Woman runs over man with gun...

[StillBallin75]

She played jury and judge. Not how the system works, no matter how much you want to protect others.

Wait, how exactly is this different from the hypothetical "hero gun-owner" pro-gunners seem to speak mostly highly of? The dude who hypothetically could have stopped a rampaging mass shooter because he himself was carrying? Only difference in this case is the gun was replaced with a car. Isn't the whole idea of private gun ownership the ability to take matters into your own hands when you can't rely on the police to show up on time?

 

[StillBallin75]

So it's open season on anyone carrying an air-soft gun huh?

Right, because it's everyone else's fault the idiot ignored the law and removed the orange tip.

 

[Arbo]

Wait, how exactly is this different from the hypothetical "hero gun-owner" pro-gunners seem to speak mostly highly of? The dude who hypothetically could have stopped a rampaging mass shooter because he himself was carrying? Only difference in this case is the gun was replaced with a car. Isn't the whole idea of private gun ownership the ability to take matters into your own hands when you can't rely on the police to show up on time?

Was the person she ran over a rampaging mass shooter? Well, there you go.

 

[Utility Man]

 

[Goshin]

Was the person she ran over a rampaging mass shooter? Well, there you go.

The fact that it was airsoft is irrelevant. No orange tip; therefore reasonable assumption it was a real shotgun. Look at the pic; it would have fooled me at anything but arm's reach distance.

Self-defense only requires you BELIEVE your life is in danger, and that your belief is reasonable. Certainly appears to apply in this case:

“She thought he was going to do something to them, so she yelled out of her car window, ‘Hey, they’re just kids, leave them alone,’” said Detective Sgt. Steven Roberts, of the Aliquippa Police Department. “He turned and pointed this at her, and she thought it was a real weapon and that she was about to be shot or that the kids were in danger, so she gunned her car and struck him.”

I don't know why you have a problem with this.

 

[Sykes]

Yeah, apparently that means that civilians can become vigilantes and run someone over based on nothing more than assumption and supposition. Superb.

Yes, we all know only armed people are allowed to act in a vigilante capacity.

Right, George?

 

[Goshin]

Funny, but I wouldn't try that defense in a court of law.

 

[Arbo]

I don't know why you have a problem with this.

We don't know it to be a fact yet. Maybe it will bear out, but maybe she is just covering her ass.

 

[Goshin]

We don't know it to be a fact yet. Maybe it will bear out, but maybe she is just covering her ass.

Until we know different, this is all we know. I'm just kinda surprised you're not giving her a little more benefit of the doubt.

 

[Sykes]

So if I paint an orange ring on the barrel of a sawed off shotgun I can carry it and no one should question me....... What a crock.

If Zimmerman had run Martin down and killed him what would the charges have been?

If Zimmerman had run Martin down and he lived what would the charges have been?

My mom always said, if you want to kill someone and not go to jail, get drunk and run 'em over.

 

[Goshin]

Incidentally when I first read the title of this thread, I had a mental image of a woman driving a giant revolver, with the cylinder acting as the tire, running a man over with it. :lamo

 

[Arbo]

Until we know different, this is all we know. I'm just kinda surprised you're not giving her a little more benefit of the doubt.

I have no reason to give her the benefit of the doubt. She could be justified, or she could be guilty of a crime. That her 'excuse' in the article was 'he looked like he might', and that the police said he 'probably was going to' all lead to back to the concept of pre-crime and extracting justice/punishment for something never done.

 

[Sykes]

I have no reason to give her the benefit of the doubt. She could be justified, or she could be guilty of a crime. That her 'excuse' in the article was 'he looked like he might', and that the police said he 'probably was going to' all lead to back to the concept of pre-crime and extracting justice/punishment for something never done.

Sorry, I haven't been on this board that long, and the curiosity is killing me. What's your take on the Zimmerman case?

 

[ttwtt78640]

The fact that it was airsoft is irrelevant. No orange tip; therefore reasonable assumption it was a real shotgun. Look at the pic; it would have fooled me at anything but arm's reach distance.

Self-defense only requires you BELIEVE your life is in danger, and that your belief is reasonable. Certainly appears to apply in this case:





I don't know why you have a problem with this.

The "problem with this" is that for a non-felony offense you cannot even make a citizen's arrest much less legally execute them. Suppose it was a real gun, that the owner was simply taking to the store/gunshop for exchange/repair? Merely seeing a gun is not being threatened by it.

 

[Sykes]

The "problem with this" is that for a non-felony offense you cannot even make a citizen's arrest much less legally execute them. Suppose it was a real gun, that the owner was simply taking to the store/gunshop for exchange/repair? Merely seeing a gun is not being threatened by it.

Merely seeing it pointed at two juveniles, and then yourself, IS.

If she had jumped out of her car and shot him though, - you wouldn't have a problem with that, right? Or questioning her word on how things happened, I'm sure.

Right?

 

[Goshin]

I have no reason to give her the benefit of the doubt. She could be justified, or she could be guilty of a crime. That her 'excuse' in the article was 'he looked like he might', and that the police said he 'probably was going to' all lead to back to the concept of pre-crime and extracting justice/punishment for something never done.

Ah, not exactly.

It's actually a pretty basic concept in self-defense, both tactics and legals, that you do NOT have to wait for the other guy to ACTUALLY throw a punch or shoot a bullet at you before acting. All that is required is probable cause that he is about to do so.

This is based on three things: ability, opportunity, and jeopardy (or apparent intent).
Ability: CAN he carry out this threat? Steven Hawking couldn't credibly threaten to whoop yer ass, but Chuck Liddell sure could. A man carrying what appears to be a firearm has the ability to shoot you.

Opportunity: Is he capable of carrying out this threat NOW? Are you in range?

Jeopardy/Intent: Is the subject behaving in a manner that a reasonable person would feel was threatening? Has he cocked back a fist and stepped closer, or pointed a weapon at you?


Given what she knew, this situation fulfills all three points and creates Jeopardy, which allows you to legally act in self-defense pre-emptively.



There is no mind-reading or precognition involved, just observation of the subject's behavior.

1. Carrying a shotgun in hand on the street. Ability.
2. In range? Opportunity.
3. Pointed it at her? Intent.

Open, shut, self-defense, case dismissed, says Judge Goshin.

 

[Black Dog]

The "problem with this" is that for a non-felony offense you cannot even make a citizen's arrest much less legally execute them. Suppose it was a real gun, that the owner was simply taking to the store/gunshop for exchange/repair? Merely seeing a gun is not being threatened by it.

According to her he pointed it (the shotgun) at her when she yelled "leave those kids alone." In this state that is aggravated assault... A felony. So if she is not a liar, it is clearly a self defense case. If she is lying, hopefully the witness testimony will give us the truth.

I just had a Pink Floyd moment, lol.

 

[Arbo]

Ah, not exactly.

I know all this. What we do not know if the whole 'pointing gun at' people is true.

 

[Goshin]

I know all this. What we do not know if the whole 'pointing gun at' people is true.

Granted. However at the moment we have no evidence or witnesses contradicting her statement. Therefore since her statement sounds reasonable and I have no articulable cause to question it, I grant the benefit of the doubt until/unless other info becomes available.

In other words I'm saying IF THINGS HAPPENED as she said, she is 100% justified. Do you disagree?

 

[Surtr]

We don't know what he did or did not do at this point. We have her telling the police something, that's it.

You left out the findings of the police investigation, which gave them no reason to arrest her, stating that she had no duty to retreat, and that “You don’t have to wait to find out whether or not this is a real gun or not, and she was acting not only out of her own defense, but the defense of those two children.” We also have the modified airsoft gun used by a person who was clearly acting in a very irresponsible manner.

This isn't any different than any other case of self defense, except for the fact that she used a car instead of a gun.

 

[Arbo]

Granted. However at the moment we have no evidence or witnesses contradicting her statement. Therefore since her statement sounds reasonable and I have no articulable cause to question it, I grant the benefit of the doubt until/unless other info becomes available.

In other words I'm saying IF THINGS HAPPENED as she said, she is 100% justified. Do you disagree?

If it happened as she said, it would seem justified.

But we do not know for sure at this point. Of course, she is not being charged, and there is no investigation, so we will never know the full truth. Or so it seems.

My question is about the 'pointing' at people. Was it really being done, or was it simply misconstrued by someone that is potentially an emotional anti-gun person? As in if he turned when she yelled at him, did the gun simply turn with him as one would expect, or did he level it at her? Again, it seems we will never know.

 

[Goshin]

If it happened as she said, it would seem justified.

But we do not know for sure at this point. Of course, she is not being charged, and there is no investigation, so we will never know the full truth. Or so it seems.

My question is about the 'pointing' at people. Was it really being done, or was it simply misconstrued by someone that is potentially an emotional anti-gun person? As in if he turned when she yelled at him, did the gun simply turn with him as one would expect, or did he level it at her? Again, it seems we will never know.

Maybe, maybe not. As I've said in other threads regarding other such incidents in the news, there is such a thing as fatal stupidity.

Maybe he meant no harm. Maybe he thought "Those kids are annoying me, I'll take the orange tip off my airsoft gun and go give them a little scare and have a laugh at their expense."

Maybe. That thought process qualifies him for a Darwin Award though. Basic survival 101: Doing stupid **** will get you killed.

 

[Moot]

You just HATE rights and freedom, don't you?

Giving an example of police that yet again do not know the law (as there are so many examples of such idiot cops), isn't doing your argument a bit of good. Per the norm.

LOL you link to a video to a man being illegal detain by police. Just because you do an activity that police don't like doesn't make it illegal.

Just saying.

 

[Arbo]

Maybe, maybe not. As I've said in other threads regarding other such incidents in the news, there is such a thing as fatal stupidity.

We probably will never know.

But at least I know I'm now free to run over anyone I see carrying a pressure cooker.

 

[Black Dog]

We probably will never know.

But at least I know I'm now free to run over anyone I see carrying a pressure cooker.

:lamo

Come on guys that was awesome.