Another Case Of C & C Gone Wrong?

Montana250 · August 7, 2009, 09:45 AM

In Myrtle Beach the other day two men get in an argument at a fast food drive thru. Some idiot gets out of his car and walks over to the car behind him and punches the guy in the face. Well, this guy pulls his weapon and shoots him twice killing him. The guy that does the shooting is 30 years old, a veteran and college grad with a once promising future. The idiot that did the punching and died was on vacation with his wife and 3 young children.

Now here's the argument the defense will be using. The shooter attained his C & C after being beating into a coma by 6 men a few years back. After what the dr's called a miraculous recovery, the shooter never wanted to find himself in that situation again, therefore sought a C & C to defend himself. Well, after being slammed in the face he had visions of himself being harmed close to death from before, and reacted with deadly force. While these days, an individual getting out of his car and punching another in the face risks the ultimate in tragedy. Obviously, I doubt he considered this prior to opening the car door and acting stupidly. However, the shooter's life hangs in the balance once again, albeit in a different form. And of course, the anti-carry people are having a field day pointing their fingers.

ZeSpectre · August 7, 2009, 10:08 AM

Somehow I see the scene like this...

Lawyer: Sir, did you feel that you were in fear for your life? After all, your assailant "only" had bare fists.
Guy: I have previously experienced how badly you can be hurt by "only" bare fists when I was beaten into a coma, so yes I was in fear for my life.
Lawyer: Well, I have no further questions.

NavyLT · August 7, 2009, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montana250

Well, after being slammed in the face he had visions of himself being harmed close to death from before, and reacted with deadly force.

So they are going to risk every veteran's rights to carry by playing the PTSD card, right when the anti's are making such a strong push for it?

Take one for the team, buddy, go to jail for a bad shoot if that is the way the jury sees it. But don't endager a whole group of people's rights to get yourself off.

M4Sherman · August 7, 2009, 10:23 AM

Huum seems clean and cut. One man attacked another who was on the defensive. So it looks more like C & C gone right.

hardluk1 · August 7, 2009, 10:26 AM

Does SC lets you kill someone for just getting a good oll ass whip'n. In FL and NC you can't do that unless a weapon is also used buy the BG. Maybe if the cc guy was this worried he might have been considered unstable. I have known many a vet that was not stable enough to own guns again. Bad deal here for several people.

**Frank Ettin** · August 7, 2009, 10:27 AM

I think the shooter is in serious trouble. The standard is supposed to be objective, i. e., would the reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances have been in fear of immediate lethal attack. It's not "did you (subjectively) fear for your life."

Wildalaska · August 7, 2009, 10:28 AM

I hate to agree with an anti gunner proposition, but if you look critically at an incident like this (and WODR, the parking Lot thread, ongoing, and others), it is unquestioned that the mere presence of a firearm can escalate the situation and contribute to death where only injuries and ruffled feelings may have otherwise occurred.

And that answer to that is not to debate the existence of the fact on either utilitarian or emotional grounds, but rather, to focus on ways to ensure that it does not occur.

WildilooklikeamonsterinthemorningAlaska TM

ZeSpectre · August 7, 2009, 10:38 AM

Quote:

where only injuries and ruffled feelings may have otherwise occurred.

Wild, I think you and I will probably never see eye to eye on this one but that's because I've seen someone killed by a single bare fisted punch. Even before I had serious surgery (meaning now a single punch to the gut would severely damage and might even kill me) I never bought into the stupidity of an "honorable" fight or "scuffles", I believed and still believe in "don't physically attack people".

Quote:

but rather, to focus on ways to ensure that it does not occur.

which, I think, might be the "don't attack other people" I was speaking about above.

Funeralfog · August 7, 2009, 10:43 AM

that guy better fry, so if he gets in one fight with one person, he has the right to shoot him? i think not. yeah he got gangbeat, but shooting one man with his family and killing him? thats abusing your rights, just fight like a man. dont need a gun

22-rimfire · August 7, 2009, 10:49 AM

This is one for the courts to settle. I don't even want to voice an opinion. Cases of road rage and "fast food" rage happen frequently. There simply isn't a gun put into play most times. I feel for the victim and his family and I feel for the shooter. Not a good situation.

I would suggest that nobody try to "whup me". I might not play by the rules with equal force. Not a fighter.

paull · August 7, 2009, 10:54 AM

An obvious and clear-cut, IMHO, case of self defense.
This is the main reason one should carry a weapon.

I may be in the minority, but I will never take a "good oll ass whip'n".

I have enough faith in the "justice" system, that this will be a good shoot. Providing, of course, that the info available is reasonably accurate.

Don't punch people.
p

Evan Thomas · August 7, 2009, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildalaska

I hate to agree with an anti gunner proposition, but if you look critically at an incident like this (and WODR, the parking Lot thread, ongoing, and others), it is unquestioned that the mere presence of a firearm can escalate the situation and contribute to death where only injuries and ruffled feelings may have otherwise occurred.

True... but there's information we don't have. The first thing that comes to mind is the relative sizes and physical abilities of the men involved: I'd think that this might hinge more on whether there's a disparity of force argument to be made than on the shooter's prior history of being attacked. If the shooter had previously been beaten into a coma, it's quite likely he may also have been physically impaired as a result.

We don't know.

Old Grump · August 7, 2009, 11:00 AM

Quote:

that guy better fry, so if he gets in one fight with one person, he has the right to shoot him? i think not. yeah he got gangbeat, but shooting one man with his family and killing him? thats abusing your rights, just fight like a man. dont need a gun

Okay, no link to the story so I don't know if it happened or not. No details on the physical condition of the man who did the shooting, he might not have been able to fight, especially if his opponent was bigger and blocking him from being able to get out of the car, that makes him a sitting duck and no place to go.

Of course with 20-20 hindsight like you have he should have known the guy hitting him was just an innocent vacation goer on vacation with his family and he just accidentally walked up to him and hit him in the face. It should have been instantly analyzed and then the innocent man on vacation with his family should have been forgiven.

Or a man who has been nearly beaten to death once before may have had a reaction and not want to get beaten into a near death coma again. Good shoot.

Oops I forgot, if our beating victim was a real man he would have taken his beating, handled the hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills he was going to accrue and let the poor innocent man on vacation with his family continue on his merry way beating whoever he felt like it because he was a nice man on vacation with his family.

Nope, if this happened the way it was reported it was a good shoot and the family now missing a violent person in their family is probably better off. Good Shoot!

divemedic · August 7, 2009, 11:01 AM

Quote:

This is one for the courts to settle. I don't even want to voice an opinion.

I agree. I am tired of all the armchair quarterbacking that goes on here when we try every person who is ever involved in a shooting based only upon a two paragraph news article, or in this case a second hand news article. Then the trial is held here based upon legal inaccuracies and half truths.

Quote:

Does SC lets you kill someone for just getting a good oll ass whip'n. In FL and NC you can't do that unless a weapon is also used buy the BG.

That statement s so very incorrect. Read this statue and tell me where it says you may only employ deadly force if you are faced with a weapon? When you are done, look up the term "disparity of force"

In Florida, the shooter's life does not even have to be in danger for the shooter to employ deadly force.

Quote:

"good oll ass whip'n".

just fight like a man

Like this guy?

Or maybe this one?

Is this guy manly enough?

Or perhaps this one?

This one?

The law in every state allows you to employ deadly force if you are reasonably in fear of imminent death or SERIOUS BODILY HARM.

Serious bodily harm, as a matter of law can include a broken arm or even a closed head injury, such as one would receive from being struck in the head. It would include any permanent or incapacitating injury, a non-trivial scar, or any other injury of a serious nature. A nose bleed is not a serious injury, a concussion or broken arm is.

EDITED TO ADD:

Here are some articles with the story. It turns out he was not with his family, he was out with friends. Few details are available, because the only people talking are the family of the dead guy, and they weren't there to see what happened.

rantingredneck · August 7, 2009, 11:01 AM

Quote:

NC you can't do that unless a weapon is also used buy the BG

Citation please?

B. Lahey · August 7, 2009, 11:24 AM

This is why I hate the fast-food drive-thru lanes that block you in with trees/cement/whatever. They keep people from driving to another foodshack if they get irate about a long wait, but they also prevent you from escaping a situation where escape is the best option.

If this guy was boxed in with nowhere to run, and some dimwit was pounding on his head with no sign of stopping... I think anyone would be in fear of great bodily injury if not death at that point.

srt 10 jimbo · August 7, 2009, 11:25 AM

In Florida, another gun does not have to be involved. If you are in fear for your life, you can use deadly force.

Kreyzhorse · August 7, 2009, 11:36 AM

I can't armchair QB this one either but...

I don't know what I would have done in the same situation, but clearly (from the OP) he was attacked and I can understand that he feared for his life.

Anti gun or pro gun, the courts can tackle this one. My only opinion is that the result sounds excessive, but what might have happened had he not been armed? It's also possible that he could have been beaten to death.

johnwilliamson062 · August 7, 2009, 11:47 AM

I love living in a country where people expect e to take a beating from someone because defending myself is wrong. What if he only would have had a broken arm after the attack? Will anyone on this forum knowingly allow me to break their arm and then pursue it in court afterwords? I would not. SOmetimes people die in fist fights, sometimes they get seriously disabled.

I doubt this confrontation was all that one sided. There was something going on before the man got out of his car. I would like to know more about that.

If someone just walks up to my car and tries to drag me out of it while punching I might have an adverse reaction. They are probably nuts.

Sevens · August 7, 2009, 12:16 PM

I read every post in this thread (including this one as it gets added to the bottom) and the ONLY post that is even worth the moments I spent reading it is the post by divemedic.

Monday morning quarterbacking is conversation and normal routine here on TFL and I understand that, but we've got people making blanket statements over a situation that we don't know jack about. It's not even a clear account of the situation, it's the OP's take on whatever news source he read or watched. For all we know he got this whole account at the water cooler this morning.

Here's a new topic-- I heard from a guy at the range about another guy he knows-- the guy bought 18 Taurus guns last week and shot each one of them 12,000 times and never had a FTF, stoppage, stove pipe or failure of any sort. And each shot was in the X ring at 50 yards.

Discuss.

**44 AMP** · August 7, 2009, 02:12 PM

and all you who are saying good/bad shoot are just venting emotional reactions.

Lets see if the DA thinks there is cause to prosecute, and if so, what evidence comes out then.

My personal emotional reaction is that someone reaching into my car, beating me in the head (even if "only" fists) is going to find out he has committed a very serious error. Whether he lives or dies will not matter to me, only that he stops! And I would not hesitate to use any means I had available to stop him. But that is just how I 'feel" about it. Also this presupposes I am not seeking a confrontation with the gentleman beating me about the head!

Jim March · August 7, 2009, 02:37 PM

If you're attacked in a car like that, it is NOT A FAIR FIGHT. You can't fight back effectively. So the criminal attacker can do whatever he wants to do and gee, guess what, he's a criminal, God only knows how far he's going to take it.

It is and should be 100% moral and legal to shoot under those circumstances.

Kyo · August 7, 2009, 02:37 PM

I will agree that we don't know enough. If the shooter was getting punched well then so be it the guy defended himself. If not, then he's going to jail

**Bud Helms** · August 7, 2009, 02:40 PM

Quote:

In Myrtle Beach the other day ...

Do we have a source for this story?

What is this "C&C"? Conceal and Carry? Carried & Concealed?

B. Lahey · August 7, 2009, 02:50 PM

I just read a bunch of articles and can't find anything remotely resembling the OPs version of events.

Trollthread.

August 7, 2009, 09:45 AM	#1
Montana250 Senior Member Join Date: February 1, 2006 Posts: 146	Another Case Of C & C Gone Wrong? In Myrtle Beach the other day two men get in an argument at a fast food drive thru. Some idiot gets out of his car and walks over to the car behind him and punches the guy in the face. Well, this guy pulls his weapon and shoots him twice killing him. The guy that does the shooting is 30 years old, a veteran and college grad with a once promising future. The idiot that did the punching and died was on vacation with his wife and 3 young children. Now here's the argument the defense will be using. The shooter attained his C & C after being beating into a coma by 6 men a few years back. After what the dr's called a miraculous recovery, the shooter never wanted to find himself in that situation again, therefore sought a C & C to defend himself. Well, after being slammed in the face he had visions of himself being harmed close to death from before, and reacted with deadly force. While these days, an individual getting out of his car and punching another in the face risks the ultimate in tragedy. Obviously, I doubt he considered this prior to opening the car door and acting stupidly. However, the shooter's life hangs in the balance once again, albeit in a different form. And of course, the anti-carry people are having a field day pointing their fingers.

August 7, 2009, 10:08 AM	#2
ZeSpectre Senior Member Join Date: June 4, 2007 Location: Shenandoah Valley Posts: 3,276	Somehow I see the scene like this... Lawyer: Sir, did you feel that you were in fear for your life? After all, your assailant "only" had bare fists. Guy: I have previously experienced how badly you can be hurt by "only" bare fists when I was beaten into a coma, so yes I was in fear for my life. Lawyer: Well, I have no further questions. Last edited by ZeSpectre; August 7, 2009 at 10:59 AM. Reason: rephrased for (hopefully) more clarity.

August 7, 2009, 11:36 AM	#18
Kreyzhorse Senior Member Join Date: April 12, 2006 Location: NKY Posts: 12,464	I can't armchair QB this one either but... I don't know what I would have done in the same situation, but clearly (from the OP) he was attacked and I can understand that he feared for his life. Anti gun or pro gun, the courts can tackle this one. My only opinion is that the result sounds excessive, but what might have happened had he not been armed? It's also possible that he could have been beaten to death. __________________ "He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson

August 7, 2009, 12:16 PM	#20
Sevens Senior Member Join Date: July 28, 2007 Location: Ohio Posts: 11,775	I read every post in this thread (including this one as it gets added to the bottom) and the ONLY post that is even worth the moments I spent reading it is the post by divemedic. Monday morning quarterbacking is conversation and normal routine here on TFL and I understand that, but we've got people making blanket statements over a situation that we don't know jack about. It's not even a clear account of the situation, it's the OP's take on whatever news source he read or watched. For all we know he got this whole account at the water cooler this morning. Here's a new topic-- I heard from a guy at the range about another guy he knows-- the guy bought 18 Taurus guns last week and shot each one of them 12,000 times and never had a FTF, stoppage, stove pipe or failure of any sort. And each shot was in the X ring at 50 yards. Discuss. __________________ *Attention Brass rats and other reloaders:* I really need .327 Federal Magnum brass, no lot size too small. Tell me what caliber you need and I'll see what I have to swap. PM me and we'll discuss.

August 7, 2009, 02:12 PM	#21
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 30,480	too little info for a rational determination and all you who are saying good/bad shoot are just venting emotional reactions. Lets see if the DA thinks there is cause to prosecute, and if so, what evidence comes out then. My personal emotional reaction is that someone reaching into my car, beating me in the head (even if "only" fists) is going to find out he has committed a very serious error. Whether he lives or dies will not matter to me, only that he stops! And I would not hesitate to use any means I had available to stop him. But that is just how I 'feel" about it. Also this presupposes I am not seeking a confrontation with the gentleman beating me about the head! __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

August 7, 2009, 10:23 AM	#4
M4Sherman Senior Member Join Date: February 15, 2009 Posts: 408	Huum seems clean and cut. One man attacked another who was on the defensive. So it looks more like C & C gone right.

August 7, 2009, 10:26 AM	#5
hardluk1 Junior member Join Date: March 27, 2009 Posts: 600	Does SC lets you kill someone for just getting a good oll ass whip'n. In FL and NC you can't do that unless a weapon is also used buy the BG. Maybe if the cc guy was this worried he might have been considered unstable. I have known many a vet that was not stable enough to own guns again. Bad deal here for several people.

August 7, 2009, 10:27 AM	#6
Frank Ettin Staff Join Date: November 23, 2005 Location: California - San Francisco Posts: 9,475	I think the shooter is in serious trouble. The standard is supposed to be objective, i. e., would the reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances have been in fear of immediate lethal attack. It's not "did you (subjectively) fear for your life."

August 7, 2009, 10:28 AM	#7
Wildalaska Junior member Join Date: November 25, 2002 Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska Posts: 14,171	I hate to agree with an anti gunner proposition, but if you look critically at an incident like this (and WODR, the parking Lot thread, ongoing, and others), it is unquestioned that the mere presence of a firearm can escalate the situation and contribute to death where only injuries and ruffled feelings may have otherwise occurred. And that answer to that is not to debate the existence of the fact on either utilitarian or emotional grounds, but rather, to focus on ways to ensure that it does not occur. WildilooklikeamonsterinthemorningAlaska TM

August 7, 2009, 10:43 AM	#9
Funeralfog Senior Member Join Date: March 25, 2009 Location: Camas Washington, USA Posts: 136	that guy better fry, so if he gets in one fight with one person, he has the right to shoot him? i think not. yeah he got gangbeat, but shooting one man with his family and killing him? thats abusing your rights, just fight like a man. dont need a gun

August 7, 2009, 10:49 AM	#10
22-rimfire Senior Member Join Date: February 19, 2005 Location: Tennessee Posts: 5,323	This is one for the courts to settle. I don't even want to voice an opinion. Cases of road rage and "fast food" rage happen frequently. There simply isn't a gun put into play most times. I feel for the victim and his family and I feel for the shooter. Not a good situation. I would suggest that nobody try to "whup me". I might not play by the rules with equal force. Not a fighter.

August 7, 2009, 10:54 AM	#11
paull Junior member Join Date: November 9, 1999 Location: SE Texas, 'tween Houston & Galveston Posts: 157	An obvious and clear-cut, IMHO, case of self defense. This is the main reason one should carry a weapon. I may be in the minority, but I will never take a "good oll ass whip'n". I have enough faith in the "justice" system, that this will be a good shoot. Providing, of course, that the info available is reasonably accurate. Don't punch people. p

August 7, 2009, 11:24 AM	#16
B. Lahey Senior Member Join Date: March 17, 2008 Location: Indiana Posts: 2,857	This is why I hate the fast-food drive-thru lanes that block you in with trees/cement/whatever. They keep people from driving to another foodshack if they get irate about a long wait, but they also prevent you from escaping a situation where escape is the best option. If this guy was boxed in with nowhere to run, and some dimwit was pounding on his head with no sign of stopping... I think anyone would be in fear of great bodily injury if not death at that point.

August 7, 2009, 11:25 AM	#17
srt 10 jimbo Senior Member Join Date: September 10, 2008 Location: Fort Lauderdale Posts: 955	In Florida, another gun does not have to be involved. If you are in fear for your life, you can use deadly force.

August 7, 2009, 11:47 AM	#19
johnwilliamson062 Junior member Join Date: May 16, 2008 Posts: 9,994	I love living in a country where people expect e to take a beating from someone because defending myself is wrong. What if he only would have had a broken arm after the attack? Will anyone on this forum knowingly allow me to break their arm and then pursue it in court afterwords? I would not. SOmetimes people die in fist fights, sometimes they get seriously disabled. I doubt this confrontation was all that one sided. There was something going on before the man got out of his car. I would like to know more about that. If someone just walks up to my car and tries to drag me out of it while punching I might have an adverse reaction. They are probably nuts.

August 7, 2009, 02:37 PM	#22
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 7,417	If you're attacked in a car like that, it is NOT A FAIR FIGHT. You can't fight back effectively. So the criminal attacker can do whatever he wants to do and gee, guess what, he's a criminal, God only knows how far he's going to take it. It is and should be 100% moral and legal to shoot under those circumstances. __________________ Jim March

August 7, 2009, 02:37 PM	#23
Kyo Senior Member Join Date: April 14, 2009 Posts: 897	I will agree that we don't know enough. If the shooter was getting punched well then so be it the guy defended himself. If not, then he's going to jail

August 7, 2009, 02:50 PM	#25
B. Lahey Senior Member Join Date: March 17, 2008 Location: Indiana Posts: 2,857	I just read a bunch of articles and can't find anything remotely resembling the OPs version of events. Trollthread. Last edited by B. Lahey; August 7, 2009 at 03:58 PM.