Hiker who shot man says he'd do it again: NRA contributed to his self defense

[justashooter 430]

Again the problem is that the possession of the gun and the constitutional rights allowing you to own and carry them around are at odds with the law. If the law is changed to favour the gun owner and prevent scrutiny of events like this one - then you could technically get away with murder.

that has to be the stupidest thing you've written yet, buddy.

you need to study American law a bit more before making a statement like that.

[Peikko 1,575]

That's exactly it. Very worrying to have the word of the legal gun owner as truth without scrutiny - which goes on a lot.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'd like to know what kinds of situations do people who advocate the use of deadly force can or should be used? What if a small baby charges you carrying a sharp object? A 10 year old? A 15 year old? An angry ex-girlfriend? A homeless 50 year old woman with a screwdriver?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again the problem is that the possession of the gun and the constitutional rights allowing you to own and carry them around are at odds with the law. If the law is changed to favour the gun owner and prevent scrutiny of events like this one - then you could technically get away with murder.

that has to be the stupidest thing you've written yet, buddy.

you need to study American law a bit more before making a statement like that.

The point I was making, buddy, is that changing the law to reflect the practicalities of owning and carrying a gun give rise to dodgy precedents that allow a person to shoot and kill another without having to face any legal consequences of doing so (or have their story scrutinised to determine whether or not their actions were appropriate to the situation).

I certainly concede that it is difficult to do the latter - but that's an area where the practicalities of the 2nd amendment are at odds with the practical application of the law.

Edited May 18, 2009 by Private Pike

[fozzie 41]

It seems to me that those defending the guy, including the NRA, are doing so blindly and are doing so lest some law gets passed to take away their guns!!

Someone on here said "the other consdieration is that in 2 seconds the other guy would have the gun".....not if the gun was not present!! The victim only charged Fish once shots had been fired at his dogs. So was the victim provoked into charging? Maybe. This case as with many 'self defense' cases rely on one persons word against another so if they have no burden of prrof it is a licence to kill.

Another point is that te evidence that the victim had a history of dangerous behaviou should be included, why? It is prejudicial to the facts of this case. Fish had no idea of that history when he shot him so it is irrelevant.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It seems to me that those defending the guy, including the NRA, are doing so blindly and are doing so lest some law gets passed to take away their guns!!

Someone on here said "the other consdieration is that in 2 seconds the other guy would have the gun".....not if the gun was not present!! The victim only charged Fish once shots had been fired at his dogs. So was the victim provoked into charging? Maybe. This case as with many 'self defense' cases rely on one persons word against another so if they have no burden of prrof it is a licence to kill.

Another point is that te evidence that the victim had a history of dangerous behaviou should be included, why? It is prejudicial to the facts of this case. Fish had no idea of that history when he shot him so it is irrelevant.

I think he had a right to defend himself, but he didn't have a right to use lethal force. Many here though believe that using lethal force is a given - if you have a gun, you better use it. Imagine if he had non-lethal means of defending himself - pepper spray, a tazer or stun gun. That man would be alive today and we would have a more complete picture of just what happened.

Edited May 18, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[fozzie 41]

I agree we have a right to defend oursleves but that we should have to justify it. He was tried by jury of his peers and found guilty.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Police have to justify shootings in the line of duty and if no weapon is found they get into serious doo doo

Untrue. NYPD can shoot if they have reason to believe you're reaching for a gun, even if you're just reaching for a pack of cigs. They can also shoot if you're holding something that appears in the dark to be a gun, even if it's just a #######.

Yes, the incidents are investigated but as long as they acted in good faith they are good to go.

If he had used a ####### intead of a gun, the man would be alive today to tell his side of the story. He might be a little sore, but........

[fozzie 41]

Police have to justify shootings in the line of duty and if no weapon is found they get into serious doo doo

Untrue. NYPD can shoot if they have reason to believe you're reaching for a gun, even if you're just reaching for a pack of cigs. They can also shoot if you're holding something that appears in the dark to be a gun, even if it's just a #######.

Yes, the incidents are investigated but as long as they acted in good faith they are good to go.

If he had used a ####### intead of a gun, the man would be alive today to tell his side of the story. He might be a little sore, but........

Depends how big the ####### is...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Police have to justify shootings in the line of duty and if no weapon is found they get into serious doo doo

Untrue. NYPD can shoot if they have reason to believe you're reaching for a gun, even if you're just reaching for a pack of cigs. They can also shoot if you're holding something that appears in the dark to be a gun, even if it's just a #######.

Yes, the incidents are investigated but as long as they acted in good faith they are good to go.

That's happened in the UK too. Infamous case of the guy who got shot and turned out to be carrying a table leg. The worst probably is what happened to the Brazilian electrician on the London Underground. Wrestled to the ground by several police officers and shot 8 times in the head because they thought he was a suicide bomber.

In LA I remember there being a case of a guy getting show 17 times by police, who discovered afterwards that we was wearing a sock on his hand.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I think there should be a law banning dildos instead of guns. Of course if that were to be proposed, women would fight it with the same vigor that they use to fight for gun control.

[Danno 1,228]

It seems to me that those defending the guy, including the NRA, are doing so blindly and are doing so lest some law gets passed to take away their guns!!

Someone on here said "the other consdieration is that in 2 seconds the other guy would have the gun".....not if the gun was not present!! The victim only charged Fish once shots had been fired at his dogs. So was the victim provoked into charging? Maybe. This case as with many 'self defense' cases rely on one persons word against another so if they have no burden of prrof it is a licence to kill.

Another point is that te evidence that the victim had a history of dangerous behaviou should be included, why? It is prejudicial to the facts of this case. Fish had no idea of that history when he shot him so it is irrelevant.

I think he had a right to defend himself, but he didn't have a right to use lethal force. Many here though believe that using lethal force is a given - if you have a gun, you better use it. Imagine if he had non-lethal means of defending himself - pepper spray, a tazer or stun gun. That man would be alive today and we would have a more complete picture of just what happened.

I have not ruled out the posibility that events unfolded different than was reported (by the last man standing).

not knowing the complete facts of the case, I am no more against the guys sentence than I am for it.

Each case has it's own circumstances, one of them being; trails and public natural areas are magnets for weird and often dangerous people. When I go there, I always go prepared to encounter one... though in my daily life, I almost never "carry".

Out on some lonely trail is not the same as the parking lot of Wal-mart.

once the advantage is lost, there is no hope of help or aid.

If infact this guy was charging Ape-sh!t toward a man with a loaded weapon, he invited the next link to the chain of events he put in place.

Assuming the shooters story is true and why wouldn't I as we know the dead guy was a mental defect and we read nothing about the shooter to suggest he had a history of questionable behavior.

[Peikko 1,575]

Trails are not magnets for weirdos and you don't know what the guy did because aside from the shooter, we have no evidence of what the other guy was up to, how he behaved, what he said or whether in fact he did charge at the shooter with his eyes gleaming nuttily. As for your conclusion that you know nothing suspicious about the shooter, have you done more digging into his character than is evidenced in the article? Do you see nothing odd about someone who is not even prepared to show a morsel of remorse for his actions when it resulted in the death of another man?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Trails and natural areas are magnets for weirdos? That's a new one - in my experience you tend to find a lot of "disturbed" and violent people in major cities. A lot of homeless people have mental health issues - there being little provision of care for them in our healthcare system. That's true almost the world over.

You close the asylums and the people end up on the streets.

If you're hiking in the wilderness the only reason you might carry a gun is to defend yourself against dangerous wildlife - mountain lions, bears, wild pigs etc. Unless of course we're running on the idea that Deliverance is actually true - and the countryside is teeming with deformed inbred types that a person must defend themselves against.

The middle of nowhere is the middle of nowhere after all.

Edited May 18, 2009 by Private Pike

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't know anyone who does carry a weapon when out hiking in the wilderness, wild animals or not, and I belong to a very large and extremely active hiking club. There are things you can do to ensure safety of course and mostly not hiking alone is the best recommendation.