, sitting in a parked car in the street may not reach the level of "articulable suspicion" necessary for a cop to be able to detain someone."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nolhtairt 0 #38 July 18, 2016 wolfriverjoe******Ordinary citizens have no power to detain people in public. That's reserved for the cops. I disagree. There have been many incidents where a "citizen's arrest" have been made after an actual crime was committed, until police could arrive. And usually with multiple witnesses to corroborate the arresting citizen's side of the story. Very true. But there's a big difference between "arrest" and "detain." The key words "after an actual crime has been committed" are the important part. There was no crime committed here (at least not by the people in the car). For the "asshole with a gun" (in Yoink's very apt words) to detain people on simple suspicion is not a "citizen's arrest". It approaches kidnapping or unlawful restraint. To be honest, sitting in a parked car in the street may not reach the level of "articulable suspicion" necessary for a cop to be able to detain someone. Agreed. Just clarifying your statement which seemed vague. Dude was in the wrong there for sure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,121 #39 July 18, 2016 wolfriverjoe******Ordinary citizens have no power to detain people in public. That's reserved for the cops. I disagree. There have been many incidents where a "citizen's arrest" have been made after an actual crime was committed, until police could arrive. And usually with multiple witnesses to corroborate the arresting citizen's side of the story. Very true. But there's a big difference between "arrest" and "detain." The key words "after an actual crime has been committed" are the important part. There was no crime committed here (at least not by the people in the car). For the "asshole with a gun" (in Yoink's very apt words) to detain people on simple suspicion is not a "citizen's arrest". It approaches kidnapping or unlawful restraint. To be honest, sitting in a parked car in the street may not reach the level of "articulable suspicion" necessary for a cop to be able to detain someone. In Canada for a citizen to be able to arrest, that citizen must have witnessed the crime. Suspicion of a crime isn't enough. Is something similar not the case in the US? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #40 July 18, 2016 SkyDekker Quote at the same time, any anti-gun fanatic that wants to use this as a rationale to pre-emptively disarm those that own responsibly....well, nevermind, it's likely already happening Considering the population needs to be warned that if one is allergic to peanuts, one should not eat peanuts. I am not sure how that same population can be responsible enough to own guns en masse. You have a point - the warning could simply read "Allergy warning - contains peanuts" or even "Contains peanuts" (should really be sufficient) I like this one "Allergy warning - Contains Peanuts - you know who you are" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,340 #41 July 18, 2016 SkyDekker In Canada for a citizen to be able to arrest, that citizen must have witnessed the crime. Suspicion of a crime isn't enough. Is something similar not the case in the US? That's pretty much it. A crime has to have been committed, and the person making the citizen's arrest needs pretty solid proof. Not necessarily 'witnessing' it, but solid proof. For example, if my car is stolen and I didn't see it get taken, but I find someone sitting in the driver's seat in a parking lot, then I can effect a citizen's arrest for car theft, detain the thief and call the cops. (kinda splitting hairs here, I know) BUT... Just like use of lethal force in self defense, my actions will be scrutinized by the authorities (cops & prosecutors) and if I was wrong, I may face consequences."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #42 July 18, 2016 QuoteBUT... Just like use of lethal force in self defense, my actions will be scrutinized by the authorities (cops & prosecutors) and if I was wrong, I may face consequences. Didn't work out very well for OJ. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,121 #43 July 18, 2016 rehmwa *** Quote at the same time, any anti-gun fanatic that wants to use this as a rationale to pre-emptively disarm those that own responsibly....well, nevermind, it's likely already happening Considering the population needs to be warned that if one is allergic to peanuts, one should not eat peanuts. I am not sure how that same population can be responsible enough to own guns en masse. You have a point - the warning could simply read "Allergy warning - contains peanuts" or even "Contains peanuts" (should really be sufficient) I like this one "Allergy warning - Contains Peanuts - you know who you are" Why would a container of peanuts need a warning in the first place? If it has been determined that the population isn't smart enough to realize that a container of peanuts contains nuts, I am not sure how one can argue that same population should be allowed to own guns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #44 July 18, 2016 I don't recall a claim of self defense in that case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #45 July 18, 2016 SkyDekkerWhy would a container of peanuts need a warning in the first place? If it has been determined that the population isn't smart enough to realize that a container of peanuts contains nuts, I am not sure how one can argue that same population should be allowed to own guns. oh crap - I didn't realize it was just a jar of peanuts......that is much worse - my brain 'auto-filled' the word "contains" in there... here's a photo of a jar from my work desk from May of 2015), I labeled it as a joke...... you'll enjoy it ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,121 #46 July 18, 2016 rehmwa***Why would a container of peanuts need a warning in the first place? If it has been determined that the population isn't smart enough to realize that a container of peanuts contains nuts, I am not sure how one can argue that same population should be allowed to own guns. oh crap - I didn't realize it was just a jar of peanuts......that is much worse - my brain 'auto-filled' the word "contains" in there... here's a photo of a jar from my work desk from May of 2015), I labeled it as a joke...... you'll enjoy it I like it! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #47 July 18, 2016 rehmwa***Why would a container of peanuts need a warning in the first place? If it has been determined that the population isn't smart enough to realize that a container of peanuts contains nuts, I am not sure how one can argue that same population should be allowed to own guns. oh crap - I didn't realize it was just a jar of peanuts......that is much worse - my brain 'auto-filled' the word "contains" in there... here's a photo of a jar from my work desk from May of 2015), I labeled it as a joke...... you'll enjoy it I am stealing that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #48 July 19, 2016 jakee None of that is true. Literally not a word of it. Really? Not one word was true - literally?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #49 July 19, 2016 turtlespeed*** None of that is true. Literally not a word of it. Really? Not one word was true - literally? Pretty much. They didn't trespass. They didn't try to run him over. He didn't shoot at the tyres. He had no reason to believe his home had just been burgled. Now: instead of arguing about the semantics of my post, do you want to retract your initial defence of the gunman and condemnation of the victims in light of your clear misunderstanding of the circumstances?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #50 July 19, 2016 jakee****** None of that is true. Literally not a word of it. Really? Not one word was true - literally? Pretty much. They didn't trespass. They didn't try to run him over. He didn't shoot at the tyres. He had no reason to believe his home had just been burgled. Now: instead of arguing about the semantics of my post, do you want to retract your initial defence of the gunman and condemnation of the victims in light of your clear misunderstanding of the circumstances? Sure - are you gong to admit that "pretty much" isn't literally?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
