September 7, 2010, 05:59 PM | #1 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
|
That Ain't Right
I thought I had it bad here in Kalifornia http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/09/...me-with-ak-47/
|
September 7, 2010, 06:04 PM | #2 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 769
|
Quote:
Warning shots are never, ever a good idea. This is interesting: Quote:
__________________
gtalk:renfes steamID: Sefner |
||
September 7, 2010, 06:13 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2010
Posts: 1,191
|
Is it ****ty? YES. But as Sefner said, warning shots are NEVER NEVER NEVER a good idea. He should have back up went in his house and had the gang attempted to attack or get in his house, BAM open fire with the law on your side. BTW is he allowed to own an AK???
__________________
The Day You Get Comfortable Is The Day You Get Careless... |
September 7, 2010, 06:14 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2010
Posts: 1,191
|
also Jmort, what city are you in, im RivCo too
__________________
The Day You Get Comfortable Is The Day You Get Careless... |
September 7, 2010, 06:15 PM | #5 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
|
Easy to critique but when you are facing a small army of thugs it does not seem unreasonable.
|
September 7, 2010, 06:21 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Close the door, go inside, and take your position. End of story. I hope he gets off, I bet he does, even in NY.
|
September 7, 2010, 06:45 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 769
|
Article states that the AK is lawfully owned. I imagine it's semi-auto like 99% of them out there.
__________________
gtalk:renfes steamID: Sefner |
September 7, 2010, 06:48 PM | #8 |
Member
Join Date: June 19, 2010
Location: Mass
Posts: 22
|
i think it's rediculous you can have 20+ people come on YOUR property and threaten the lives of your family and yourself, and for protecting your family you go to jail. I would think if you were facing a mob of that size anyways with everyone shouting they were going to kill you and your family, you would have the right to use lethal force, right? I mean if there saying there going to, and with 20+ vs. 1 they clearly have the ability, how would you not be justified?
|
September 7, 2010, 07:28 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 12, 2010
Location: Lake Martin, AL
Posts: 3,311
|
To Sefner, Hope I understood your question correctly. I just read in the Montgomery Advertiser (Montgomery, Alabama) where they are acquiring their second ShotSpotter -
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/...ID=20109040326 I gathered from the article, they are pleased with the one system they have deployed in one of the bad neighborhoods. It has reportedly reduced the number of gunshots fired dramatically. In July 2009 they had 176 shots in the targeted neighborhood. This past August 2010, they reported only 43 shots fired. I bet there are some bad places in the USA where either number would be very low. Cost is $200,000.00 per system. |
September 7, 2010, 07:43 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 769
|
lamarw,
You understood correctly, I was interested in reports from other localities where the system is used. Do you have any more information on how the system operates? Is it constantly recording? If so, what civil rights issues (if any) has that raised amongst residents? I would imagine that it passively monitors ambient and looking for a signature that sounds something like a gunshot, but I'm not sure. Quote:
I hope that makes sense. To many people in the self defense business, people on this board (myself included), and police, this argument is very compelling. Not perfect by any means (in logical reasoning and in premise validity) but very compelling. Now here is why it's not perfect: In this situation, the gang fulfilling the three "sides" of the "threat triangle" (excuse the quotes, I despise metaphors in communication): Ability: There are 20 of them, all young and fit, possibly armed. Intent: Verbal threats, and subjects have a history of violence (gangs), and the house has been purposefully compromised (from the article it sounds like the surrounded it, even sneaking up on the homeowner from a corner of the house) Opportunity: They have surrounded the house from the outside, outnumber the homeowner, and are again possibly armed. Thus, by the measurement of the commonly used "threat triangle", lethal force was justified. The problem is that the homeowner, by his actions, made it apparent that he himself did not feel threatened enough to use lethal force even though he, by the first assumption of why warning shots are bad, did actually use lethal force. This odd contradiction is why the warning shot argument is imperfect. Again, I hope I'm making sense here. Apologies if I'm not. My speculation is that had he actually shot someone (namely the person closest to his house or the people who came around the corner of the house) that he would not have been charged with any crime. But this is speculation.
__________________
gtalk:renfes steamID: Sefner Last edited by Sefner; September 7, 2010 at 07:55 PM. Reason: content |
|
September 7, 2010, 07:54 PM | #11 |
Junior member
Join Date: November 12, 2000
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 9,494
|
With the disparity of force it sounds like if he shot one or more of them that it would have been justified, and yet the good man still found a way to end it without bloodshed. That's very commendable and yet will be punished most likely, There's something not right about that.
|
September 7, 2010, 07:55 PM | #12 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Assuming the facts are as reported, I wish the homeowner luck. However, I'm wondering why he decided to go outside with an AK47? If you've got multiple guys coming after you and threatening to kill you, I would think that being inside the house would provide you with a much better defensive advantage.
In addition to the defensive advantage, it would help you legally as well. In many states, the mere act of breaking and entering a home is enough to create a presumption of reasonable fear of death or serious injury. Not sure about NY where this happened; but in most other states, this would go a long ways towards avoiding the legal debate over whether his warning shots were reasonable. I applaud people who will stand up and do the right thing; but it pays to do it as smart as possible. |
September 7, 2010, 07:56 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 26, 2009
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 537
|
Agree that warning shots are not a good idea, but the shotspotter system in the area adds another legal dimension. A lawyer would argue that when the second group of gang bangers joined in, it escalated the situation and by activating the gunshot tracker system, he was signaling to the cops for help in the fastest way possible (tracking system + gun shot = cops enroute NOW). The argument could be made that he was not intending harm, only trying to instill a sense of urgency in law enforcement.
Anyhoo, devils advocate time over . Gotta agree again with the no warning shots. There where better options available. |
September 7, 2010, 07:59 PM | #14 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 769
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
gtalk:renfes steamID: Sefner |
||
September 7, 2010, 09:38 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 550
|
If the po-po can respond to the "shotspotter" "within minutes", why didn't they respond to his wife's phone call in the same length of time? Makes the article sound like an ad or propaganda piece for Shotspotter.
__________________
In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons |
September 7, 2010, 09:49 PM | #16 |
Member
Join Date: June 19, 2010
Location: Mass
Posts: 22
|
Sefner- i understand how firing a warning shot is considered using lethal force and how it would make it seem to a jury that he wasn't afraid for his life. I think though that he did it in a safe enough way (shooting into the lawn), (i don't think warning shots are a good idea btw), and if he resolved it by doing that instead of killing someone, i would think he should have been given a pat on the back, not put in jail. I understand how thats not the way the laws are though. Too bad we don't have common sense laws
|
September 7, 2010, 10:43 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 12, 2010
Location: Lake Martin, AL
Posts: 3,311
|
Well, I am just happy I was able to answer you initial question. I doubt I will be of much help with your follow-on questions. I am not familiar with the technology, but I doubt it is as sophisticated as the Army's Firefinder technology which is more than a decade old (actually a couple of decades).
I doubt the ShotSpotter would violate anyone's civil liberties. It is far less aggressive than cameras. I am sure the sensors are placed in public locals. As another comparison, we all know law enforcement has resently be allowed by the courts to use GPS bugs on private vehicles to track suspects. By the way, I am about 45 miles from Montgomery. My residents is in the sticks and on a huge lake. Dove season just opened and Deer season is coming up. A ShotSpotter would go nuts in my AO. The only laws you have to follow are the hunting regulations and not hunting within a 100 yards of a building or improved road. LOL The worse crimes around here are rednecks using roads signs for zeroing-in their hunting gun. |
September 9, 2010, 10:11 AM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Another incident that indicates that training is a good thing for the armed citizen. What might seem reasonable, warning shots, are frought with difficulty.
I recall a story of a coin dealer. He gets held up. Pulls a gun. BG flees. Dealer chases him and runs up to the BG's car and shoots up the tire. Dealer gets arrested.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
September 9, 2010, 01:15 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 12, 2010
Location: Lake Martin, AL
Posts: 3,311
|
Did the perp get arrested? What was the violation by the coin dealer? For example - Was he a felon with a gun? (citing the worst case senario). It is hard to judge without all the facts. This is why we have Judges and Juries.
|
September 9, 2010, 01:36 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2010
Location: DFW Texas
Posts: 1,996
|
Poor guy.
Yeah not a good idead to shoot until an iminent threat i detected.
__________________
Krav Maga/Judo Qualified Rifleman/Marksmanship Instructor/Lic. Medic "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit" Romans 8:1 |
September 9, 2010, 04:04 PM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 12, 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 556
|
He should have argued that they were charging him and his "warning shots" were just misses.
But I used to live on LI and I can tell you that Uniondale (where it occured) is not the best of places. Lots of gangs and crime all around. So I do feel bad that he got arrested for protecting his family, but warning shots were not the way to go. But does NY have a Castle Law (I think that is what it is called), where he should have just went into his house and waited for them to enter.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
September 10, 2010, 02:50 AM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 12, 2010
Location: Lake Martin, AL
Posts: 3,311
|
But, Who wants to bring or lure the fight into your castle (home) where your family is at? Your family members are the ones you want to protect and keep the bad guys away from.
It sounds like this was the correct area for a ShotSpotter device. |
September 10, 2010, 09:11 AM | #23 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
Being inside the house offers concealment and probably some degree of cover as well. It funnels the attackers into certain areas - and even in New York, it eliminates a lot of the legal guess work for the cops about who the bad guy was. Apparently the shooter gave an interview and said that his cousin was in an altercation with some of the gang members on the lawn and was surrounded, which is why he went outside with the rifle. I imagine there is a lot more going on here than what was reported in the news; but that would certainly complicate any defensive strategy. |
|
September 10, 2010, 09:14 PM | #24 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,685
|
Closed. Drive by.
Posting a link is good. Posting only a link or a link with a fragment of a thought, is not.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|