The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 7, 2010, 08:35 PM   #26
sundog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 1999
Location: Green Country, OK
Posts: 730
He who is armed has the same obligation to defend himself and his family than he who is not armed. The presence of the means to do so makes it easier. With that comes the responsibility to not abuse it.

When you willing give up the obligation to do so, all rights are lost.
__________________
safety first
sundog is offline  
Old January 7, 2010, 09:07 PM   #27
Nydhog502
Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2010
Location: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 84
Wow. I really don't know how I feel about this. I mean, I agree he should have stayed inside and just not gotten involved but that would've left his neighbor out in harms way potentially. So I'll go from that... He goes out to help his neighbor. When he sees trouble, according to accounts from him, pulled his gun and warned them to leave. That's the first part I don't know how to feel about. I think he should have warned them before announcing he had his weapon. To a drunk, no less. They may have seen that as a "challenge" in some way. Next part is the fact that when tackled, he shot the man. That isn't the part that bugs me. The part that does bug me is the second shot to his back. If he shot him in the chest, odd's are the reason the dude "fell onto him" is he was royally messed up and he could have rolled the guy off. There wasn't really a need for a spinal shot that I can see. Hell, he'd have been better off pistol-whipping the guy. That just makes me question his motives at that point. I understand defending ones family because I am the same way. If someone breaks in my home, I will undoubtedly shoot to kill. However on my front lawn I'm going to do my best to make them leave without firing a shot. But he and his wife in this case put themselves into this EXTREMELY dangerous situation. But as I said before, they'd have thrown a neighbor under the bus. It's one big loop of "well if he had done this, then this" that all circles back. Honestly, the person I feel who is at fault for a good portion of it is the neighbor. I understand the speeding issue, but she would have been MUCH better off calling the police then shouting about it on LABOR DAY, a day ripe with drinking, at some potentially drunk drivers.
Nydhog502 is offline  
Old January 8, 2010, 08:40 AM   #28
Uncle Buck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2009
Location: West Central Missouri
Posts: 2,561
I wish more people would read about this case. So many threads are started by people who want to shoot someone. Yes, the Castle Doctrine is going to save a lot of people from going to jail for a longtime in situations like this, but it is not going to save them the expenses of having to hire an attorney and go to trial.

I am on the side that believes retreat to a safe place and wait for law enforcement (in cases like this). If it was inside the home, then I believe it would be a different story (and I am not going to retreat).

Just because you have the right and the ability (In this case to defend yourself) does not mean it is always the correct choice to make.
__________________
Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen.
Uncle Buck is offline  
Old January 8, 2010, 10:08 AM   #29
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,653
Quote:
Just because you have the right and the ability (In this case to defend yourself) does not mean it is always the correct choice to make.
Indeed. That the law might allow you to do a bad thing isn't a reason to do it.

In addition to the potential legal and financial burden involved in shooting someone, I will also note the frequency of moral and psychological burdens that can follow the event. The act under discussion is facing a a living, breathing person with parents, perhaps siblings spouse and children, and keeping him from continuing all the activities of life we hold dear.

That doesn't mean it is always wrong. I think it means a well sorted individual cannot do it casually.
zukiphile is offline  
Old January 11, 2010, 01:08 PM   #30
motofabio
Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 2009
Location: California - ugh! :(
Posts: 26
First off, I am in no way assuming or assigning blame. Obviously the outcome of this whole situation is awful for everyone. That said...

Should anyone have to stand down when confronted in front of your own home by thugs? Hell no! Could he have made better decisions and not escalated the situation? Likely. IMO if he wanted to truly defend himself and his wife, he could have done many other things other than go in the house, get armed and go back outside and wait in the driveway for two carloads of guys to return - with his wife! Also, speeding and doing a donut doesn't tell me "go get my gun". Something's missing or someone isn't telling the whole story.

I think the arrest was very much justified and the DA had a very difficult decision to make. He's lucky to have been found not guilty.
__________________
motofabio

Last edited by motofabio; January 11, 2010 at 02:29 PM.
motofabio is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07317 seconds with 7 queries