71-year-old man arrested for stopping assault on his friend

[shanek]

I know I must be the heir to the throne in the Kingdom of All Idiots for starting another gun thread, but this is just so ridiculous it bears, nay, demands, discussing.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-1202shoot,0,222260.story

A 71-year-old man was arrested for firing a gun at three men beating up his 63-year-old friend, striking one of the men in the arm, deputies said.

Melvin B. Spaulding held up his .22-caliber pistol and told the men to stop hitting and kicking his friend George Lowe. When they didn't listen, he fired the gun, Pinellas County Sheriff's spokesman Tim Goodman said.

James T. Moore, 20, was treated for the gunshot wound at Bayfront Medical Center and was arrested for an unrelated battery charge earlier the same night.

Spaulding, who had no criminal record in Florida, acknowledged firing the gun, according to sheriff's records. He was being held without bail in Pinellas County Jail.

The Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney's office would carfully investigate the case before deciding whether to file an attempted murder charge against Spaulding, prosecutor Bruce Bartlett said.

Okay, so you're a 71-year-old man, whose 63-year-old friend is getting the crap kicked out of him. Brandishing the gun and telling them to stop does nothing, so you shoot one of the assailants in the arm and the attack stops...and you get arrested and possibly charged with attempted murder!

So, what should you have done instead? Look at this quote from the same story:

"I'm sure he was concerned for his friend's safety...,'' Goodman said. "The use of a weapon to stop a confrontation is not the right way. He would have been better off calling 911.''

Sure, just call 911, and help will come...eventually. During which time your friend's injuries will grow worse and worse as the attack continues, with the very real possibility of internal bleeding and even death. Calling 911 may have only resulted in some guys being there to zip up the body bag.

I ask even the most vitrolic gun control advocate: Isn't this just the most ridiculous thing you've ever heard of? One old man successfully defends another with a gun. That's it, with a gun. So how on Earth would it be better for Lowe to be in the hospital with possibly much more serious wounds than his attacker had, or even be dead, than for the attacker to suffer a minor arm wound and the attack stop? Why should he be arrested? Why should there even be a possibility of him being charged with attempted murder?

[corplinx]

It was a .22, might have a hard time proving he intended murder with that peashooter.

[American]

Hey I wasn't assaulting him. He took the last Cocoa Puffs after I told him to save some for me and he purposely didn't.

Someone had to teach the man.

[Suddenly]

You may want to consider that the paper may not have all the facts, or that you are making some assumptions.

Deadly force is only justified in the case of a life threatening assault. The cops just want to look at it carefully I would guess to make sure 1) there is an assault (battery) and 2) It was even remotely life threatening. At this point, all there is is a story in a newspaper.

The old "I shot him because he was attacking me (or my friend) is often a dodge for a murder. Cops are rightly skeptical of these sorts of claims. The case I spent all day reading was one where the guy went to the cops, told them he shot someone "because he was attacked." Turned out the physical evidence didn't jive with the story, eventually he was convicted of 1st degree murder.

If cops believed at face value every "they were attacking me" story the streets would be full of very violent and armed people, or I should say even more violent armed people.

[Yahweh]

I really dont expect any charges to be brought upon the old guy... I couldnt imagine any lawyer convincing a jury that this 71-year-old is a dangerous psychopathic killing machine...

[JAR]

The leftists have taken over and the world's gone to hell. Due to the leftists, were gonna be forced to say goodbye to God, say goodbye to common sense, say goodbye to sanity, and say hello to the devil.

The Flat Earth News summed it up when it said, "IN USA today, as in Russia in '20s and NAZI Germany in '40s full scale campaign to create USA ALSO A BEAST NATION"

[fishbob]

"I'm sure he was concerned for his friend's safety...,'' Goodman said. "The use of a weapon to stop a confrontation is not the right way. He would have been better off calling 911.''
[Maxwell Smart] That's what they would like you to believe [/Agent 86]

That qualifies as one of the dumbest statements ever. About a year ago, we had a high ranking police official and his wife shot in their home. He died, she survived and called 911. It took about 45 minutes for the ambulance to show up, after getting lost several times. I know 911 response is better in the more civilized parts of the world, but how long does it take 3 muggers to permanently disable or kill a 63 year old man?

[JAR]

Originally posted by Suddenly
You may want to consider that the paper may not have all the facts, or that you are making some assumptions.

Deadly force is only justified in the case of a life threatening assault. The cops just want to look at it carefully I would guess to make sure 1) there is an assault (battery) and 2) It was even remotely life threatening. At this point, all there is is a story in a newspaper.

The old "I shot him because he was attacking me (or my friend) is often a dodge for a murder. Cops are rightly skeptical of these sorts of claims. The case I spent all day reading was one where the guy went to the cops, told them he shot someone "because he was attacked." Turned out the physical evidence didn't jive with the story, eventually he was convicted of 1st degree murder.

If cops believed at face value every "they were attacking me" story the streets would be full of very violent and armed people, or I should say even more violent armed people.
I think there was a witness in this incident.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Suddenly
You may want to consider that the paper may not have all the facts, or that you are making some assumptions.

Deadly force is only justified in the case of a life threatening assault. The cops just want to look at it carefully I would guess to make sure 1) there is an assault (battery) and 2) It was even remotely life threatening. At this point, all there is is a story in a newspaper.

The old "I shot him because he was attacking me (or my friend) is often a dodge for a murder. Cops are rightly skeptical of these sorts of claims. The case I spent all day reading was one where the guy went to the cops, told them he shot someone "because he was attacked." Turned out the physical evidence didn't jive with the story, eventually he was convicted of 1st degree murder.

If cops believed at face value every "they were attacking me" story the streets would be full of very violent and armed people, or I should say even more violent armed people.
Suddenly, aren't you that person who said he felt more comfortable around non-white people than he did around white people? Being a person with my experiences with non-white people, I utterly don't understand people who hold your view on non-white people, if I am correct in saying that you hold that view.

[JAR]

Originally posted by fishbob

[Maxwell Smart] That's what they would like you to believe [/Agent 86]

That qualifies as one of the dumbest statements ever. About a year ago, we had a high ranking police official and his wife shot in their home. He died, she survived and called 911. It took about 45 minutes for the ambulance to show up, after getting lost several times. I know 911 response is better in the more civilized parts of the world, but how long does it take 3 muggers to permanently disable or kill a 63 year old man?
As I've found, the extreme leftists don't want it to be legal for people to defend themselves. They go by the view that we should discourage violence by punishing people for defending themselves.

[CFLarsen]

shanek,

Well, if you want to label yourself... :)

What about firing a warning shot?

What does the law say?

[Zep]

Scenarios for your consideration:

1. What if the old guy had killed the attacker? It was deliberate, it was not to defend himself, it was with a deadly weapon...murder? manslaughter?

2. What if the old guy accidentally shot his friend in the melee? Or even killed his friend accidentally? Think of the ramifications, please...

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Zep
Scenarios for your consideration:

1. What if the old guy had killed the attacker? It was deliberate, it was not to defend himself, it was with a deadly weapon...murder? manslaughter?


I'll happily put my hand up to being a lefty. In this case, assuming that the facts are exactly as presented, the old guy did the right thing. If the attacker had been killed then it would just be too bad for the attacker.

I'm not against guns, as long as they are in the hands of people that we have excellent reason to believe will use them competently and responsibly. If someone is committing a crime of violence, and they do not stop when confronted with a gun, then they will not be missed.

Not by me, anyway.

In general, I find risking the injury or death of violent criminals acceptable if this is necessary to prevent even a mild risk of injury or death to their victims. But only if it is necessary.

It's also worth mentioning that it's a simple fact that the best form of crime prevention is a happy, secure upbringing. Shooting people is very rarely necessary if they have had decent opportunities and a decent environment. But when it gets to the stage of having to shoot someone, there's not a lot you can do to fix them short of time travel.


2. What if the old guy accidentally shot his friend in the melee? Or even killed his friend accidentally? Think of the ramifications, please...

That would be unfortunate. This goes back to what I said earlier about competence and responsibility. Guns are dangerous things. But if I were being beaten up by three physically superior assailants, and I had a friend nearby who was armed and competent, I would want them to intervene despite the marginal risk that I would somehow get accidentally shot.

If the friend was incompetent and/or irresponsible, and I thought that the likelihood of getting shot outweighed the risks of being beaten up by three people, I would have a different preference.

In that situation, I simply would not give much weight to the welfare of my attackers.

[Richard G]

I know I must be the heir to the throne in the Kingdom of All Idiots for starting another gun thread,

I have 6 other (recent) news stories just like it, and almost posted them, along with this one several days ago. Think I'll retire instead.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Suddenly
You may want to consider that the paper may not have all the facts, or that you are making some assumptions.

Deadly force is only justified in the case of a life threatening assault. The cops just want to look at it carefully I would guess to make sure 1) there is an assault (battery) and 2) It was even remotely life threatening. At this point, all there is is a story in a newspaper.

The old "I shot him because he was attacking me (or my friend) is often a dodge for a murder. Cops are rightly skeptical of these sorts of claims. The case I spent all day reading was one where the guy went to the cops, told them he shot someone "because he was attacked." Turned out the physical evidence didn't jive with the story, eventually he was convicted of 1st degree murder.

If cops believed at face value every "they were attacking me" story the streets would be full of very violent and armed people, or I should say even more violent armed people.

Isn't there a legal term....."disparity of force"..........that would apply here.

If you're a 6 foot,30 year old male and you're assaulted by another 6 foot, 30 year old male.......it's considered an equal match and you probably don't have a legal reason to claim you felt your life was in danger.

If your attacker was Mike Tyson, if you were outnumbered 3 to 1, or a small woman was attacked by a much larger man I think most states would allow you to argue there was a disparity of force and it was reasonable to fear that your life might be in danger......and you could legally use deadly force to defend yourself......

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Zep
Scenarios for your consideration:

1. What if the old guy had killed the attacker? It was deliberate, it was not to defend himself, it was with a deadly weapon...murder? manslaughter?

2. What if the old guy accidentally shot his friend in the melee? Or even killed his friend accidentally? Think of the ramifications, please...

I can think of one "ramification"........If he killed the attacker,
that person will be denied the opportunity to beat up any other 63 year olds since he is now deceased.

3 to 1 against an elderly man!!!!!! I can't shed any tears for scum like this...........

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by JAR

I think there was a witness in this incident.

I'm sure the cops will take the testimony into account. All they are doing is what many people on this board would have everyone do, that is look to evidence and not believe the first story you hear.

I also doubt that their investigation is solely towards "Attempted Murder." Media people on the whole are known for their clumsy reporting of legal matters. I've seen this thing roughly 1,000 times. Here's my recreation:

Reporter: Has the shooter been cleared of all charges?

Officer: Not yet, we have to collect and weigh all available evidence before we formally conclude that no charges will be filed.

Reporter: What charges, if any, will be filed.

Officer: It could range from no charges, perhaps a battery type charge, all the way up to, I guess, attempted murder. That is if it somehow turned out this guy had specific intent to kill. At this point in the investigation we can't rule anything out, as we have not yet begun an investigation.

Then, the headline for the story:

"Police Seek Attempted Murder Charge Against Old Man Defending Self From Scumbag Gang Members"

In my opinion, this thread is more about media distortion and jumping to conclusions than about guns.

(edited for grammar)

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by JAR

Suddenly, aren't you that person who said he felt more comfortable around non-white people than he did around white people? Being a person with my experiences with non-white people, I utterly don't understand people who hold your view on non-white people, if I am correct in saying that you hold that view.

Is this a question? I think there is one obvious answer you are overlooking. If you want to race-bait me I'd suggest at least starting another thread.

[roger]

As Suddenly points out, it isn't the job of the police to determine if someone is guilty or not; they make arrests when there is the _possibility_ of a crime, and courts determine guilt or innocence.

However.

I think Shane quoted the relevant quote from the article, which was the 2nd paragraph. I'll repeat it:The use of a weapon to stop a confrontation is not the right way. He would have been better off calling 911. This was said by the Pinellas County Sheriff's spokesman Tim Goodman.

Based on the limited facts available from a newspaper story, I have no heartache over the arrest. I agree, however, that I find that statement quote unsupportable - there is no way calling 911 would stop the assault.

I will also point out that I am not a fan of how use of lethal force is legislated in this country. If I am doing nothing wrong, I do not deserve to get hurt by the intentional action of others. Period. A simple scuffle which may do no more than, say, break a finger, could effectively end my music playing - a dire result in my opinion. I'm pretty much in favor of resounding and overwhelming use of force to stop an attack. Try to hit me - expect a 2x4 in the face. Try to hit me with a 2x4 - expect to die.

I am aware of the ramifications of having that as policy - it would make it easy to commit extreme violence and get away with it, so I am not advocating it as social and legal policy. But, in my heart, it's how I feel. I feel any physical violence is a grave violation of my rights, and punishable by extreme measures.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I really dont expect any charges to be brought upon the old guy... I couldnt imagine any lawyer convincing a jury that this 71-year-old is a dangerous psychopathic killing machine...

Unless of course the evidence as a whole reveals this is the case. I'm not saying it is, just that I'd rather the police than the media make that conclusion.

If it turns out that:

1) The gunshot wound is inconsistent with the shooter's story. This could be angle, or even presence of powder burn if shot is claimed to be point-blank or some such.

2) The wounds from the beating are consistent with being self inflicted.

3) The shooter had previously remarked that ke wished the shootee mortal harm. Maybe he was sleeping with his daughter.

4) The guy getting shot was generally hated in the community for whatever reason, and most witnesses admit they would like him gone.

5) The shooter just got out of the slammer for shooting a guy for sleeping with his other daughter.

Then it would get interesting. I'm not saying any of this is even remotely true, but if the police started making lazy assumptions based on newspaper accounts, murder would be a lot easier to get away with...

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by roger
As Suddenly points out, it isn't the job of the police to determine if someone is guilty or not; they make arrests when there is the _possibility_ of a crime, and courts determine guilt or innocence.

However.

I think Shane quoted the relevant quote from the article, which was the 2nd paragraph. I'll repeat it: This was said by the Pinellas County Sheriff's spokesman Tim Goodman.

Based on the limited facts available from a newspaper story, I have no heartache over the arrest. I agree, however, that I find that statement quote unsupportable - there is no way calling 911 would stop the assault.

I will also point out that I am not a fan of how use of lethal force is legislated in this country. If I am doing nothing wrong, I do not deserve to get hurt by the intentional action of others. Period. A simple scuffle which may do no more than, say, break a finger, could effectively end my music playing - a dire result in my opinion. I'm pretty much in favor of resounding and overwhelming use of force to stop an attack. Try to hit me - expect a 2x4 in the face. Try to hit me with a 2x4 - expect to die.

I am aware of the ramifications of having that as policy - it would make it easy to commit extreme violence and get away with it, so I am not advocating it as social and legal policy. But, in my heart, it's how I feel. I feel any physical violence is a grave violation of my rights, and punishable by extreme measures.

I think the officer spoke poorly. He's assuming a non-life or serious injury threatening situation, as much as many here are assuming that it was life or serious injury threatening. He's also simply parroting the company line. Armed vengance makes police work tricky.

Your last sentence is partially where problem may be in this case, the difference between defense and punishment. Maybe physical violence should be punished by extreme measures, but only by the state. I think there is a right to use force to defend one's self, but not to punish a wrong-doer.

Generally, the force used for self defense reflected in your 2x4 hypo would be pretty clearly proper, as long as it is a function of defense, that such action on your part was necessary to prevent some sort of contact or injury rather than being a function of revenge or punishment.

In some states there is a duty to escape, that is if your choices to avoid a violent contact were running away or violent force, and running away would clearly be effective, deadly force would not be justified. Also, how the conflict was started is a factor. If you try to hit me, I get a 2x4 and then you shoot me to protect yourself from the 2x4 then no dice on the self defense.

[Dancing David]

What does this have to do with gun control?
All I want is for the guns to be registered, if this old dude shot the guy with a registered firearm(and even if it wasn't), that is not a registration issue. registration does not mean the removal of firearms.

What does this have to do with leftists?
I am a leftist because I believe in social support for all memebers of society. What on earth does that have to do with a citizen;s right to act in self defense. Is the state's Attorney a leftist?

What does this have to do with gun control?
Police officers are empowered to make arrests based upon the best evidence available at the time. It could have been that this guy's friend is a big time pimp and that they were fighting over a bad deal. unlikely but possible.

return to the debate at hand , thank you.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Deadly force is only justified in the case of a life threatening assault.

Shooting someone in the arm with a .22 is deadly force?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What about firing a warning shot?

That might have been a wise idea before actually shooting the man's arm, but there are issues. The bullet has to go somewhere. There needs to be a safe place to shoot without ricochet. And, of course, if that's the only bullet he had it would have done no good if they had kept going anyway. Besides, we don't know how bad the assault was or how much it had progressed. He may have felt like he was running out of time.

But in any event, why should he have to face the possibility of these charges? He stepped in and saved another man from getting assaulted, while causing no major damage to those who did that assault. We need more like him around. We certainly don't need to be punishing or discouraging them.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Zep
Scenarios for your consideration:

1. What if the old guy had killed the attacker? It was deliberate, it was not to defend himself,

It was defense of others. Most jurisdictions as I understand it consider that to be the same as self-defense.

2. What if the old guy accidentally shot his friend in the melee? Or even killed his friend accidentally? Think of the ramifications, please...

What if the old guy had listened to people like you, been frightened into doing nothing but calling 911, and the muggers killed both his friend and himself before the authorities could get there? Think of the ramifications, please...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I'm sure the cops will take the testimony into account. All they are doing is what many people on this board would have everyone do, that is look to evidence and not believe the first story you hear.

Well, they apparently feel they have enough to conclude that the old man shouldn't have used a gun and called 911 instead. Do you agree with that?

[Richard G]

registration does not mean the removal of firearms.

History proves you wrong. Every country, or state that has enacted registration, eventualy banned firearms. Its because those enacting registration believe (wrongly) that it will reduce crime. When it doesn't (duh), they go a step further, and ban them.

[roger]

Originally posted by Suddenly
If you try to hit me, I get a 2x4 and then you shoot me to protect yourself from the 2x4 then no dice on the self defense. Oh man, that is totally a rip off! :D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
That might have been a wise idea before actually shooting the man's arm, but there are issues. The bullet has to go somewhere. There needs to be a safe place to shoot without ricochet.

How about straight up?? Afraid of hitting Air Force One??

Originally posted by shanek
And, of course, if that's the only bullet he had it would have done no good if they had kept going anyway.

People don't stop after they see him wielding a gun? Or after a warning shot has been fired? Does that mean that guns are not a deterrent, unless they are fired on a person?

Originally posted by shanek
Besides, we don't know how bad the assault was or how much it had progressed. He may have felt like he was running out of time.

True. In fact, we don't know all that much, do we? And yet, here you are, opening a new thread, complaining about the same issue, over and over again...

Originally posted by shanek
But in any event, why should he have to face the possibility of these charges? He stepped in and saved another man from getting assaulted, while causing no major damage to those who did that assault. We need more like him around. We certainly don't need to be punishing or discouraging them.

I would like to know if you think guns are not a deterrent, unless they are fired.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


Well, they apparently feel they have enough to conclude that the old man shouldn't have used a gun and called 911 instead. Do you agree with that?

His comments about 911 were not part of a formal finding in this case. Who knows what else he said to the reporter that wasn't in the piece.

[Jude]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What about firing a warning shot?

Originally posted by CFLarsen

How about straight up?? Afraid of hitting Air Force One??

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/11/24/klan.initiation.ap/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3426321,00.html

I just needed a new reason to post this zany story.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
How about straight up?? Afraid of hitting Air Force One??

Ask that KKK guy why that's a bad idea.

People don't stop after they see him wielding a gun?

Most of them do. Some of them don't.

Or after a warning shot has been fired?

Again, most do, some don't.

Does that mean that guns are not a deterrent, unless they are fired on a person?

Your complete lack of logic is simply overwhelming...

I would like to know if you think guns are not a deterrent, unless they are fired.

For the most part, guns do not have to be fired to be a deterrent. But sometimes they do. Why your feeble mind completely fails to grasp that is beyond me...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
His comments about 911 were not part of a formal finding in this case.

What difference does that make? He made the claim; do you agree with him or not?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Richard G


History proves you wrong. Every country, or state that has enacted registration, eventualy banned firearms. Its because those enacting registration believe (wrongly) that it will reduce crime. When it doesn't (duh), they go a step further, and ban them.
yep thats correct, every one of them did...except for the ones that didn't. Australia has had firearms registration requirements for as long as I can remember, firearms are not banned. Wait, I get it.....we will eventually eh?????

[The Fool]

Originally posted by shanek


Why your feeble mind completely fails to grasp that is beyond me...
ooooooh shane...I thought you said people who used ad-hom were naughty!!!!

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Fool

yep thats correct, every one of them did...except for the ones that didn't. Australia has had firearms registration requirements for as long as I can remember, firearms are not banned. Wait, I get it.....we will eventually eh?????

Richard-G-alike: History proves you wrong. Every person that has taken up smoking, eventualy had smoking-related health problems.

The-Fool-alike: yep thats correct, every one of them did...except for the ones that didn't. My friend Dave has smoked for as long as I can remember, he has no smoking-related health problems. Wait, I get it.....he will eventually eh?????

[plindboe]

I don't see the problem with this case at all, since he haven't been charged. When people are shot with a gun, the police rightfully arrests the shooter, and then investigates the case to figure out exactly what has happened, so they can decide if the man should be charged or not. It would be stupid to believe every story, and setting the shooters free, without investigating the story further. If the events happened as told, I don't think he will be charged with anything and will be free to go within days. People should realize that the procedures have arisen through alot of experience in how to deal with such cases, and there's really no reason to freak out every time this happens.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by The Fool

yep thats correct, every one of them did...except for the ones that didn't. Australia has had firearms registration requirements for as long as I can remember, firearms are not banned. Wait, I get it.....we will eventually eh?????

I think so. One of the oldest semi-autoatic handgun designs still used at large is p-35 a.k.a. Browning Hi-Power. Because of new handgun regulations in Australia, people are having to ditch their 40 caliber Hi-Powers for weaker 9mm versions and get longer barrels to comply with government regulations to keep those guns.

Judging by past history, I don't think its outlandish to think more regulations will be passed requiring people who _legally_ own guns to own weaker and less practical firearms.

One day you will join Canada in only allowing 22 caliber target pistols and some guy will still be in denial about where .au is headed.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


What difference does that make? He made the claim; do you agree with him or not?

It makes a huge difference because he very well may have been simply spouting cliche's rather than remarking on the case. I'm sure that baseball players "just want to help the ballclub." Actually, I don't care. I can tell the difference between cliche' and a formal finding of fact from an officer of the law. Cops tend to dislike armed vengance, so I can see why they say such things.

I don't have the information to answer. Being the investigating officer he may (gasp) have more information than you that leads him to a different impression. Or he could have been talking through his hat. I don't know. How could I? I will say I have more confidence in a police officer to make that judgment call than a reporter or someone who read a article over the internet.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by JAR
The leftists have taken over and the world's gone to hell. Due to the leftists, were gonna be forced to say goodbye to God, say goodbye to common sense, say goodbye to sanity, and say hello to the devil.

The Flat Earth News summed it up when it said, "IN USA today, as in Russia in '20s and NAZI Germany in '40s full scale campaign to create USA ALSO A BEAST NATION"

You didn't read what Suddenly said at all, did you? It's a pity, because one reason why it's a bad idea to use newspaper articles to support your argument is that the media, being an entity that above all likes to make money, will frequently not let the mundane truth get in the way of a story.

Just like you won't let facts get in the way of a chance to yap about your favorite leftist conspiracy theory of the week.

PS- the weapons of mass destruction are one step closer to being found.

[plindboe]

He has already been released as I thought would happen.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=5918

Melvin Spaulding walked out of the Pinellas County Jail around 10:15 p.m. Tuesday night, after a judge released him on his own recognizance.

Though the headline of the page "Man charged with shooting friend's attacker freed" is in error, since there have been no charges so far.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Deadly force is only justified in the case of a life threatening assault.

It depends on the state. In Florida, it's legal to use deadly force against someone in the process of any violent felony.

In any event, I would have expected him to get arrested. Whether he gets arraigned or not is another story.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by epepke


It depends on the state. In Florida, it's legal to use deadly force against someone in the process of any violent felony.

In any event, I would have expected him to get arrested. Whether he gets arraigned or not is another story.

I meant as opposed to a non-life threatening assault. True, there are several other circumstances where it is legal depending on the state.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Suddenly


I meant as opposed to a non-life threatening assault. True, there are several other circumstances where it is legal depending on the state.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. A non-life-threatening assault is a violent felony, therefore, lethal force is justified, at least in Florida.

I researched the law pretty well, as I was trying to figure out whether or not I could legally kill the abuser of a friend of mine if he violated his restraining order by coming within 500 feet. Turns out I can. I'd probably get arrested, but not arraigned.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by epepke


I'm not sure what you are saying here. A non-life-threatening assault is a violent felony, therefore, lethal force is justified, at least in Florida.

I researched the law pretty well, as I was trying to figure out whether or not I could legally kill the abuser of a friend of mine if he violated his restraining order by coming within 500 feet. Turns out I can. I'd probably get arrested, but not arraigned.

An assault (or even battery) here is a misdemeanor, unless there is intent to kill, disfigure, or maim. General rule is that some weapon is necessary.

Better make sure that other crime isn't a misdemeanor. Also, you may want to examine whether or not the defense is statutory, as if you commit a planned killing these court-made common-law defenses can develop exceptions in a hurry.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by epepke


I'm not sure what you are saying here. A non-life-threatening assault is a violent felony, therefore, lethal force is justified, at least in Florida.

I researched the law pretty well, as I was trying to figure out whether or not I could legally kill the abuser of a friend of mine if he violated his restraining order by coming within 500 feet. Turns out I can. I'd probably get arrested, but not arraigned.

How is breaching a restraining order a violent felony?

If you believe you are entitled to execute someone for being within a certain distance of somebody else in violation of a restraining order....and you carry a gun, then I am seriously concerned.

I have had discussions with other posters on this forum who believed they were entiltled to shoot to kill if someone verbally threatened them.... These sort of beliefs are a problem.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Ask that KKK guy why that's a bad idea.

So, a warning shot is simply out?

Originally posted by shanek
Most of them do. Some of them don't.

How many? Please show the data.

Originally posted by shanek
Again, most do, some don't.

How many? Please show the data.

Originally posted by shanek
Your complete lack of logic is simply overwhelming...

Please answer the question: Are guns only a deterrent, when fired on a person?

Originally posted by shanek
For the most part, guns do not have to be fired to be a deterrent. But sometimes they do. Why your feeble mind completely fails to grasp that is beyond me...

How many? Please show the data.

And if we could dispense with the childish attacks, I am sure we would all be much happier.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


So, a warning shot is simply out?


Shanek is referring to an article discussed in this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31204) thread. He neglected to mention that the person accidentally shot by a warning shot happened to be trussed up with a pillow case on his head.

Of course, those good, law-abiding KKK citizens insist that the wounding occurred as a result of a shot being fired straight up in the air. It wasn't the result of someone holding a loaded gun to the initiate's head to scare him- no sir, that'd be stupid. Because there's no witness to testify to the contrary, we have to assume that the warning shot really did go straight up in the air and, in an act of ultimate karma, hit the initiate, going through his skull, on the way down.

Oh- and this conclusively proves that warning shots are a bad idea. In fact, on the evidence surveryed in this thread, 100% of all warning shot incidences examined lead in the critical wounding of someone. This means that if you fire a warning shot, you will probably critically wound someone. You may as well go the whole hog and deliberately wound someone.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by The Fool


How is breaching a restraining order a violent felony?

If you believe you are entitled to execute someone for being within a certain distance of somebody else in violation of a restraining order....and you carry a gun, then I am seriously concerned.

I have had discussions with other posters on this forum who believed they were entiltled to shoot to kill if someone verbally threatened them.... These sort of beliefs are a problem.

There could be times when this is completely justifiable. If say the person doing verbal abusing has been extremely violent in the past, or if you are in a condition in which a fight could kill you. To say that no verbal threat is ever enough to defend yourself with a gun is equally absurd as saying any verbal threat is enough to kill somebody.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Grammatron


There could be times when this is completely justifiable. If say the person doing verbal abusing has been extremely violent in the past, or if you are in a condition in which a fight could kill you. To say that no verbal threat is ever enough to defend yourself with a gun is equally absurd as saying any verbal threat is enough to kill somebody.

Generally the verbal threat needs to be accompanied by the apparent means to immediately carry out that threat for it to rise to that level. The problem area legally is where the the threat is something like "I'm going to go buy a gun and shoot you in the back the next chance I get" from someone who you judge capable of carrying it out. You really can't just shoot them then as there is no immediate threat. The most you could do is report a violation of a "terroristic threat" law to the police. However, if your jurisdiction has no such law, then good luck and watch your back.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Richard G


History proves you wrong. Every country, or state that has enacted registration, eventualy banned firearms. Its because those enacting registration believe (wrongly) that it will reduce crime. When it doesn't (duh), they go a step further, and ban them.

I take it you are responding to me, I am not sure, I register my car and they haven't taken it yet.

And the constitution states very clearly that no government shall make a law restricting the rights of people to acsess the highways, so no driver's liceense either.

I am just for the registration of fire arms, I don't believe it will deter crime. I also have recently suggested that i would allow ownership of any weapon short of a nuclear weapon.

Peace

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by epepke


I'm not sure what you are saying here. A non-life-threatening assault is a violent felony, therefore, lethal force is justified, at least in Florida.

I researched the law pretty well, as I was trying to figure out whether or not I could legally kill the abuser of a friend of mine if he violated his restraining order by coming within 500 feet. Turns out I can. I'd probably get arrested, but not arraigned.

I would be real careful about that! Judges and the states attorney probably have a lot of discretion in decideing what constitute a 'violent' commision of a felony.

I am sorry for your friend, this is the kind of crap that I see at work everyday.

was it a restraining order or an order of protection, Illinois probably is very different.

The other issue is if the perpetrator is making a credible threat to your friend then it can be self defense, as long as the states attorney feels it was a justifiable use of force.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by The Fool


How is breaching a restraining order a violent felony?
-snip-
These sort of beliefs are a problem.

gee Fool, this is the first time i have disagreed with you!

I would wonder if this isn't a case invoving doestic violence, but then I deal with it everyday.

Say that you have someone who has repeatedly beat the crap put of someone, chocked them , deprived them of thier liberty, killed thier pets , threatend thier family, molested thier children, financialy exploited them, etc, etc ,etc.

And then when the victim moves away and gets safe, well then the perp just calls thier family on a regular basis, sends them death threats, kills thier other pets, threatens the children, calls the police with false charges and generaly makes a nuisance of themselves.

So the victim then goes and gets an Order of Protection (in Illinois you can do that, it may be a restraining order in FL), which states that the perpetrator is to cease and desist, not have any contact, not have third party contact.

But see in the USA the cops often chose not to enforce the law, they say things like; 'well they have the right to walk down the street', while they are stalking the victim; 'well they have the right to see thier kids', even when it is expressly forbidden in the order;'they have the right to eat in a restraunt', even when it expressly states that they to never be within onehundred and fifty feet of the victim.

Then there is the whole issue of what constitutes third party contact, much less what happens when there is child visitation allowed('reasonable phone calls to children' does not involve calling twenty times at 2:00 am), and so on.

So without knowing more about why the friend feels there is a threat and why the restraining order is in place, I would worry much more about a victim being killed while there is a restraining order, nocontact order or order of protection, than I would about the false execution of a perpetrator. Over two thousand victims of domestic violence were killed by thier partners in the US every year. Kind of makes me all warm and fuzzy on the inside.

Peace

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, a warning shot is simply out?

You aren't even reading are you?

No, a warning shot is not out, as long as it can be made in a safe direction. I know 12-year-olds who understand this.

Please answer the question: Are guns only a deterrent, when fired on a person?

I have answered. You're just trying to be a pest, as usual, and derail any intelligent conversation.

And if we could dispense with the childish attacks, I am sure we would all be much happier.

I'd be much happier if you'd debate honestly for once.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Dancing David
And the constitution states very clearly that no government shall make a law restricting the rights of people to acsess the highways, so no driver's liceense either.

Where?

I am just for the registration of fire arms, I don't believe it will deter crime.

Then what's the point of registration?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Dancing David


I take it you are responding to me, I am not sure, I register my car and they haven't taken it yet.

Somewhat different. Aside from some loons in Calif. there is no organized movement to make driving illeagal. So that is sort of a strawman

And the constitution states very clearly that no government shall make a law restricting the rights of people to acsess the highways, so no driver's liceense either.

Beg pardon? Perhaps I am just fuzzy but where is that?

I am just for the registration of fire arms, I don't believe it will deter crime. I also have recently suggested that i would allow ownership of any weapon short of a nuclear weapon.

Why would you want registration if it has no effect on crime?

Incidentially, for all intents and purposes, all firearms are registered. Did you know that? So if pure registration is what you want you pretty much got it
Peace [/B]

[Ed]

Damn Shanek, beat me to it:D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
No, a warning shot is not out, as long as it can be made in a safe direction. I know 12-year-olds who understand this.

Good! Then what is a "safe direction", if not straight up?

Originally posted by shanek
I have answered. You're just trying to be a pest, as usual, and derail any intelligent conversation.

No, I am trying to get you to answer. E.g., you didn't answer these:


In how many cases do people stop after seeing a gun being wielded?
In how many cases do people stop after a warning shot has been fired?
In how many cases do guns need to be fired to be a deterrent?

....you do have data to back up your claims, don't you?

Originally posted by shanek
I'd be much happier if you'd debate honestly for once.

..sayeth he who fibbed twice with his graphs....

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Good! Then what is a "safe direction", if not straight up?

Rule # 7 or so when you are hunting is that if you want to fire a shot to call attention to yourself, you fire it into a tree, never up. If you are warning someone who is armed, the general concensus is to fire it into him

No, I am trying to get you to answer. E.g., you didn't answer these:


In how many cases do people stop after seeing a gun being wielded?
In how many cases do people stop after a warning shot has been fired?
In how many cases do guns need to be fired to be a deterrent?

....you do have data to back up your claims, don't you?

Actually there are answers to these, most of which you probably won't like.

----Fellow firearms people, please help me out with references, etc.---

There was a study done a few years ago by a couple of really whiney academics that set out to show the EVIL OF GUNS(tm). What they found shocked hell out of them because it addressed the points you made (and others). They found that gunds are used a lot more than is reported for self defence because the people who use them do not want to get tied up in our silly criminal justice system. Most often showing it deters the crime, it is only in the rare case when they have to let one go into a bad guy that it becomes a statistic. Showing it, as I recall, was enough to deter in the vast majority of the cases.

They also interviewed prisinors and found that they are scared to death of civilians with firearms.

Needless to say, this was largely spiked by the media.

I will try to find the reference this weekend. Florada comes to mind ... U of F? Not sure but someone else will probablty know



..sayeth he who fibbed twice with his graphs....

I only fib with graphs when noone will notice

[WildCat]

Originally posted by fishbob
I know 911 response is better in the more civilized parts of the world, but how long does it take 3 muggers to permanently disable or kill a 63 year old man?
Calling 911 even here in the "civilized" big city doesn't guarantee you timely police response. There was a case here about a year ago, a woman called 911 several times because her ex (whom she had a restraining order against) was breaking down her door. The nearest police car was only a few blocks away, yet it took the 30 minutes to get to the scene. You see, the officers had just come on duty, and had to do a required "safety check" on their vehicle before responding. The woman was dead and the perp long gone by the time police finally arrived. Sorry, not allowed to have a handgun in Chicago to defend yourself, must rely on the good graces of the police.

A side note to this story is that police chief Hilliard fired the cops involved (the ones who did the "safety check" before responding). A few weeks ago the police union managed to get them reinstated, since the checks were mandatory.

This is why you simply cannot rely on the police to save you in your time of dire need, and by trusting your life solely to the whims of the police can get you killed. A rule put in place by bureaucrats might saust you your life.

And in many neighborhoods police often take many minutes to respond to 911 calls, the situation above was hardly unique. I was witness to a house being burglarized about a year ago and called 911. The police didn't show up for nearly an hour, they arrived a few minutes after the burglars left. Luckily, there was no one home at the time, but for all I knew (while waiting for the police to arrive) they killed the occupant.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Richard G


History proves you wrong. Every country, or state that has enacted registration, eventualy banned firearms.

That's simply not the case - I'll just hold up Norway as a counter example of a state that has firearm registration (as well as firearm regulation and licencing to own, and have had so for a long time) but that has not banned firearms, nor have a political lobby that tries to ban them.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by shanek


No, a warning shot is not out, as long as it can be made in a safe direction. I know 12-year-olds who understand this.



I will disagree. It is illegal to fire a warning shot. You never know where a bullet will wind up if you shoot it into the air. If you are in a tense situation where you have had to draw a firearm you are probably not in the best state to judge that.

Using a firearm for self-defense is really simple.

If you feel your life or someone else's in in immediate peril:
you draw your firearm and fire until the problem is solved
if a person flees, you are not allowed to shoot (any further)
you do not "leg" someone
you do not fire warning shots
you do not brandish the firearm as a scare tactic

This man drew and fired at assailants because he felt his friend's life was in peril. He will probably not even have to step foot in a court.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by plindboe
He has already been released as I thought would happen.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=5918

Though the headline of the page "Man charged with shooting friend's attacker freed" is in error, since there have been no charges so far.

Not surprising.

Whenever there is a mass confrontation like this it is very typical for all parties to be arrested and the details sorted out later. I don't understand why everyone gets so up in arms about it.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by shanek


Where?


I 'll get back to you on that, it is somewhere, of course I have been thinking for many days straight, so perhaps my judgement is skewed. Could be an implanted memory.



Then what's the point of registration?

I am a control freak and a neat freak and I want those guns cleaned on a regular basis!

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Ed


Ed, no real good reason for registration that i could prove, I feel it will deter the illegal transfer of hand guns, call em dreamer.

I would do it just to give the Mafia something else to ignore.

So all weapons are registered cool, I might be unpopular for this but maybe crimes commited with stolen handguns could be charegd against the original owner, unless they report it stolen.

Of course you needent worry, it aint going to happen until the Buck Rogers Zappar is released and fire arms become like a pointed stick.

It's just a personal opinion, I am not out to lobby congress or anything.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Ralph


I can think of one "ramification"........If he killed the attacker,
that person will be denied the opportunity to beat up any other 63 year olds since he is now deceased.

3 to 1 against an elderly man!!!!!! I can't shed any tears for scum like this........... So what you are saying is that I can find my three worst enemies alone in an alley, shoot them all in cold blood, rock up to a police station, say that I was attacked by three guys in an alley and that I defended myself with my legally held gun, point out their dead bodies, and I'm home free?

Cool! Who needs laws in a place like that!

[Dancing David]

I searched the constitution adn i was wrong, I don't think it was in an amendment, darn middle age, not only do I forget things, but I remeber things that never happened.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Good! Then what is a "safe direction", if not straight up?

Usually, towards a very thick but not too hard surface. The ground works very well if you're outside. The relevant question is, where would the bullet go?


In how many cases do people stop after seeing a gun being wielded?

As I made no claim that requires this statistic to support, this question is irrelevant.

In how many cases do people stop after a warning shot has been fired?

As I made no claim that requires this statistic to support, this question is irrelevant.


In how many cases do guns need to be fired to be a deterrent?


As I made no claim that requires this statistic to support, this question is irrelevant.

....you do have data to back up your claims, don't you?

I have made no claims that require the data requested.

[shanek]

Originally posted by corplinx
I will disagree. It is illegal to fire a warning shot. You never know where a bullet will wind up if you shoot it into the air.

Hel-lo? Didn't I just get through saying that it was a bad idea to do that? You shoot into the ground or somewhere where the bullet will penetrate but not come out.

If you are in a tense situation where you have had to draw a firearm you are probably not in the best state to judge that.

Probably, which is why I don't have a problem with people who skip the warning shot.

This man drew and fired at assailants because he felt his friend's life was in peril. He will probably not even have to step foot in a court.

Even if he doesn't, he still has to put up with being arrested, released on bond, etc. That's gotta be a lot of stress in your life piled on top of having to save your friend from getting beaten.

And let's say he wasn't a 71-year-old man, but a 20-year-old. It is an arrest, which he will have to mention on every job application and anywhere else it is relevant. He will have to spend the rest of his life explaining and defending an act which should need no explanation or defense.

(Oh, and he did brandish the weapon first. It deterred them not.)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I searched the constitution adn i was wrong, I don't think it was in an amendment, darn middle age, not only do I forget things, but I remeber things that never happened.

No problem.

[fishbob]

In how many cases do people stop after seeing a gun being wielded?

In how many cases do people stop after a warning shot has been fired?

In how many cases do guns need to be fired to be a deterrent?

How high is the sky? How far is up? Where would you expect to find this information?

-----------------------------------------------

On another note, and I apoligize if this has been mentioned. The police often catch criminals, but only after a crime is commited, particularly in assault and robbery cases. The police seldom protect us from those crimes. How could they?

Citizens of the world, defense of your life and property is mostly up to you. I am not saying that everybody should be armed, but everybody should have a realistic understanding about how things work. I do not own a hand gun, I don't think I need one. My main defense is to stay out of potentially dangerous situations. Some people do not have this option.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by shanek

Even if he doesn't, he still has to put up with being arrested, released on bond, etc. That's gotta be a lot of stress in your life piled on top of having to save your friend from getting beaten.


If you draw and fire a weapon in public, you will be taking a ride downtown no matter what. I have just come to grips with that as someone who carries often.

If you legitimately fire in self-defense you will not be indicted.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Dancing David


gee Fool, this is the first time i have disagreed with you!

I would wonder if this isn't a case invoving doestic violence, but then I deal with it everyday.

Say that you have someone who has repeatedly beat the crap put of someone, chocked them , deprived them of thier liberty, killed thier pets , threatend thier family, molested thier children, financialy exploited them, etc, etc ,etc.

And then when the victim moves away and gets safe, well then the perp just calls thier family on a regular basis, sends them death threats, kills thier other pets, threatens the children, calls the police with false charges and generaly makes a nuisance of themselves.

So the victim then goes and gets an Order of Protection (in Illinois you can do that, it may be a restraining order in FL), which states that the perpetrator is to cease and desist, not have any contact, not have third party contact.

But see in the USA the cops often chose not to enforce the law, they say things like; 'well they have the right to walk down the street', while they are stalking the victim; 'well they have the right to see thier kids', even when it is expressly forbidden in the order;'they have the right to eat in a restraunt', even when it expressly states that they to never be within onehundred and fifty feet of the victim.

Then there is the whole issue of what constitutes third party contact, much less what happens when there is child visitation allowed('reasonable phone calls to children' does not involve calling twenty times at 2:00 am), and so on.

So without knowing more about why the friend feels there is a threat and why the restraining order is in place, I would worry much more about a victim being killed while there is a restraining order, nocontact order or order of protection, than I would about the false execution of a perpetrator. Over two thousand victims of domestic violence were killed by thier partners in the US every year. Kind of makes me all warm and fuzzy on the inside.

Peace
I accept all your points, every one. What concerned me was the statement that he felt he was justifiable in shooting someone for breaching a "keep a certain distance from" clause in a restraining order. This concerns me, because it is not true. The thought that you can use a measuring tape and a handgun to cap someone as soon as separation distance does not exceed 150 feet is just plain silly. Breaking such a distance restriction is not a violent felony, nowhere near it.

It is just another example of the wide range of erroneous beliefs of gun owners. They seem to have a very loose understanding of who they are, and who they are not allowed to kill. This is a worry.

You make a very valid point about the number of domestic violence killings. Having handguns lying around means more dead women in domestic violence situations. Pointing this out to Shanek is likely to mean you will be accused of being motivated by desires to use a gun on your own family!!!!. This is the sort of head in the sand, sweep it under the carpet attitude you get in the face of the ongoing american gun tragedy.

[Jude]

It is just another example of the wide range of erroneous beliefs of gun owners.
That's right, Fool, all gun owners are just dumb. It's comforting to know that there are still people like you around to make sweeping generalizations about roughly 30 million gun owning Americans.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by The Fool

I accept all your points, every one. What concerned me was the statement that he felt he was justifiable in shooting someone for breaching a "keep a certain distance from" clause in a restraining order. This concerns me, because it is not true. The thought that you can use a measuring tape and a handgun to cap someone as soon as separation distance does not exceed 150 feet is just plain silly. Breaking such a distance restriction is not a violent felony, nowhere near it.

It is just another example of the wide range of erroneous beliefs of gun owners. They seem to have a very loose understanding of who they are, and who they are not allowed to kill. This is a worry.

You make a very valid point about the number of domestic violence killings. Having handguns lying around means more dead women in domestic violence situations. Pointing this out to Shanek is likely to mean you will be accused of being motivated by desires to use a gun on your own family!!!!. This is the sort of head in the sand, sweep it under the carpet attitude you get in the face of the ongoing american gun tragedy.

Bravo, I say bravo, bravo.

Would you like to borrow my flak jacket I think the air is about to becomelead saturated due your violation of people 'comfort zone'. Thank You, you gave me a great platform and a wonderful response!

Duck and Cover!

[jj]

Originally posted by JAR
The leftists have taken over and the world's gone to hell. Due to the leftists, were gonna be forced to say goodbye to God, say goodbye to common sense, say goodbye to sanity, and say hello to the devil.

The Flat Earth News summed it up when it said, "IN USA today, as in Russia in '20s and NAZI Germany in '40s full scale campaign to create USA ALSO A BEAST NATION"

JAR, container, bowl
Holding something inside, yes?
But what does it hold?

Psychosis treated
J A R returns to us.
Wisdom, truth, healing!

[jj]

Originally posted by Suddenly
In my opinion, this thread is more about media distortion and jumping to conclusions than about guns.

(edited for grammar)

Except for one thing, were they correct that the fellow was being held without bail?

How can they do that unless they intend to file felony murder charges or show he's a flight risk? Are people who commit involuntary homicide held without bail? What about manslaughter? He was in a fight that it appears he didn't start, so how can we be talking about anything more than manslaughter?

Why "no bail"?

That, by itself, seems to suggest that either there is something here that realy doesn't meet the eye, or that somebody is taking an unrealistic hard line.

Your description of what the police said simply doesn't explain, at all, why the fellow is held without bail.

Something might explain that, but we haven't seen it yet.

[jj]

Originally posted by plindboe
I don't see the problem with this case at all, since he haven't been charged.

Held without bail?

That's ok?

[jj]

Originally posted by plindboe
He has already been released as I thought would happen.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=5918



Though the headline of the page "Man charged with shooting friend's attacker freed" is in error, since there have been no charges so far.

Ok, so a judge saw it differently. Where did the original 'without bail' come from, or was the news report failing to note that there had been no bail hearing yet?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by corplinx

If you draw and fire a weapon in public, you will be taking a ride downtown no matter what. I have just come to grips with that as someone who carries often.


No need to play the victim, in ANY altercation all the parties involved are looking at being arrested until the cops can sort out what happened. This is regardless of whether you've defended yourself with a firearm or your bare fists.

How are the cops supposed to figure out who started the fight until they at least get to interview both parties and all the witnesses? Should they just take the guy with the gun's word for it?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by jj


Ok, so a judge saw it differently. Where did the original 'without bail' come from, or was the news report failing to note that there had been no bail hearing yet?

Read the story linked to in the first post, they say his is being held "without bail".

The most likely reason was, as you said, there wasn't a bail hearing yet. You might as well say that folks detained overnight in the drunk tank are being held "without bail". As he's since been released I think its obvious they were just holding onto him until they could figure out what happened.

Just another example of conservative bias in the media.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Jude

That's right, Fool, all gun owners are just dumb. It's comforting to know that there are still people like you around to make sweeping generalizations about roughly 30 million gun owning Americans.

Considering that accidental homicides currently outnumber justifiable ones, I think its a safe bet that the majority of US gun owners are incompetent regarding firearms usuage (or possibly just in general).

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
Except for one thing, were they correct that the fellow was being held without bail?

According to the follow-up story, he was apparently accorded bail.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by jj


Except for one thing, were they correct that the fellow was being held without bail?

How can they do that unless they intend to file felony murder charges or show he's a flight risk? Are people who commit involuntary homicide held without bail? What about manslaughter? He was in a fight that it appears he didn't start, so how can we be talking about anything more than manslaughter?

Why "no bail"?

That, by itself, seems to suggest that either there is something here that realy doesn't meet the eye, or that somebody is taking an unrealistic hard line.

Your description of what the police said simply doesn't explain, at all, why the fellow is held without bail.

Something might explain that, but we haven't seen it yet.

It was likely just another example of the media not knowing what it is talking about w/r/t legal matters. Very likely he had not had bail set yet for whatever reason. States differ as to how initial bail is set, so I really can't say what kinds of delays would be usual there.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by jj
Held without bail?

That's ok?

That's how it goes. The police holds the shooter to make sure the person won't interfere with the clue gathering part of the investigation. He was only held for two days. People who freaked out over this incident, are simply ignorant of the reasons why the procedures are as they are.

[fishbob]

Considering that accidental homicides currently outnumber justifiable ones, I think its a safe bet that the majority of US gun owners are incompetent regarding firearms usuage (or possibly just in general). I will take you up on that bet.

If you think about it a little more you will see that this is a most UNsafe bet - the majority of gun owners never fire a gun at another person.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by fishbob
I will take you up on that bet.

If you think about it a little more you will see that this is a most UNsafe bet - the majority of gun owners never fire a gun at another person.

Yeah. You likely have him on that one. Sort of like Bayes Theorem (at least the gambler's version), only backwards. Usually nothing happens.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jude

That's right, Fool, all gun owners are just dumb. It's comforting to know that there are still people like you around to make sweeping generalizations about roughly 30 million gun owning Americans. Perhaps you could help me educate the posters that believe they can shoot people for a whole variety of silly reasons. I can only Judge people on what they say...In the last thread on this topic we seemed to have about half a dozen gun owners claiming they could execute people for verbally threatening them and only ONE gun carrier (corplinx) that knew what he was talking about and had actually gone out, learned and applied some facts. The lack of understanding of some people is breathtaking and as they are armed, frightening too.

[jj]

Originally posted by The Fool
Perhaps you could help me educate the posters that believe they can shoot people for a whole variety of silly reasons. I can only Judge people on what they say...In the last thread on this topic we seemed to have about half a dozen gun owners claiming they could execute people for verbally threatening them and only ONE gun carrier (corplinx) that knew what he was talking about and had actually gone out, learned and applied some facts. The lack of understanding of some people is breathtaking and as they are armed, frightening too.

I have to back Fool on this one, and it may surprise Corplinx that I agree with his point, you don't show the (*& thing unless you are (*&*( well going to use it for its intended purpose, killing people.

Curiously enough, I'm resolutely opposed to gun control, simply because I think that the right of self defense is absolute and irrevocable, period. While that may surpise some of you, that's how it is.

My own thinking on gun control is that nobody should be allowed to buy a gun before they watch a 1-hour film on people who'[ve been badly shot up, close up, in detail, and who don't start salivating and hyperventalation at the sight. While it probably wouldn't work, my experience (no, I don't even own a gun. with my eyesight it would have to be a 10 gauge open-choke) in seeing the resuts of gun use often suggests that the gun user does not quite grok exactly what a gun does, until it's too (*( late.

We could at least avoid some of that, I think.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by fishbob
I will take you up on that bet.

If you think about it a little more you will see that this is a most UNsafe bet - the majority of gun owners never fire a gun at another person.

But the majority that do fire a gun (excluding suicides and homicides) shoot another person accidentaly. Maybe the majority of gun owners are safe, but the majority of gun users certainly aren't.

[Zep]

Originally posted by jj

I have to back Fool on this one, and it may surprise Corplinx that I agree with his point, you don't show the (*& thing unless you are (*&*( well going to use it for its intended purpose, killing people.

Curiously enough, I'm resolutely opposed to gun control, simply because I think that the right of self defense is absolute and irrevocable, period. While that may surpise some of you, that's how it is.

My own thinking on gun control is that nobody should be allowed to buy a gun before they watch a 1-hour film on people who'[ve been badly shot up, close up, in detail, and who don't start salivating and hyperventalation at the sight. While it probably wouldn't work, my experience (no, I don't even own a gun. with my eyesight it would have to be a 10 gauge open-choke) in seeing the resuts of gun use often suggests that the gun user does not quite grok exactly what a gun does, until it's too (*( late.

We could at least avoid some of that, I think. Even just having to view such a film (or slide show) would be a form of "gun control" in that some prospective eager buyers might change their minds and not buy after all...

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Zep
So what you are saying is that I can find my three worst enemies alone in an alley, shoot them all in cold blood, rock up to a police station, say that I was attacked by three guys in an alley and that I defended myself with my legally held gun, point out their dead bodies, and I'm home free?

Cool! Who needs laws in a place like that!

That would be murder.....................not self-defense.

Zep---do you think a little common sense might be in order.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Ralph


That would be murder.....................not self-defense.

Zep---do you think a little common sense might be in order.

Perhaps a little understanding in context is also in order. Zep hit it straight on. Until the police have evidence that a shooting is in self defense or defense of another, they should perform a full factual investigation, and not rely on the shooter's or a few witnesses say so.

Yes it would be murder. If they couldn't prove it and relied on his telling of it, he's going to get away with it. That's the whole point I tried to make over and over. It is a common tactic for people who shoot someone to claim self-defense. Sometimes they come up with witnesses and the ruse is exposed only after careful review of all evidence.

Those that protested the fact this shooting was investigated invite the type of behaviour Zep is suggesting. That was, in context, his point, and a good one at that.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Perhaps a little understanding in context is also in order. Zep hit it straight on. Until the police have evidence that a shooting is in self defense or defense of another, they should perform a full factual investigation, and not rely on the shooter's or a few witnesses say so.

Yes it would be murder. If they couldn't prove it and relied on his telling of it, he's going to get away with it. That's the whole point I tried to make over and over. It is a common tactic for people who shoot someone to claim self-defense. Sometimes they come up with witnesses and the ruse is exposed only after careful review of all evidence.

Those that protested the fact this shooting was investigated invite the type of behaviour Zep is suggesting. That was, in context, his point, and a good one at that.

I never protested the fact the man was arrested. I know the cops arrest everybody and sort it all out later. I have no objection to that.

Zep seems to feel that the US is some kind of wild west where
there's a "gun nut" lurking around every corner waiting to blow someone away. The cops of course won't question this at all............they'll just look the other way.

The reality, at least in Mass, is quite different. Laws are very strict
and you damned well better be on solid ground(as in your life is in immenent danger) before you pull a gun. Zep seems to feel that
it's the "gun nuts" first choice for whatever minor little annoyance crosses your path. Actually--it's the last.

The consequences of using a firearm are so severe I'd only use
one if the only other choice was my death.

As you said I will be arrested. If I go to court--even if I win--the cost could bankrupt me.

Richard's posted quite a few "self-defense with a gun" situations.
No matter what the circumstnces---Zep will argue against it.

Comparing legitimate self defense with murder shows a lack of common sense IMO....................................

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Perhaps a little understanding in context is also in order. Zep hit it straight on. Until the police have evidence that a shooting is in self defense or defense of another, they should perform a full factual investigation, and not rely on the shooter's or a few witnesses say so.

Yes it would be murder. If they couldn't prove it and relied on his telling of it, he's going to get away with it. That's the whole point I tried to make over and over. It is a common tactic for people who shoot someone to claim self-defense. Sometimes they come up with witnesses and the ruse is exposed only after careful review of all evidence.

Those that protested the fact this shooting was investigated invite the type of behaviour Zep is suggesting. That was, in context, his point, and a good one at that.

In all fairness though........in the "Pharmacist" gun thread Zep suggests we try "getting rid of the crime-----ie.....remove the cause".

I think that shows tremendous common sense and I agree totally.
The pharmacist in question did just that.

[jj]

Originally posted by Zep
Even just having to view such a film (or slide show) would be a form of "gun control" in that some prospective eager buyers might change their minds and not buy after all...

It would be voluntary as far as the "control" aspects.

In at least some places in the USA, the decision for who can and who can't have a weapon depends entirely on "who do you know". I find that particularly offensive.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Ralph
Zep seems to feel that the US is some kind of wild west where there's a "gun nut" lurking around every corner waiting to blow someone away. The cops of course won't question this at all............they'll just look the other way.

You do know that I have never said that was the case, and have even said that the opposite is the case. However...

Your own argument fails to take into account the fact that dead people can't contradict you. They can't be your alibi either. Never mind the one or two good guys who legitimately defend themselves, it is this loophole, nay canyon, through which every bad guy waltzes, since they know that they can use it to cover their asses perfectly legally. And as Suddenly has said, they have been using this escape-route for a long, long time, and many times they do get away with it. So is this acceptable to you?

The reality, at least in Mass, is quite different. Laws are very strict and you damned well better be on solid ground (as in your life is in immenent danger) before you pull a gun. Zep seems to feel that it's the "gun nuts" first choice for whatever minor little annoyance crosses your path. Actually--it's the last.

No, it's usually the first. This does not mean that I think all crims are actually nice folks underneath and that you can just have a nice chat and talk them out of it. Here's some news for you: I think most of these crims are the lowest form of scum in any society, and should go straight to f**king jail, some for life. BUT THAT IS NOT MY JOB! That is up to the police and the lawyers and the judges and the courts and the jailers to see that they get what is coming to them according to law. That's THEIR job.

The consequences of using a firearm are so severe I'd only use one if the only other choice was my death.

Fine sentiment and I'm not about to argue with it per se, but that would suggest that if you carry a gun regularly then you are expecting this to happen within a reasonable time-frame. So what does this say to me, coming from a society where this is not expected to happen ever in anyone's lifetime? Does it not say to me that you believe that US society is more dangerous and "Wild West" than my society? And if you live there as a citizen, who am I to disagree with your evaluation?

If so, how would you contradict that impression?

As you said I will be arrested. If I go to court--even if I win--the cost could bankrupt me.

Richard's posted quite a few "self-defense with a gun" situations. No matter what the circumstnces---Zep will argue against it.

:) No, I won't. Don't write my scripts, please. If the USA was attacked by a foreign power then I would have no argument against armed citizen forces being employed. I have no issue with the sale and use of firearms for properly legitimate purposes. I have no issue with police using arms in the pursuit of their duty, no issue with the US maintaining trained military forces. I DO have an issue with the mindset of fear that seems to underlie all the pro-gun proponents. Their arguments are all based on fear - look at them carefully. And scared people are no judges of clear thinking.

Comparing legitimate self defense with murder shows a lack of common sense IMO....................................

I'm trying to show you how what you think is a legitimate use of firearms can actually be used to allow bad guys even MORE free rein to do more bad stuff, and get away with it. Is this what you intended? I suspect not...

[Ed]

Originally posted by jj


It would be voluntary as far as the "control" aspects.

In at least some places in the USA, the decision for who can and who can't have a weapon depends entirely on "who do you know". I find that particularly offensive.

I bet particularly in Chi and NYC. I recall that it came out that Mr. Gun Control John Lindsey had a carry permit. Then again, he was an enlightened liberal so it was probably OK.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Ralph


In all fairness though........in the "Pharmacist" gun thread Zep suggests we try "getting rid of the crime-----ie.....remove the cause".

I think that shows tremendous common sense and I agree totally.
The pharmacist in question did just that.

Sounds to me like when your boat takes on water you are going to be eliminating the "cause" of you sinking by bailing out the water.

Wouldn't it be easier just to plug the hole? Or is that just fancy liberal thinking that as a good American you disagree with?

That's the point Zep is making. It is a lot more efficient to try to identify ways of preventing people from being criminals than to shoot and imprison them. If that can be done within a free society wouldn't you rather live in a world with less criminals, or is there some reason we need "bad guys?"

[Richard G]

That's the point Zep is making. It is a lot more efficient to try to identify ways of preventing people from being criminals than to shoot and imprison them. If that can be done within a free society wouldn't you rather live in a world with less criminals, or is there some reason we need "bad guys?"

Great idea. What is your solution?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Richard G


Great idea. What is your solution?

To look for solutions. To support efforts to find such solutions without screaming about how such an effort is being "soft on crime," or "taking the side of the criminal" or some such rhetoric that is a politically convienient cheap shot against those that look for solutions. That people understand that enviroment and upbringing play a role in someone becoming a criminal, and that sometimes crime is more a function of mental illness than some concept of evil. That people understand that there is no magic solution, that crime prevention will cost money upfront with the aim of preventing the later greater costs of crime and punishment.

To stop punishing people for being mentally ill, to recognize that hurting others just to hurt others benefits us not one bit, and in fact costs us time and money and sometimes just creates nastier criminals. To maybe realize that even a deeply flawed human life is worth more than a stereo, even if it is your stereo.

Mainly my solution is to understand that true evil is a rare thing in this world, and to build a system that assumes that it is the cause of most criminal behaviour, and doing little or nothing to prevent or address other causes, is a very foolish waste of lives and money.

[Richard G]

Mr. Spaulding, The 74 year old male who is the topic of this thread, speaks to the media.
Spaulding saw Lowe go down, and the attackers began kicking him. Then one of them raised his fist, and that's when Spaulding says he fired one shot into Moore’s arm. He said that was a better alternative than calling 911.

"911, when you call them, and we have before, is a half-hour to an hour wait to get here," said Spaulding. "I had 10 seconds to decide what to do. I couldn't have called 911. They would have stomped him to death."
http://www.baynews9.com/site/NewsStory.cfm?storyid=28841

[fishbob]

Mainly my solution is to understand that true evil is a rare thing in this world, and to build a system that assumes that it is the cause of most criminal behaviour, and doing little or nothing to prevent or address other causes, is a very foolish waste of lives and money. "911, when you call them, and we have before, is a half-hour to an hour wait to get here," said Spaulding. "I had 10 seconds to decide what to do. I couldn't have called 911. They would have stomped him to death."These two points do not conflict.

The smart route is to try to address the causes of criminal behavior, but also recognize that, however successful these efforts are, they will not be 100% effective. Bad people will still be out there, and we need to have the ability to protect ourselves from them. If we are smart, the frequency of self-defense shootings will decrease, but removing self-defense from the equation is not smart.

That said, there are some deeply flawed human lives that are worth much less than a stereo. However anybody that wants the responsibility of removing these individuals from society is also deeply flawed.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by fishbob
These two points do not conflict.

The smart route is to try to address the causes of criminal behavior, but also recognize that, however successful these efforts are, they will not be 100% effective. Bad people will still be out there, and we need to have the ability to protect ourselves from them. If we are smart, the frequency of self-defense shootings will decrease, but removing self-defense from the equation is not smart.

That said, there are some deeply flawed human lives that are worth much less than a stereo. However anybody that wants the responsibility of removing these individuals from society is also deeply flawed.

I'd agree. Like with the boat analogy, even after you stop up the hole you are still going to have to bail out water now and then. Just hopefully less. I didn't mean my "solution" remarks to be a statement against self defense, rather that one sub-point that sometimes crime has a cause in that shooting a criminal does nothing to address why that person is a criminal.

My only point about self-defense is that it is a possible excuse or even cover up theory for violent crime, and police should rightfully fully investigate any violent intentional injury regardless of initial impression as to avoid encouraging self-defense as a ruse to cover a murder. Other than that it is entirely proper to use whatever force is necessary and available to avoid violent injury at the hands of another, but I draw clear line against it when it comes to vengance.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Suddenly


I'd agree. Like with the boat analogy, even after you stop up the hole you are still going to have to bail out water now and then. Just hopefully less. I didn't mean my "solution" remarks to be a statement against self defense, rather that one sub-point that sometimes crime has a cause in that shooting a criminal does nothing to address why that person is a criminal.

My only point about self-defense is that it is a possible excuse or even cover up theory for violent crime, and police should rightfully fully investigate any violent intentional injury regardless of initial impression as to avoid encouraging self-defense as a ruse to cover a murder. Other than that it is entirely proper to use whatever force is necessary and available to avoid violent injury at the hands of another, but I draw clear line against it when it comes to vengance.

The point of self defense isn't to kill somebody. It isn't to act as judge & jury. it isn't to reduce the local population of criminals.

The point is to STOP the attacker before he harms you.
If your attacker is armed himself a gun may be the only way to do that.

As a lawyer--I'm sure you'd agree that most states only legally allow the use of a gun if your threatened with loss of life or serious bodily harm.

As a recovering addict----I can understand what drives a junkie to steal to support his habit. If he's headed out the door with my TV.....he can have it. If he's got a knife & is heading towards my wife......I'll do my best to shoot him dead.

I'm not motivated be a need to kill somebody. I'm motivated by the need to protect myself or a loved one from harm..........

I'm against laws that would prevent me from doing that...

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Ralph


As a recovering addict----I can understand what drives a junkie to steal to support his habit. If he's headed out the door with my TV.....he can have it. If he's got a knife & is heading towards my wife......I'll do my best to shoot him dead.

I'm not motivated be a need to kill somebody. I'm motivated by the need to protect myself or a loved one from harm..........

I'm against laws that would prevent me from doing that...

I can dig it.

My concern is more with this:

In all fairness though........in the "Pharmacist" gun thread Zep suggests we try "getting rid of the crime-----ie.....remove the cause".

I think that shows tremendous common sense and I agree totally.
The pharmacist in question did just that.

This just seemed to imply a little more than simple defense, it seems to be a statement that the pharmacist in question did right by "getting rid of" the criminal, rather than it being a unavoidable result of stopping harm to the innocent. I understand and have no problem when the "getting rid of" is a byproduct of rightful self-defense. What makes me nervous is when it becomes an end in itself. An important part of living in a society of laws is giving up the individual right to punish to the state. This is to avoid huge cycles of vengence, Aeschylus's [u]Oresteia[/i] and all that...

It is a bit of a picky distinction to be sure, but one I see as important, both in a public safety vein and as a deeper political issue.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Suddenly


I can dig it.

My concern is more with this:



This just seemed to imply a little more than simple defense, it seems to be a statement that the pharmacist in question did right by "getting rid of" the criminal, rather than it being a unavoidable result of stopping harm to the innocent. I understand and have no problem when the "getting rid of" is a byproduct of rightful self-defense. What makes me nervous is when it becomes an end in itself. An important part of living in a society of laws is giving up the individual right to punish to the state. This is to avoid huge cycles of vengence, Aeschylus's [u]Oresteia[/i] and all that...

It is a bit of a picky distinction to be sure, but one I see as important, both in a public safety vein and as a deeper political issue.

I don't think people should just go out and buy a handgun & throw it in the drawer. There's a lot of good training courses out there taught by professionals.

I'm not aware of any that would suggest you just shoot to wound. (Again---I'm making the assumption here the only justification for using a gun is if you or a family member are facing death or serious harm.) You're taught to shoot at vital areas that will probably result in his death.

I see no reason at all to risk my own life or that of a family members by "shooting to wound" or wondering whether or not he's maybe not such a bad guy and doesn't deserve death.

It's all about stopping him...the best way possible.

I've never been attacked by an armed human.....but I have been attacked & bitten by dogs. I didn't enjoy the experience and made it a point to find out the best way to handle this situation if it happened again.

For various reasons, most experts feel a handgun is not a good choice for defense against a dog attack. Most of them felt pepper spray is a far better choice for dogs so that's what I'd reach for first if needed.

It's not about exacting revenge--it's about protecting myself.

You have to admit though....when a guy commits a violent crime and gets away with it...............he'll probably do it again and another innocent person may be hurt or even killed.

The guy the pharmacist shot won't be pointing a gun at anyone else anymore.