4 shots to the chest from a jogger

[Ban Hammer 13,427]

We're all assuming a lot here, kemosabe. The alleged assailant punched the guy in the face while the man was jogging in pitch darkness. He just came out of nowhere and decide he'd like to punch a guy in the face at night. Without any other witnesses, no one will know exactly what happened, but firing shooting at the guy 8 times seems more like retaliation than act of self defense. And while the jury found him innocent, it would be pretty difficult under the circumstances to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt with the law that gives citizens permission to be vigilantes on the streets.

i'm sure said punch left evidence to back up the shooter's claim he was punched. as for shooting 8 times, at least it wasn't 31 times.

and while you claim this law gives citizens permission to be vigilantes, rational people call it the capability to defend oneself.

[Kevin and 10]

Muzzle flash must have blinded him, so he couldn't see him running away.

[Ban Hammer 13,427]

There was a friend with the dead guy. Reading the TBO story on it - I can see why the jogger would be scared. He saw the two guys twice, but it still doesn't add up to needing 8 shots fired.

i'd guess the reason 8 shots were fired is that's all the firearm contained.

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

i'm sure said punch left evidence to back up the shooter's claim he was punched. as for shooting 8 times, at least it wasn't 31 times.

and while you claim this law gives citizens permission to be vigilantes, rational people call it the capability to defend oneself.

Citizens have always had the legal right to defend themselves. This law, however, takes it step further allowing for lethal force as a method of self-defense, leaving all kinds of room for abuse, IMO.

[Ban Hammer 13,427]

Citizens have always had the legal right to defend themselves. This law, however, takes it step further allowing for lethal force as a method of self-defense, leaving all kinds of room for abuse, IMO.

so what did you think one carries a cch for - to throw at someone?

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

so what did you think one carries a cch for - to throw at someone?

You'd have to read what this law allows, but from what I've read with similar laws, less proof is needed that the act was justified, like "Your honor, he punched me, so I whipped out my .45 and shot him square in the eye out of self defense."

[Ban Hammer 13,427]

You'd have to read what this law allows, but from what I've read with similar laws, less proof is needed that the act was justified, like "Your honor, he punched me, so I whipped out my .45 and shot him square in the eye out of self defense."

that's nice, steven, but that's not what happened in this story.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

that's nice, steven, but that's not what happened in this story.

You were there? I think Steven described what is known quite accurately.

Dreaming of the day you get to use your gun(s) to kill should be a red flag gun ownership might not be for you. IMHO.

[Ban Hammer 13,427]

You were there? I think Steven described what is known quite accurately.

Dreaming of the day you get to use your gun(s) to kill should be a red flag gun ownership might not be for you. IMHO.

i've read the story more than you two have, apparently. steven's version left out was there was two of them - lal made mention of it.

[james&olya 1,121]

Correct me if I'm wrong (like I need to say that on here!) but isn't the point of that 'stand your ground' law that you are ordinarily expected to use retreat as an option to avoid an assailant if you are able. Under this law you only have to convince the prosecutor or the jury that you were being attacked to then use deadly force to end the attack. I see way too much potential for abuse of this law, though I certainly understand why some people want it. I was mugged once many years ago. I probably would have used deadly force at the time if I had it available. I am glad now that I didn't have that option and use it. But I understand why others may feel differently.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

This turns into some discussion about the 2nd. Amendment, and -- heck -- why not. We're all grown ups and we should be able to talk about this in a civilized manner.

So before I tell you whether I am "pro gun" or "anti gun" let me tell you what I think of the 2nd. Amendment.

Like all of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment has to be seen in the context of the time.

In the late 1700s and early 1800s, life in the United States was quite different from now. One of the events that initiated the movement about independence from the Crown was that the King of England mandated the (pre-) US citizens to house the British soldiers. That was done without any form of compensation and created much conflict and despair. Our founding fathers felt that the American people should never have to fear being overrun by a foreign army, which is why they allowed them to arm themselves and to form a militia. This concept is still alive and well in Switzerland. Switzerland does not have an army, does not have a draft, as they are neutral and don't engage in wars and don't take sides, ever. Yet in case Switzerland is ever in the position to have to defend itself, every Swiss male has a rifle in their house. That's their army!

During hard times of the civil war and the ongoing deadly conflicts with Indians, having a musket or rifle proved to be much beneficial to the American people. Hunting was still a main means of providing food for settlers, bears and mountain lions were in large numbers, and living in big cities as it is the case today wasn't really the default means of living until the early 1900s when the industrial revolution took place.

Fast forward another 200 years to the 21st Century.

Now we have an elected government, a police force, the National Guard and a professional Army, Navy, and Air Force, which means we don't need to form a militia anymore. Someone who is living in the middle of nowhere or in a really bad neighborhood may still feel the need to have a gun in the house to protect his life and property as well as that of his family. So far I'm on board with that. Also, a hunter or sport shooter may have a good reason to own guns, as does somebody who is a bodyguard or a P.I., basically anybody who is exposed to acute danger.

Yet -- and here is where the hardcore 2nd Amendment folks will disagree with me -- I don't see any justification to allow ordinary people to carry a gun, open or concealed, while going to the store or to church. That stopped with the John Wayne movies and the widespread exposure to color television. I find not only the Arizona shooting disturbing, but also the fact that basically anybody can have a concealed semi in their pocket. Guns don't kill people but people with guns kill people, and all it takes is one crazy guy to do so much harm. If somebody can't buy a gun without a comprehensive background check, and if taking a gun out of the house would require a permit which is as difficult to get as it is in California, chances are that Arizona wouldn't have happened. Hardcore criminals who plan a crime will always be able to get their hands on a gun, but crazy kids who have very little money won't.

They are now talking about making it illegal to carry a gun within the proximity of 1000 feet of an elected official. First of all, what difference does that make? It's already illegal to shoot elected officials, and the crazy guy did it anyway. Would he not have done it had he not been allowed to carry a gun to that meeting? Bull! The only thing that would stop crazy people from using guns on good people is to avoid crazy people to get their hands on guns or, at least, make it increasingly difficult for them.

Secondly, there is no need for anything more than 5 or 6 rounds. If you find yourself in a situation where you need 15 to 30 bullets without having to reload or change magazines, you went to the wrong wedding. Therefore, I feel that here the legislator needs to step in with a meaningful reform in this regard. Finally, there should have been at least 2 cops at that event. If we can't provide 2 cops to an event where an elected member of Congress has a public meeting, we can't afford having cops sitting in their warm cop cars pointing radar guns at motorists.

Well, that's my personal opinion, open for discussion. For full disclosure, I served in the German Army for 2 years and currently own an easy-to-hide 1955 P. Beretta Cal. 6.35 and a 2nd. Edition Colt Detective Special .38 "Snubnose." Both are at home, and I hope will have to never use any of them in a real encounter.

[^_^ 5,021]

Now we have an elected government, a police force, the National Guard and a professional Army, Navy, and Air Force, which means we don't need to form a militia anymore.

And yet, the Second Amendment is still there. Methinks the only way out of this is to disband our professional military, distribute its assets among the population (by lottery) and then mandate every household to have weapons in the home for when the ChiComs show up.

[james&olya 1,121]

And yet, the Second Amendment is still there. Methinks the only way out of this is to disband our professional military, distribute its assets among the population (by lottery) and then mandate every household to have weapons in the home for when the ChiComs show up.

Does Chi still have Coms? They seem to have become pretty capitalist to me. Still too close to a totalitarian government though! Maybe you should be afraid of the ChiTots instead!

[^_^ 5,021]

Does Chi still have Coms? They seem to have become pretty capitalist to me. Still too close to a totalitarian government though! Maybe you should be afraid of the ChiTots instead!

Hey, they pay you to minimize the ChiCom threat. I get it, I do. Times are tough and income must be generated in any way possible. Have at it. Personally, I'd never make money this way knowing that I am sentencing my nation and my people to slavery at the hands of the ChiComs. But that's just me.

[james&olya 1,121]

Hey, they pay you to minimize the ChiCom threat. I get it, I do. Times are tough and income must be generated in any way possible. Have at it. Personally, I'd never make money this way knowing that I am sentencing my nation and my people to slavery at the hands of the ChiComs. But that's just me.

Yeah, that's me. I confess, I'm a ChiCom agent sent to soften you up! How did you catch me?