Chiefgator
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,172
- Reaction score
- 837
- Location
- Lake Jem, FL pop:35
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Sound triangulation. Developed for the military to find snipers.
I wonder what that technology is that pinpoints a gunshot...
The court of law is pretty far down on my list of concerns in that moment. As I mentioned, in public you should cease the use of force the moment that the perp is no longer a threat. In my home however, they will get no such reprieve. I don't give verbal warnings or fire warning shots either. The only thing they're gonna hear and/or see is the SureFire flashlight bulb then the muzzle flash and report.
I train officers and some civilians. I do little talking. Instead, I use people and - at first plastic/soft knives and guns, and then real guns with paint-bullets - walking the person through actual senarios - making them do the routines over and over and over and over and over for 2 reasons. First, I don't want them to have to make decisions at the moment. I want those already made and done a hundred times. I want the person's actions to be automatic, instinctive and essentially required. Don't think, do. Second, it provides a legal defense because the person did EXACTLY what half a dozen law enforcement officers trained and told the person to do. That puts half a dozen officers on the stand saying "he/she did exactly as he instructed." That addresses motivation. Even if the advise was bad advice, it is virtually the perfect defense, even in a sense "follow the police's instructions."
if there is evidence that you killed someone even after they surrendered and begged for mercy & their life, you may very well spend the rest of your life in prison..if you kill them anyways.
The man had a right to defend himself there is no question about that. He was fearful and reacted , he was not defending himself.Because it is the social principle exceeds the worth of the individual. The social principle is that people defending themselves can lead to bad things. Therefore, it is that policy, not the individual, that matters. "Greatest good for the greatest number" also justifies people dying or being assaulted who otherwise would not.
He was not charged for the weapon, he was charged be cause he discharged the weapon. He should have retreated and waited for the police. However, according to Mr. Grier, “I went around and went into the house, ran upstairs and told my wife to call the police. I get the gun and I go outside and I come into the doorway and now, by this time, they are in the driveway, back here near the house. I tell them, you know, ‘Can you please leave?" He was the one who brought the rifle to a verbal exchange.In his situation it appears he had to wait until 20 people were beating on him or someone was shooting him before he could defend himself, which of course means no right to defend himself at all. However, he violated the principle of no-guns even against a mob charging at you.
I don't know the laws of his jurisdiction. Merely possessing the firearm violated law or the gun was an illegal type or had an illegal magazine. The press doesn't always get the details right.
I'm well aware of the legal aspects. I also know that if I don't, the burglar is likely to walk away with at most a slap on the wrist.
Bernhard Goetz, born November 7, 1947, is best known for his moniker "the Subway Vigilante". Following an assault in 1981, Goetz was infuriated by the lack of prosecution of the three assailants. He decided to start carrying a gun for protection. In 1984, four teenagers approached Goetz again, but this time Goetz shot all four, paralyzing one. The case made him a folk hero for many New Yorkers.
*Snip*
The subsequent trial in 1987 acquitted Goetz of attempted murder, but he was found guilty of illegal firearms possession count, for which he served less than a year. Yet pressure to hold the shooter accountable for his actions landed Goetz back in court. This time, though, Goetz refused to stay on the sidelines. Following the conclusion of his first trial, he'd become much more vocal about the problems facing the city. He pushed for all civilians to arm themselves, and told one reporter that Cabey's mother would have been better if she'd had an abortion. In 1996, a civil jury found in favor of the plaintiff, and awarded Cabey, who had been paralyzed by the shooting, $43 million in damages. Goetz immediately declared bankruptcy.
There's a reason a gun is sometimes called an equalizer. It clearly served its purpose in this case. He protected his family and no one was hurt. It could have easily been a very different scenario without it. I would not be willing to risk the welfare of my family or myself, the law be damned.He was not charged for the weapon, he was charged be cause he discharged the weapon. He should have retreated and waited for the police. However, according to Mr. Grier, “I went around and went into the house, ran upstairs and told my wife to call the police. I get the gun and I go outside and I come into the doorway and now, by this time, they are in the driveway, back here near the house. I tell them, you know, ‘Can you please leave?" He was the one who brought the rifle to a verbal exchange.
I guess murder is just an extension of your retirement plan.....
Anyone remember Bernie Goetz?
Bernhard Goetz Biography - Facts, Birthday, Life Story - Biography.com
The website may or may not be totally reliable, but for my purposes, that's none too important. Look at the really big variables in play here: New York gun laws, public sentiment, crime rates and changes in crime rates between trials, etc. Not to mention, if memory serves, Goetz also testified at his criminal trial because he was asserting justification. Taking the stand is usually considered one of the most dangerous moves any criminal defendant can make...and yet, it probably couldn't be avoided for Goetz.
It's hard to imagine any defendant with a justifiable homicide defense who wouldn't have to take the stand, as his state of mind during the killing is more or less the whole game.
Now, ask yourselves, if it could be avoided, is this an experience you hope to include in your own lives? Because if the jury doesn't like you, doesn't like your lawyer, or just plain gets bored, you may well be doing LWOP (assuming you killed). You may even land on death row.
I bet all of us can name at least ten verdicts we each think are absolutely 100% wrong.
Juries are not your friends, friends.
There's a reason a gun is sometimes called an equalizer. It clearly served its purpose in this case. He protected his family and no one was hurt. It could have easily been a very different scenario without it. I would not be willing to risk the welfare of my family or myself, the law be damned.
Now, ask yourselves, if it could be avoided, is this an experience you hope to include in your own lives? Because if the jury doesn't like you, doesn't like your lawyer, or just plain gets bored, you may well be doing LWOP (assuming you killed). You may even land on death row.
There's a reason a gun is sometimes called an equalizer. It clearly served its purpose in this case. He protected his family and no one was hurt. It could have easily been a very different scenario without it. I would not be willing to risk the welfare of my family or myself, the law be damned.
You may react in any way you see fit to protect your family. He put the odds in his favor by his actions. He effectively deterred a possible attack by doing so, and as I said before, the law (and the opinion of others) be damned.This guy did not protect anything. The mob easily could have entered the house when he went in to retrieve the gun. The equalizer here was dumb luck not a weapon.
This guy did not protect anything. The mob easily could have entered the house when he went in to retrieve the gun. The equalizer here was dumb luck not a weapon.
Ok, I get the tough guy, no nonsense approach to this situation, unfortunately, it equates to no brains as well for this man.Dumb luck in some situations is aided by a frontal view of a half inch hole in the end of a steel rod.
Ok, I get the tough guy, no nonsense approach to this situation, unfortunately, it equates to no brains as well for this man.
The facts are very clear. That was no imminent threat to his home, himself or his family. There was no physical force used to harm him or his family.There is no record the wife called the police. All we have is this man's word that his family was threatened. He first confronted these people unarmed, he then left the area unprotected these people did not go into his house, neither he nor his family were in danger of imminent harm from these people, the police came after he fired the shots.
Your head is truly buried in the sand if you believe that a street gang in your yard is not an imminent threat. I will counter that the presence of the weapon was an equalizer. One man defending his property from a large group of street thugs. The mob certainly had thoughts of thir own mortality when the weapon came out.
Ok, I get the tough guy, no nonsense approach to this situation, unfortunately, it equates to no brains as well for this man.
The facts are very clear. That was no imminent threat to his home, himself or his family. There was no physical force used to harm him or his family.There is no record the wife called the police. All we have is this man's word that his family was threatened. He first confronted these people unarmed, he then left the area unprotected these people did not go into his house, neither he nor his family were in danger of imminent harm from these people, the police came after he fired the shots.
Its called force of numbers.
I pointed out in a previous post that in Texas, for example, this would have been justified, but the facts as applied to the law in the state where this man chooses to live say otherwise.It can and has been defended buy use of a firearm. In this case the homeowner was TOTALLY justified in his actions and the police, not so much.
Nobody seems to have addressed the mass shooter in a gun free zone. Is everyone aware that you WOULD go to jail over it?
So I have a couple of ideas that were discussed today.
There is an armed criminal in a 7/11 robbing the place. Numerous scenarios can play out, but legally the armed criminal can be shot by a bystanding civilian. What might be considered too far and over the line in terms of action by the civilian? Should the civilian be charged with anything?
A civilian should be allowed to use lethal force to defend his home regardless of where that intruder is.And no he shouldn't be charged.A civilian has the right to use lethal force to defend himself and others.What about a breaking and entering in an occupied home? Is there are instance where a civilian at home should not shoot the intruder? Should it depend on the location of the criminal in the home? As in bedroom vs kitchen or garage? Or does it depend on what the criminal has with them? Or is the simple act of breaking into an occupied home enough cause to shoot on sight? Should the civilian be charged?
No the civilian should not be charged with anything,if anything he should receive a medal for saving the lives of others.In the instance of a mass shooter, if they are met with armed resistance by a civillian who shoots and kills, is that the wrong course of action of that civilian? Might there be cases where a civilian should not act on an active shooter? Is it wrong for the civilian to act in this situation?
Would it be wrong for a civilian who is right outside of a "gun free zone" to upon hearing gun fire, go into the gun free zone armed...and shoot and kill a mass shooter? Should the civilian be charged the felony for violating the gun free zone policy?
Oh and here is an incident I am curious what yall might think about?
Long Island Man Arrested For Defending Home With AK-47 « CBS New York
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?