OK. He should have retreated into his home, crouched, and waited, nice and legal like ? I think it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
New Yorker gets in trouble for defending family
- Thread starter Q9
- Start date
- Jul 26, 2010
- 2,969
- 4
- 171
Except that it doesn't seem that those two options really were the two options in this case. This was not about kill or be killed.
Quote:
In his interview with the press, in his own words, he said he went upstairs... unless the stairs are directly in front of the door (unlikely) then he had to walk to get to them... then up them... unless there's only one room at the top (unlikely) then he had to go a bit to reach one... then access the weapon (perhaps easy grab though that seems stupid if he really does give a fig about any kids in the house) then back through all that and outside... good point though on the wife bit, he did say he hollared that out. I'ma edit that bit.
To me "scene" means where the threat is. In a bomb situation that could be a whole building obviously, but in this case I don't think that inside, particularly upstairs, is where the threat was. Maybe, if they'd been armed then maybe the lower floor, particularly near windows would still be threatened, but not likely the back of the house or upstairs would qualify... again, particularly since they didn't have any projectile weapons, flamethrowers, cocktails, etc. Considering how he went on about their numbers, really trying to drive home the point that he and his were threatened I think that had they been armed with so much as a toothpick he'd have been ranting about it. Since he isn't, when it could save his bum, I think that means they weren't armed... just talking trash.
If I'd been shot every time I talked to someone who didn't want to hear what I was saying there wouldn't be enough of me left to fill a thimble.
In his interview with the press, in his own words, he said he went upstairs... unless the stairs are directly in front of the door (unlikely) then he had to walk to get to them... then up them... unless there's only one room at the top (unlikely) then he had to go a bit to reach one... then access the weapon (perhaps easy grab though that seems stupid if he really does give a fig about any kids in the house) then back through all that and outside... good point though on the wife bit, he did say he hollared that out. I'ma edit that bit.
To me "scene" means where the threat is. In a bomb situation that could be a whole building obviously, but in this case I don't think that inside, particularly upstairs, is where the threat was. Maybe, if they'd been armed then maybe the lower floor, particularly near windows would still be threatened, but not likely the back of the house or upstairs would qualify... again, particularly since they didn't have any projectile weapons, flamethrowers, cocktails, etc. Considering how he went on about their numbers, really trying to drive home the point that he and his were threatened I think that had they been armed with so much as a toothpick he'd have been ranting about it. Since he isn't, when it could save his bum, I think that means they weren't armed... just talking trash.
If I'd been shot every time I talked to someone who didn't want to hear what I was saying there wouldn't be enough of me left to fill a thimble.
Last edited:
Having lived in both Texas and New York, I know that they have very different attitudes towards guns and "castle doctrine". In Texas, he might not have been charged, but that is only a might. In New York, firing a gun in the air and at the ground will get you in big trouble; especially in an urban area. I suspect this guy might be one of the kind that kept us from hiking during deer hunting season in New York.
If he was in a Georgia city he could have shot them an probably got away with it but shooting in to the ground would get him charged with something. If you fear for your life or your family's enough to decide to use deadly force then you have the right to use a gun to do it. The fact that he fired in to the ground is legal proof that he had not yet chosen to use deadly force so had no legal right to fire the gun in a city. Same with trying to shoot someone in the leg. If you shoot someone in the leg you are giving legal proof that you did not fear for your life enough to use deadly force so you didn't have a legal right to fire a gun at the person at all.
So I think what will get him is the firing in the ground as opposed to at them an not the going in to the house an coming out again. He can convince a jury that he was trying to stay between them an his family. Its hard to say you feared for your life enough to use deadly force when you shot in to the ground. But then its never about what the law is. Its about weather those 12 people all agree that they would have not done the same thing. It only takes one to say "I would have did the same thing so not guilty" an he walks.
So I think what will get him is the firing in the ground as opposed to at them an not the going in to the house an coming out again. He can convince a jury that he was trying to stay between them an his family. Its hard to say you feared for your life enough to use deadly force when you shot in to the ground. But then its never about what the law is. Its about weather those 12 people all agree that they would have not done the same thing. It only takes one to say "I would have did the same thing so not guilty" an he walks.
Last edited:
- Jul 26, 2010
- 2,969
- 4
- 171
I don't think those two principles really hold true. That firing into the ground or firing into someone's leg means those things.
Last edited:
I donno, I can understand the logic. If you really were fearful for your life, truly terrified, you'd have blown their head off... not postured by shooting some dirt. Kinda like if you've got a rattler in front of you you don't aim at the sky in an attempt to scare it off... you shoot the booger before it can get you.
Of course the other side is that while you fear for your life you are not, and never want to be, a killer so you aim down as a warning and hope that the attacker doesn't choose to escalate the situation further and force you to take their life or lose your own.
Great big gray area, in some places it's whiter in others blacker, but in the end all juries are gray and there's no way to know how they'll lean. Which is part of the reason there are SO many plea bargains and backroom deals. Safer for both sides that way. Less risk of the criminal getting off scot free (and lowering the DA's conviction rate -bad for elections) and less risk of the criminal getting the full penalty for a higher charge...
Of course the other side is that while you fear for your life you are not, and never want to be, a killer so you aim down as a warning and hope that the attacker doesn't choose to escalate the situation further and force you to take their life or lose your own.
Great big gray area, in some places it's whiter in others blacker, but in the end all juries are gray and there's no way to know how they'll lean. Which is part of the reason there are SO many plea bargains and backroom deals. Safer for both sides that way. Less risk of the criminal getting off scot free (and lowering the DA's conviction rate -bad for elections) and less risk of the criminal getting the full penalty for a higher charge...
Quote:
Weather you think it means that or not there is one or more DAs somewhere in the US planning that exact argument right now. Its a standard ploy for DAs to use.
Most self defense gun courses teach this issue.
The general rule is to never draw a gun you don't intend to fire. Never fire a gun unless pointed a center mass.
Again, know your laws.
Weather you think it means that or not there is one or more DAs somewhere in the US planning that exact argument right now. Its a standard ploy for DAs to use.
Most self defense gun courses teach this issue.
The general rule is to never draw a gun you don't intend to fire. Never fire a gun unless pointed a center mass.
Again, know your laws.
- Jul 26, 2010
- 2,969
- 4
- 171
What REALLY happened is that the 'dangerous people' were never any closer to this guy than his driveway. They showed no indication of invading his home. None of them drew a gun.
By his own account, none of them even walked up his sidewalk. No one grabbed his wife or child or burst into his home.
For all the world, it sounds like he started an argument with some kids in the street, then lost his temper and ran up stairs got his gun, came back and started spraying the area with an automatic weapon.
I'm not sure any of that would be terribly wise.
The other people ONLY showed up after they heard the gun fired.
The only thing that actually happened, was that, at least according to him, completely out of the blue, someone out in the street started saying naughty words to him, so he ran upstairs, yelled to his wife, ran back down stairs, out the door, and shot 'into the grass'.
So basically, for no reason at all, someone started saying naughty words to him. Through absolutely no fault of his own. He was just going to drive his cousin some place, and for no reason at all, the guys in the street started to say some naughty words.
And of course any time anyone says naughty words to us, we need to run upstairs, get our AK-47 and spray the area with bullets. Further, we should be surprised if we get charged with something.
Not.
No real indication of what actually happened from an unbiased source, and no competing version from any other witness.
He ran upstairs, told his wife to call police, got his gun, ran back down stairs, and started having - some sort of ah 'interaction' with the five guys in the street, shot off his gun, and a bunch of other people came running.
The M-13's are a very strong gang in the area. 2000 members or something like that. I am sure they cause many problems, and I'm sure they aren't exactly angels with dirty faces. But that isn't the point. The point is what the individual did with an unregistered weapon, what started the problem, who started it, and whether he will be charged or not, and with what.
There was absolutely no indication of a 'home invasion', none of the men in the street drew a weapon, and none of them was ever any closer to his house than his driveway.
Most self defense gun classes give incredibly distorted versions of the law too. No one gets 'educated' by one of those classes in much practical or sensible information of how to handle a dangerous situation.
Or people wouldn't be assuming they have a legal 'right' to shoot at an 'intruder'. Which is ridiculous. 'Self defense gun class' has a very, very clear and obvious bias.
And people are still ignoring the concept of meeting force with equal force here as well. That, and the concept that you are NOT free legally to blow someone away if they are stealing your silverware. Or your tv.
Too, the claim that 'I feared for my life' is fairly thoroughly examined in each case, it isn't just accepted. If a 'resonable person' would have not have been in fear for their life, it won't fly.
And actually, I think people don't really think it through or make an informed decision anyway. They react out of anger or surprise or both. For example. Guy sleeps with gun under pillow. In the am, his 7 year old son comes in his bedroom and says, 'Daddy', and he wakes up, grabs the gun and blows his child's brains out. Then he says, 'Oh no'.
I'm going to suggest that wasn't thought through.
And yes, a self defense gun class is not equipping them to make an 'informed decision'. Quite the opposite. There is a huge bias. Together with the ridiculous pretense that they can 'teach you' how to 'get away with' killing someone on your property who is committing a property crime by shooting the person in the head instead of the leg! Or 'making sure they are not around to contradict you'.
By his own account, none of them even walked up his sidewalk. No one grabbed his wife or child or burst into his home.
For all the world, it sounds like he started an argument with some kids in the street, then lost his temper and ran up stairs got his gun, came back and started spraying the area with an automatic weapon.
I'm not sure any of that would be terribly wise.
The other people ONLY showed up after they heard the gun fired.
The only thing that actually happened, was that, at least according to him, completely out of the blue, someone out in the street started saying naughty words to him, so he ran upstairs, yelled to his wife, ran back down stairs, out the door, and shot 'into the grass'.
So basically, for no reason at all, someone started saying naughty words to him. Through absolutely no fault of his own. He was just going to drive his cousin some place, and for no reason at all, the guys in the street started to say some naughty words.
And of course any time anyone says naughty words to us, we need to run upstairs, get our AK-47 and spray the area with bullets. Further, we should be surprised if we get charged with something.
Not.
No real indication of what actually happened from an unbiased source, and no competing version from any other witness.
He ran upstairs, told his wife to call police, got his gun, ran back down stairs, and started having - some sort of ah 'interaction' with the five guys in the street, shot off his gun, and a bunch of other people came running.
The M-13's are a very strong gang in the area. 2000 members or something like that. I am sure they cause many problems, and I'm sure they aren't exactly angels with dirty faces. But that isn't the point. The point is what the individual did with an unregistered weapon, what started the problem, who started it, and whether he will be charged or not, and with what.
There was absolutely no indication of a 'home invasion', none of the men in the street drew a weapon, and none of them was ever any closer to his house than his driveway.
Most self defense gun classes give incredibly distorted versions of the law too. No one gets 'educated' by one of those classes in much practical or sensible information of how to handle a dangerous situation.
Or people wouldn't be assuming they have a legal 'right' to shoot at an 'intruder'. Which is ridiculous. 'Self defense gun class' has a very, very clear and obvious bias.
And people are still ignoring the concept of meeting force with equal force here as well. That, and the concept that you are NOT free legally to blow someone away if they are stealing your silverware. Or your tv.
Too, the claim that 'I feared for my life' is fairly thoroughly examined in each case, it isn't just accepted. If a 'resonable person' would have not have been in fear for their life, it won't fly.
And actually, I think people don't really think it through or make an informed decision anyway. They react out of anger or surprise or both. For example. Guy sleeps with gun under pillow. In the am, his 7 year old son comes in his bedroom and says, 'Daddy', and he wakes up, grabs the gun and blows his child's brains out. Then he says, 'Oh no'.
I'm going to suggest that wasn't thought through.
And yes, a self defense gun class is not equipping them to make an 'informed decision'. Quite the opposite. There is a huge bias. Together with the ridiculous pretense that they can 'teach you' how to 'get away with' killing someone on your property who is committing a property crime by shooting the person in the head instead of the leg! Or 'making sure they are not around to contradict you'.
Last edited:
Most of those classes I have scene around here are put on by cops, judges, game wardens an other government agents. I would think those people would know what they are talking about.
Again know your local laws. I get mine strait from the local judge.
As for the distance thing.. "It is common knowledge that a suspect, armed with an edged weapon and within twenty-one feet of a police officer presents a deadly threat. Why? Because the average man can run that twenty-one feet in about one-point-five seconds; the same one-point-five seconds it will take that police officer to recognize danger, draw and point his weapon, and then pull the trigger. Even if the officer manages to get the shot off, and even if it hits the suspect; even if it instantly disables the suspect, the blade is going to be so close to the officer that the suspects momentum may continue forward with enough force for the edged weapon to end up injuring the officer anyway." The Police Officers Association of Michigan
I would assume that if one man can get to a cop at that distance then 3 could get to the average person an disarm him.
I think it looked like about 15 or 20 feet from the road to his door?
Again know your local laws. I get mine strait from the local judge.
As for the distance thing.. "It is common knowledge that a suspect, armed with an edged weapon and within twenty-one feet of a police officer presents a deadly threat. Why? Because the average man can run that twenty-one feet in about one-point-five seconds; the same one-point-five seconds it will take that police officer to recognize danger, draw and point his weapon, and then pull the trigger. Even if the officer manages to get the shot off, and even if it hits the suspect; even if it instantly disables the suspect, the blade is going to be so close to the officer that the suspects momentum may continue forward with enough force for the edged weapon to end up injuring the officer anyway." The Police Officers Association of Michigan
I would assume that if one man can get to a cop at that distance then 3 could get to the average person an disarm him.
I think it looked like about 15 or 20 feet from the road to his door?
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest threads
-
-
-
Lethargic not eating/drinking Easter egger
- Started by Twinsiemom
- Replies: 3
-
-
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
-
BYC Software Update 2025- Started by Nifty-Chicken
- Replies: 173
-
-
-
Anyone trained their dog to stay away from chickens like this?- Started by ChickenShepherd_6116
- Replies: 70
-
