Father slain in front of daughter after dog sniffs man's leg

[Niels Bohr 72]

Guns?

wow ####### is wrong with people

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

You guys are missing the point. The piece of sh!t who did this was obviously NOT a law abiding citizen. It's highly unlikely he was licensed to carry the gun he used. People who are licensed to carry hand guns rarely do stupid things like this. The fact that someone would jump through the necessary hoops to get a license would mean they are inclined to follow the law. Besides, if he really felt threatened by the dog then he would have shot the dog rather than the owner.

You can pass all the gun control laws you like, but you're not going to stop scum like this from killing people. Gun control laws only affect people who actually FOLLOW the law.

someone gets it

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

You guys are missing the point. The piece of sh!t who did this was obviously NOT a law abiding citizen. It's highly unlikely he was licensed to carry the gun he used. People who are licensed to carry hand guns rarely do stupid things like this. The fact that someone would jump through the necessary hoops to get a license would mean they are inclined to follow the law. Besides, if he really felt threatened by the dog then he would have shot the dog rather than the owner.

You can pass all the gun control laws you like, but you're not going to stop scum like this from killing people. Gun control laws only affect people who actually FOLLOW the law.

It's a faulty assumption that if someone owns an unregistered firearm, they are lawless in all respects. For one, many 2nd Amendment zealots believe that existing laws, including the requirement to register a firearm is an infringement on their constitutional right. When you listen to the rhetoric by some of them - talk of bleeding the Tree of Liberty, etc., you'll see that aren't so keen about follow every letter of every law, especially when they believe those laws go against the Constitution.

What do you suppose would happen to an otherwise law-abiding citizen who happens to use an unregistered firearm in the act of defense? Would the fact that isn't registered change it from self defense to murder?

The general attitude that we have the right to use legal force in the act of self defense permeates beyond just the gun lobby and law-abiding 2nd Amendment zealots...and that's where I believe the problem stems from. There's a lack of clear understanding of when it is legal to use lethal force in the act of self defense.

Edited November 27, 2009 by Galt's gallstones

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

You guys are missing the point. The piece of sh!t who did this was obviously NOT a law abiding citizen. It's highly unlikely he was licensed to carry the gun he used. People who are licensed to carry hand guns rarely do stupid things like this. The fact that someone would jump through the necessary hoops to get a license would mean they are inclined to follow the law. Besides, if he really felt threatened by the dog then he would have shot the dog rather than the owner.

You can pass all the gun control laws you like, but you're not going to stop scum like this from killing people. Gun control laws only affect people who actually FOLLOW the law.

It's a faulty assumption that if someone owns an unregistered firearm, they are lawless in all respects. For one, many 2nd Amendment zealots believe that existing laws, including the requirement to register a firearm is an infringement on their constitutional right. When you listen to the rhetoric by some of them - talk of bleeding the Tree of Liberty, etc., you'll see that aren't so keen about follow every letter of every law, especially when they believe those laws go against the Constitution.

What do you suppose would happen to an otherwise law-abiding citizen who happens to use an unregistered firearm in the act of defense? Would the fact that isn't registered change it from self defense to murder?

The general attitude that we have the right to use legal force in the act of self defense permeates beyond just the gun lobby and law-abiding 2nd Amendment zealots...and that's where I believe the problem stems from. There's a lack of clear understanding of when it is legal to use lethal force in the act of self defense.

steven, there's a world of difference between carrying lawfully or unlawfully (without the appropriate documents) and owning an unregistered firearm. i'm not real sure how you got from jim's post to yours.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

If he was a normal nut, he would have shot the dog, not the owner.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And people will still argue that it's the right of every American to carry firearms. What about the right to life? Which is more important?

Obviously the right carry firearms is more important. Population control and all...

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

You guys are missing the point. The piece of sh!t who did this was obviously NOT a law abiding citizen. It's highly unlikely he was licensed to carry the gun he used. People who are licensed to carry hand guns rarely do stupid things like this. The fact that someone would jump through the necessary hoops to get a license would mean they are inclined to follow the law. Besides, if he really felt threatened by the dog then he would have shot the dog rather than the owner.

You can pass all the gun control laws you like, but you're not going to stop scum like this from killing people. Gun control laws only affect people who actually FOLLOW the law.

It's a faulty assumption that if someone owns an unregistered firearm, they are lawless in all respects. For one, many 2nd Amendment zealots believe that existing laws, including the requirement to register a firearm is an infringement on their constitutional right. When you listen to the rhetoric by some of them - talk of bleeding the Tree of Liberty, etc., you'll see that aren't so keen about follow every letter of every law, especially when they believe those laws go against the Constitution.

What do you suppose would happen to an otherwise law-abiding citizen who happens to use an unregistered firearm in the act of defense? Would the fact that isn't registered change it from self defense to murder?

The general attitude that we have the right to use legal force in the act of self defense permeates beyond just the gun lobby and law-abiding 2nd Amendment zealots...and that's where I believe the problem stems from. There's a lack of clear understanding of when it is legal to use lethal force in the act of self defense.

Nobody is lawless in all respects, nor is anyone law abiding in absolutely every respect. However, someone who would obtain a license to legally carry a handgun would have a legitimate need to be armed (e.g., he carries money or valuables for a living, etc.), and would be required to be trained in the proper use of the weapon, and understand when it was or was not legal to use it. Such a person is not likely to randomly pop a cap into people on the sidewalk just because they lost their temper.

And Charles is correct - I was talking about a license to carry a handgun, and not about an unregistered gun. A gang banger wouldn't have a license to carry, and would be carrying a unregistered gun, or perhaps even a gun that had been stolen from it's registered owner. You could ban handguns completely, and that gang banger is still going to have a gun, and he's still going to carry it with him. You can't make millions of handguns disappear through legislation, but you can certainly disarm all of the people who comply with the law, leaving only the lawless people armed.

Using ANY weapon to kill someone without justification is murder. It doesn't matter if the weapon is registered, unregistered, or your son's aluminum baseball bat. If the weapon was an unregistered gun, and the law required the weapon to be registered, then the killer is ALSO guilty of a gun law violation. If the killing was justifiable self-defense, then the killer is guilty ONLY of a gun law violation. Using a gun may change the nature of the crime in some circumstances (e.g., using a gun in the commission of robbery), but it won't matter whether the gun is registered or unregistered.

Maybe there's a lack of clear understanding when it's legal to use deadly force because states have radically different laws about the threshold, and some states laws are vague and/or not applied consistently. Someone who receives the proper training in the use of a firearm would be instructed how the law is applied in their own state. In my mind, if someone is going to die - me or the guy who is breaking into my house - I choose to let him die.

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

Maybe there's a lack of clear understanding when it's legal to use deadly force because states have radically different laws about the threshold, and some states laws are vague and/or not applied consistently. Someone who receives the proper training in the use of a firearm would be instructed how the law is applied in their own state. In my mind, if someone is going to die - me or the guy who is breaking into my house - I choose to let him die.

This is what I'm talking about. If you look at many big issues, public attitudes permeate well beyond those who are more informed. The gun lobby is savvy enough to know this. They know if their spokesman goes on TV and says that Americans have a constitutional right to protect themselves, that message is what the masses hear.

I agree that proper training would be the best way for people to understand the proper use of lethal force in the event of self defense, but try getting such training to be required by law in order to purchase a firearm and the gun lobby goes ballistic.

[GabiandVi 34]

Guns?

wow ####### is wrong with people

I wish that was what was wrong with people. Then we could easily fix it.

And I don't think the guy shot the man because a dog sniffed him. It was the words they exchanged. There are a LOT of angry people out there and it doesn't take much to set them off. I read about it in the journals of my students. Frightening stuff!!

[Richard90027 1]

doesn't cali have some very strict anti-gun laws?

We also have very strict Dog laws

[ready4ONE 5,400]

You guys are missing the point. The piece of sh!t who did this was obviously NOT a law abiding citizen. It's highly unlikely he was licensed to carry the gun he used. People who are licensed to carry hand guns rarely do stupid things like this. The fact that someone would jump through the necessary hoops to get a license would mean they are inclined to follow the law. Besides, if he really felt threatened by the dog then he would have shot the dog rather than the owner.

You can pass all the gun control laws you like, but you're not going to stop scum like this from killing people. Gun control laws only affect people who actually FOLLOW the law.

someone gets it

Or at least two people don't get it, depends on your point of view...

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

You guys are missing the point. The piece of sh!t who did this was obviously NOT a law abiding citizen. It's highly unlikely he was licensed to carry the gun he used. People who are licensed to carry hand guns rarely do stupid things like this. The fact that someone would jump through the necessary hoops to get a license would mean they are inclined to follow the law. Besides, if he really felt threatened by the dog then he would have shot the dog rather than the owner.

You can pass all the gun control laws you like, but you're not going to stop scum like this from killing people. Gun control laws only affect people who actually FOLLOW the law.

someone gets it

Or at least two people don't get it, depends on your point of view...

good point, we have steven and you. who's gonna make three?

[Heracles 417]

Hayward man slain while walking with daughter

Justin Berton, Chronicle Staff Writer

Thursday, November 26, 2009

(11-25) 11:38 PST HAYWARD -- A Hayward man was shot and killed in front of his 13-year-old daughter while walking the family's dogs Tuesday evening, the result of a dispute with another man who took exception to one of the dogs sniffing at his leg, police said Wednesday.

Thomas Cunningham, 38, was shot outside a liquor store around 10 p.m. near Vermont and B streets shortly after he'd gone inside to buy ice cream for his daughter.

As the father and daughter walked home, the suspect asked Cunningham to hold back his dogs as he passed.

Cunningham was walking a 1-year-old German shepherd and a smaller dog of unknown breed, police said. Both dogs were off leash but were not behaving aggressively, investigators said.

Upset that the German shepherd sniffed his leg, the assailant exchanged words with Cunningham, then shot him with a handgun, according to police.

The daughter ran inside the liquor store for help. Cunningham died at Eden Medical Center in Castro Valley.

The killer ran south on Vermont toward Hill Avenue, police said. Witnesses described him as in his early 20s, black and with a slight build. He was wearing a dark brown or black hooded sweatshirt, possibly with an orange design on the front and with a white logo on the hood. He was also wearing baggy blue jeans.

Police asked that anyone with information call Inspector Rob Lampkin or Inspector Fraser Ritchie at (510) 293-7034, or police dispatch at (510) 293-7000.

E-mail Justin Berton at jberton@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c.../BADQ1AQFVO.DTL

The bold part speaks for itself.

Edited November 27, 2009 by Booyah!

[DEDixon 39]

doesn't cali have some very strict anti-gun laws?

Apparently, not strict enough, or not well enough enforced.

or some just don't care to follow them. i'm betting when they catch the guy, he's got a criminal record.

Sounds like he felt threatened by the dog and rationalized killing the owner of the dog as self defense.

As Ron White is wont to say "You can't fix stupid."

and

"In Texas, if you kill someone, we kill you back."

This dirtbag needs catching and at least locking away for the remainder of his born days.

The right to self defense in the states is so convoluted and ambiguous, that many people have some very wild notions of what qualifies as acting in self defense. For example, in some states, you can legally shoot someone for trespassing on your property.

Quit defending scumbags. Defence of property is reasonable, as it is tantamount to defence of the people on that property, i.e. your family.

Shooting someone because his dog sniffs your leg is NOT REASONABLE!!!!! I don't care what his "wild notions" of self-defence may be, this sh*thead needs removing from public life until he is dead.

Wut? I'm not defending the killer's actions. I'm explaining the rationale for why many will use lethal force as self defense, sometimes under the most absurd circumstances...like a dog sniffing your leg. That's where the problem exists, IMO. We have a lot of 2nd Amendment zealots who are paranoid about their personal safety that they are more inclined to pull the trigger at the first impulse.

pulled that one out of your a$$ steven, got anymore bs up there?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

This was clearly a terrorist act.