Firearm rights

Their badge gives them that power, not that they always make the right decision. You on the other hand could be shooting the wrong person just because of what you think you see at the time.

Either I or the Police could potentially shoot the wrong person, and we would both have to be before a jury and try to justify our actions.  Do you know who does not get to stand in front of a jury to justify their actions?  The dead person, and I don't want for myself or my family or the innocent gas station attendant to be the dead person; I want for the bad guy to be him. 

Where the fuck was that?!?!

NV

Quote from: Son of Orospu on March 20, 2019, 08:05:32 AM

I know you live on the liberal side of the US, but here, you are allowed to protect other people, whether or not you even know them.  If a bad guy seems to be about to harm someone, you can shoot them.

I mean I spent most of my life in a place with open-carry allowed, and stopped requiring handgun registrations altogether. The only thing left was the CCW requirement for concealed-carry, but I am well-versed in firearms, and have owned a ton of them.

Just because you can shoot someone doesn't mean it is a good idea. But if you have the epic hero fantasy you want to roll with then by all means go ahead tie up the next many years of your life with the legal repercussions that come along with that scenario, since you will likely have to go through a police investigation at minimum and potentially defend yourself from criminal charges. And don't forget civil suits from the family of the person you shot. You may walk away from that without a scratch so your priorities are you own.

As I said, I would rather testify in front of a jury than be dead or have a family member be dead or an innocent person be dead.  You seem to act like, "just do it and I will let you."  I am more on the side of stopping it before it happens. 

I agree with your sentiment but there is a spiral regarding guns. It's out of control in some places.

As I said, I would rather testify in front of a jury than be dead or have a family member be dead or an innocent person be dead.  You seem to act like, "just do it and I will let you."  I am more on the side of stopping it before it happens.

If family is at risk, then I agree with you. If it property/money at stake, it just isn't worth it. Those things are all insured, and the police can pursue the suspect. In the event of of a convenience store robbery, you or the attendant are much more likely to end up dead if you involve yourself. Being robbed is scary and traumatizing, but retail workers are trained to just give what is being demanded since that is where it ends in the vast majority of instances. You splattering someone's brains all over to save the gas station $200 will be infinitely more traumatizing for the minimum wage worker behind the counter.

I agree with your sentiment but there is a spiral regarding guns. It's out of control in some places.

I would only shoot someone if a reasonable person would agree that I was justified. 

Who would that reasonable person be?

Quote from: Son of Orospu on March 20, 2019, 08:21:20 AM

As I said, I would rather testify in front of a jury than be dead or have a family member be dead or an innocent person be dead.  You seem to act like, "just do it and I will let you."  I am more on the side of stopping it before it happens.

If family is at risk, then I agree with you. If it property/money at stake, it just isn't worth it. Those things are all insured, and the police can pursue the suspect. In the event of of a convenience store robbery, you or the attendant are much more likely to end up dead if you involve yourself. Being robbed is scary and traumatizing, but retail workers are trained to just give what is being demanded since that is where it ends in the vast majority of instances. You splattering someone's brains all over to save the gas station $200 will be infinitely more traumatizing for the minimum wage worker behind the counter.

We are not talking about people's feelings.  We are talking about who lives and who dies.  I had a friend in Highschool who ended up robbing a bunch of gas stations.  The last couple, before he was caught, he shoot the cashiers even though they complied with his demands and were unarmed. 

Who would that reasonable person be?

A person on a jury? 

Quote from: MS on March 20, 2019, 08:31:51 AM

Who would that reasonable person be?

A person on a jury?

A bit late to ask a jury once you've shot them though.

Quote from: Son of Orospu on March 20, 2019, 08:32:19 AM

Quote from: MS on March 20, 2019, 08:31:51 AM

Who would that reasonable person be?

A person on a jury?

A bit late to ask a jury once you've shot them though.

Not if you or someone you love is alive and the bad guy is dead. 

We are not talking about people's feelings.  We are talking about who lives and who dies.  I had a friend in Highschool who ended up robbing a bunch of gas stations.  The last couple, before he was caught, he shoot the cashiers even though they complied with his demands and were unarmed.

I mean, obviously your mind is made up. But there aren't many firearms instructors or LEOs that would recommend your course of action. You seem to refuse to believe that you inserting yourself increases the probability of death significantly.

Although this hyper-specific hypothetical scenario isn't really what the topic of firearm rights is about.

Quote from: Son of Orospu on March 20, 2019, 08:31:59 AM

We are not talking about people's feelings.  We are talking about who lives and who dies.  I had a friend in Highschool who ended up robbing a bunch of gas stations.  The last couple, before he was caught, he shoot the cashiers even though they complied with his demands and were unarmed.

I mean, obviously your mind is made up. But there aren't many firearms instructors or LEOs that would recommend your course of action. You seem to refuse to believe that you inserting yourself increases the probability of death significantly.

Although this hyper-specific hypothetical scenario isn't really what the topic of firearm rights is about.

First of all, it is not hypothetical if it is an anecdote.  But, besides that, I would, in my own mind, err on the side of the good guy, rather than the bad buy. 

You said:
" I would only shoot someone if a reasonable person would agree that I was justified. "

How would a person on a jury be relevant at that time? Youre at a gas station, not in court.
How do you know if they would agree?
Are you assuming that a jury would agree with you otherwise they would be unreasonable?

You said:
" I would only shoot someone if a reasonable person would agree that I was justified. "

How would a person on a jury be relevant at that time? Youre at a gas station, not in court.
How do you know if they would agree?
Are you assuming that a jury would agree with you otherwise they would be unreasonable?

I, like everyone else, would have to weigh the situation.  I may only have a second or two to think.  However, I would think quickly, and hopefully, it would be an action that I could justify before a jury. 

First of all, it is not hypothetical if it is an anecdote.  But, besides that, I would, in my own mind, err on the side of the good guy, rather than the bad buy.

I mean, it is hypothetical how you framed it initially. You added an anecdote later that doesn't change the context of the discussion.

Erring on the side of the good guy is a good principle to live by. If you are willing to risk your life to save a gas station some petty cash that is already insured then that is your business. It would be a lot harder to defend your family against a real threat later on if you are in prison or dead because you decided to play hero where the probability of it being needed is minimal.

Quote from: Son of Orospu on March 20, 2019, 08:40:17 AM

First of all, it is not hypothetical if it is an anecdote.  But, besides that, I would, in my own mind, err on the side of the good guy, rather than the bad buy.

I mean, it is hypothetical how you framed it initially. You added an anecdote later that doesn't change the context of the discussion.

Erring on the side of the good guy is a good principle to live by. If you are willing to risk your life to save a gas station some petty cash that is already insured then that is your business. It would be a lot harder to defend your family against a real threat later on if you are in prison or dead because you decided to play hero where the probability of it being needed is minimal.

I don't give a shit about the $200 or whatever.  I give a shit about the pimply faced kid behind the counter.  Why don't you care about them? 

Why don't you care about them?

Why do you always do this strawman nonsense? It makes it seem like you are just trolling and not actually interested in a conversation.

I would care about the kid, which is why I wouldn't increase the likelihood of said kid dying by inserting myself unless it was absolutely necessary. You seem to not care about the kid by ignoring the high probability that the kid will be fine if he or she just complies with demands. You will find that statistics on convenience store / retail robberies show that the vast majority do not end in homicide. Facts don't care about your feelings, as they say.

Are you the guy who lives in a house peppered with bullet holes, and who was worried for the safety of his family?

Because to  be honest that kind of shit doesn’t happen so much in countries where guns are restricted and needing a way to kill people at distance is not considered the bedrock of freedom.

Are you the guy who lives in a house peppered with bullet holes, and who was worried for the safety of his family?

Because to  be honest that kind of shit doesn’t happen so much in countries where guns are restricted and needing a way to kill people at distance is not considered the bedrock of freedom.

He is. And to be honest it really doesn't happen all that often in this country either.

Are you the guy who lives in a house peppered with bullet holes, and who was worried for the safety of his family?

Because to  be honest that kind of shit doesn’t happen so much in countries where guns are restricted and needing a way to kill people at distance is not considered the bedrock of freedom.

Shooting 120 rounds at a house in a few seconds is already illegal.  What laws would you propose that would have stopped my house from being shot up? 

It's really pretty simple.
You tell the robber to drop her weapon.
If she fires it instead, you shoot her.
If she turns to face you, you shoot her.

She has an obligation to comply with a legal command.
A legal command can be issued and enforced by any adult.

It's really pretty simple.
You tell the robber to drop her weapon.
If she fires it instead, you shoot her.
If she turns to face you, you shoot her.

She has an obligation to comply with a legal command.
A legal command can be issued and enforced by any adult.

So instead of the vast probability of no one dying, you turn the situation into an almost guarantee of 1 or 2 people dying. Makes sense 

And in reality, "legal commands" from non-LEOs aren't a thing in practice aside from defending yourself in court after the fact.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 20, 2019, 09:14:15 AM

It's really pretty simple.
You tell the robber to drop her weapon.
If she fires it instead, you shoot her.
If she turns to face you, you shoot her.

She has an obligation to comply with a legal command.
A legal command can be issued and enforced by any adult.

So instead of the vast probability of no one dying, you turn the situation into an almost guarantee of 1 or 2 people dying.

Makes sense. And in reality, "legal commands" from non-LEOs aren't a thing in practice aside from defending yourself in court after the fact.

Just to let you know, anything said is also going to be presented at an LEO trial, which he will have if he shoots someone.

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on March 20, 2019, 09:01:29 AM

Are you the guy who lives in a house peppered with bullet holes, and who was worried for the safety of his family?

Because to  be honest that kind of shit doesn’t happen so much in countries where guns are restricted and needing a way to kill people at distance is not considered the bedrock of freedom.

Shooting 120 rounds at a house in a few seconds is already illegal.  What laws would you propose that would have stopped my house from being shot up?

Well it’s a bit late for you lot, but I would probably at the birth of your country, argue that giving every tom, Dick and Harry the means to do just that was likely a mistake, and that at every possible juncture since you have missed the opportunity to remedy that mistake.

In respect to the original OP that everyone in the world has a gun, then I believe that is retarded in the extreme and your defence of it stands testament to that retardedness.

Just to let you know, anything said is also going to be presented at an LEO trial, which he will have if he shoots someone.

The likelihood of a LEO going on trial for discharging his firearm during a robbery while on-duty is minimal. The chances of a DA bringing charges in that scenario are nearly non-existent unless there is some other exigent circumstance.

And the reality is that a LEO has a much higher probability of getting away with even an unjustified shooting than an average civilian. I am not even sure what you are trying to add to the discussion with your post here.

Quote from: Son of Orospu on March 20, 2019, 09:09:56 AM

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on March 20, 2019, 09:01:29 AM

Are you the guy who lives in a house peppered with bullet holes, and who was worried for the safety of his family?

Because to  be honest that kind of shit doesn’t happen so much in countries where guns are restricted and needing a way to kill people at distance is not considered the bedrock of freedom.

Shooting 120 rounds at a house in a few seconds is already illegal.  What laws would you propose that would have stopped my house from being shot up?

Well it’s a bit late for you lot, but I would probably at the birth of your country, argue that giving every tom, Dick and Harry the means to do just that was likely a mistake, and that at every possible juncture since you have missed the opportunity to remedy that mistake.

In respect to the original OP that everyone in the world has a gun, then I believe that is retarded in the extreme and your defence of it stands testament to that retardedness.

They used an automatic weapon on my house.  It was already illegal to own it, and to shoot it at houses that are occupied.  So, I will ask you again, which law would have stopped my house from being shout up? 

Quote from: Son of Orospu on March 20, 2019, 09:18:15 AM

Just to let you know, anything said is also going to be presented at an LEO trial, which he will have if he shoots someone.

The likelihood of a LEO going on trial for discharging his firearm during a robbery while on-duty is minimal. The chances of a DA bringing charges in that scenario are nearly non-existent unless there is some other exigent circumstance.

And the reality is that a LEO has a much higher probability of getting away with even an unjustified shooting than an average civilian. I am not even sure what you are trying to add to the discussion with your post here.

I am not sure about where you live, but here, if you save a life by stopping a crime, you do not have to worry much about the DA, because he knows that a reasonable person in the same situation would do the same thing. 

I am not sure about where you live, but here, if you save a life by stopping a crime, you do not have to worry much about the DA, because he knows that a reasonable person in the same situation would do the same thing.

This is very likely true from a criminal perspective. But when the civil suit comes because the family of the poor kid behind the counter knows that their kid would very likely be alive still if you didn't play hero, you will have a harder time defending yourself with a lower burden of proof. I hope you have insurance that covers that. Maybe everything works out perfectly, and you just have one dead bad guy and you walk away without any issues. Good on you for being the hero, and hopefully killing another human doesn't haunt you forever.

Even in a civil suite, stopping a killing by killing the bad guy does not inherently make you a bad guy.  The intent on my side would be to stop an innocent person from being killed.  The intent on the other side would be to commit a crime and threaten to kill the innocent guy.