|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 24, 2009, 06:35 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2, 2009
Posts: 113
|
Good Point!
Were folks protesting a shooting because the criminal who was attempting murder and shot was BLACK? or were they protesting because a black man was shot and killed committing a crime? So now we should show rascial preference and must not shoot certain folks and possibly kill them when defending ourselves if attacked? Ridiculous. What part of reality, and the morality and consequences of attempted murder do they not understand? I believe society at large has great problems dealing with individuals who act morally and take others lives.Remember that we folks who carry firearms are in the vast minority.Lethal responses to confrontation are in the distinct minority and a vexing problem for societies passive sheep.That means that individual was judge, jury, and executioner, usurping roles that the bureaucracy of society mandates. Sadly,I believe that maybe a majority of the mindless out there might be more comfortable that the innocents be sacrificed with little fanfare and the "system" just stumble along to eventually take care of the "misunderstood" perpetrators in time. Read opinion polls on societies sheep.There are so many folks out there with poor judgement and perception deciding societies fate.They want their decisions to be easier with less thought and judgement needed for those who act differently from the herd. Example-If all handguns are illegal then things are simple for an amoral government.No matter than BG's have guns, and innocents die. LEO's would know if you use a gun they should arrest you irregardless.Innocents are just collateral damage.Their jobs are so much easier. I firmly believe that more and more of society is becoming amoral and clueless.We all will suffer if such ridiculous thought processes divorced from reality become rationalized--Good or evil eventually won't matter. Just what society determines is convenient and expedient. Last edited by glock06; May 24, 2009 at 06:41 PM. |
May 24, 2009, 07:06 PM | #27 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
And notice how my point gets drowning in the rhetoric
Quote:
Now show me facts to conclude that this guy did NOT wantonly execute this perp. You guys should put your self defense woobie away for a bit and use this incident as a chance to evaluate and critically thinkout a self defense scenario...when does justified shooting become murder? How about less screeching and more thinking...and by the way, consider the civil aspects....,. WildihopefolkspostmorefactsastheybecomeavailableAlaska TM PS Quote:
|
||
May 24, 2009, 07:21 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Just a hint - don't hang yourself on the race issue in this thread.
Since this is tactics - we should talk about the actions of actors. Your socio-political theories about the aftermath aren't relevant. Numerous factors go into a shoot/no decision. Talk about that. If you want to debate specifically if the race of the actors influenced the shoot/no shoot decision - go research it on Google scholar - there's quite a bit of work. But if you want to rant about it without background - not useful.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
May 24, 2009, 07:25 PM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 6, 2008
Location: N.California
Posts: 408
|
good shoot?
Without being there and knowing all of the facts, I have to say that my first reaction upon reading the story was that he did execute the bad guy.
I realize that the pharmacist would not be able to physicaly subdue the BG. I'm not about to pass judgment either way but I did wince when I read that he emptied the mag in BG's chest. |
May 24, 2009, 07:27 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2, 2009
Posts: 113
|
deleted
Last edited by glock06; May 24, 2009 at 07:30 PM. Reason: deleted |
May 24, 2009, 07:34 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Posts: 897
|
factor 1, he said he was gonna kill the guy
factor 2, he had a gun factor 3, he fired the gun factor 4, there was another perp factor 5, he didn't stay down factor 6, 1 vs 2 factor 7, other innocent lives factor 8, the guy defending himself didn't know the kid was 16. he didn't care about race, he was trying to stay alive. I welcome contradictions. Mods are right, lets be on topic |
May 24, 2009, 07:39 PM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
1. Can the pharmacist reasonably articulate that he was still in fear of his life or grievous bodily harm from the moving but down violent criminal actor?
That's crucial and the whole game. 2. IMHO - going after the guy who fled was not a wise move. Nor do I understand the time line about the Judge. Did he have one in each hand? 3. Are there tapes of this event? With the security mentioned, I would think so. His fate may be determined by what they show.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
May 24, 2009, 07:48 PM | #33 | ||
Member
Join Date: December 13, 2008
Posts: 41
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
TENTH AMENDMENT The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Last edited by possumman; May 24, 2009 at 08:00 PM. |
||
May 24, 2009, 07:50 PM | #34 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
"The jury must first determine whether the defendant had the requisite beliefs under section 35.15, that is, whether he believed deadly force was necessary to avert the imminent use of deadly force or the commission of one of the felonies enumerated therein. If the People do not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not have such beliefs, then the jury must also consider whether these beliefs were reasonable. The jury would have to determine, in light of all the "circumstances", as explicated above, if a reasonable person could have had these beliefs" People v Goetz 68NY296, 115 WildimlookingforanonpointheresanothercaseAlaska TM |
|
May 24, 2009, 07:52 PM | #35 |
Junior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2009
Location: Huntington, WV
Posts: 5
|
Shoot To Stop!
"All of a sudden, they started shooting,” he said. "They were attempting to kill me, but they didn’t know I had a gun. They said, ‘You’re gonna die.’ That’s when one of them shot at me, and that’s when he got my hand.”
Assuming the above account is accurate, the pharmacist was justified to shoot the killer/robber with his underpowered 380 until there was no more potential threat. I also have a 380 (Beretta Model 34) and if I had sustained a potentiallhy lethal attack I would keep that Beretta in action until I was absolutely sure that the person who tried to kill me was totally incapacitated. My intention would not be to kill the attacker but to absolutely stop him from attempting to kill me or anyone else in the store. |
May 24, 2009, 07:53 PM | #36 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
WildyouneedtolearnwhatmondaymorningquarterbackingisAlaska TM |
|
May 24, 2009, 08:04 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 12, 2005
Posts: 2,536
|
Fact is, at this point he said what he said. Anything else said to the police should be said through an attorney
|
May 24, 2009, 08:17 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Posts: 897
|
actually I am pretty sure you can use deadly force when a felony is being committed. so, the kid is committing the felony still, technically the guy walks either way.
|
May 24, 2009, 08:25 PM | #39 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 26, 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 274
|
I would have absolutely NO different take on this situation if the young armed robber was white and the pharmacist was black. I would still have the same opinion - the pharmacist did what he had to do to protect himself and the robber got what he risked by choosing to rob.
On second thought, maybe I would have a SLIGHTLY different take on this situation if the dead young robber were white and the pharmacist was black. I'd think - well, at least, maybe this will help some people realize that the right to self-defense is a basic human right that law-abiding citizens of all races, ages, genders, cultures, sexual preferences, religions and backgrounds deserve and should have. Quote:
|
|
May 24, 2009, 08:26 PM | #40 | |
Member
Join Date: December 13, 2008
Posts: 41
|
Quote:
__________________
TENTH AMENDMENT The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. |
|
May 24, 2009, 08:35 PM | #41 |
Member
Join Date: March 14, 2009
Posts: 16
|
and this is why we doubletap.
|
May 24, 2009, 08:39 PM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
|
My take from the articles is that the pharmacist downed the threat who was then out of the battle (shot in the head) and the pursued threat #2 that ceased being a perceiced threat via flight. Then the pharmacist discovered threat #1 wasn't neutralized after all and engaged the guy for a second time as an active threat.
Sounds plausible.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
May 24, 2009, 08:57 PM | #43 |
Member
Join Date: May 24, 2009
Location: Astatula, FL
Posts: 52
|
That guy truly is a hero. Amen he's alive and so are those girls. Thank God he had a sidearm to defend himself. Maybe that will teach at least one moron from thinking it's a good idea to give up a life of hard work and try to rob a hardees or 711
|
May 24, 2009, 09:15 PM | #44 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
"But as he started to chase after the second robber he looked back to see the 16-year-old he had shot in the head getting up again. Ersland said he then emptied the Kel-Tec .380 into the boy’s chest." Perhaps my "what ifs" are a lot less than yours. But then again, it seems folk are more concerned with vindicating this guy instead of thinking about the ramifications of this scenario. I would have thought that responsible gun owners would have preferred to analyze the situation in a critical manner, as opposed to screeching yahoo. WildguessiwasmistakenAlaska TM |
|
May 24, 2009, 09:56 PM | #45 | |
Member
Join Date: December 13, 2008
Posts: 41
|
Quote:
__________________
TENTH AMENDMENT The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. |
|
May 24, 2009, 10:00 PM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Posts: 897
|
well lets really think about this, if he hadn't had a gun and defended himself, there would be 4 people dead in a pharmacy and the brady idiots would have another example of why GunsRBad Mkay?
|
May 24, 2009, 10:20 PM | #47 |
Member
Join Date: May 24, 2009
Location: Astatula, FL
Posts: 52
|
Kyo +1..amen
|
May 24, 2009, 10:26 PM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Yep, let's hold off until an investigation is performed. Tune in a few months. Tapes, forensics, etc.
He could be righteous or not. CSI-TFL will have to wait.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
May 25, 2009, 12:04 AM | #49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 17, 2009
Posts: 385
|
I doubt he'll walk.
In the report it only mentions him firing 1 shot before he "emptied his .380 into the boys chest" The Kel tec p3at (which im assuming it was) holds 6+1 rounds. And if he truly emptied the gun, thats at least 5 rounds into an already down person. I could see a second shot, but pumping 5 rounds in a row, even someone who opposes an immiadiate threat (which the kid probably didn't) . . . he's gonna need a hell of a lawyer. I know adrenaline was probably a major factor in all this, and legal ramifications were probably the last thing on his mind, but thats some hard explaining to do |
May 25, 2009, 01:10 AM | #50 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 30, 2007
Location: Great State of Texas
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by txbirddog; May 25, 2009 at 01:12 AM. Reason: punctuation |
||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|