"I am locked and loaded. I'm going outside to secure my neighborhood."

[araine]

This guy is a hero. God bless him. I hope more people do this.

Just shows how fucked up the country have become when murder is hailed as a good thing to do. oh wait the victims wasnt the white quarterback at the high school or the daughter of a rich white lawyer we get it. we totally get it already.

[Xeones]

But it would be.

Because if the state requires a "warning shot" to be fired, and said warning shot hits someone and he dies from that. HE never got a warning shot.

It stands to "reason" that if the shooter had fired a legitimate "warning shot" into the dirt, and THEN shot the man, that we wouldn't be facing murder charges.

See my above post for wackadoo state gun laws.

Yea, no murder charges just improper discharge of a firearm. Warning shots are illegal, doesn't matter where you aim.

[Phatsamurai]

See my above post for made-up wackadoo state gun laws.

Fixed

10 char

[Cayse]

The female caller to 911 dispatch said they had weapons.

So you can't believe he said "locked and loaded" and then not believe the account of the second caller. Unless of course you have some kind of agenda here.

At worst you have a lunatic killing criminals. Which means this has nothing to do with race... you have another case of the mentally ill being armed to the teeth. Crazies killing criminals...

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloa...en-us-city.pdf

In the last week of July NYC had 8 murders. How many of those made fucking headlines.

The only thing headline worthy about this "White" Gunman killed "Black" "Victim"

The female caller was his wife, and during that call she handed the phone back to him. That was not the initial call, that was a second call AFTER he fired from inside his garage at people out on the street. People came to see what happened, and were fairly understandably angry. I believe that was also the call that he refused to give his address to the 911 operator.

[Svifnymr]

But it would be.

Because if the state requires a "warning shot" to be fired, and said warning shot hits someone and he dies from that. HE never got a warning shot.

It stands to "reason" that if the shooter had fired a legitimate "warning shot" into the dirt, and THEN shot the man, that we wouldn't be facing murder charges.

See my above post for wackadoo state gun laws.

He was probably following the advice of the Vice Pres, Joe Biden. He was in his garage, fired his shotgun as a warning shot.

Seriously though, he has no right to protect his street, he barely has right to protect his lawn and I don't think anyone was on his lawn. Someone comes in his house, he's got the right to do whatever in most states. Unless there was another 911 call earlier from him asking for police and they never came, nothing he does makes any sense at all to me. Maybe if he'd been calling all night and being ignored by the cops, he'd be pissed enough to fire off a round in his garage to scare folks. Still stupid of course.

In any case, it's certainly possible the idiot fired a warning shot into the air or the ground or something and it caused the fatality. Seems easy enough for forensics to catalog and decide if it's just manslaughter or whatnot.

[A dot Ham]

He was probably following the advice of the Vice Pres, Joe Biden. He was in his garage, fired his shotgun as a warning shot.

Seriously though, he has no right to protect his street, he barely has right to protect his lawn and I don't think anyone was on his lawn. Someone comes in his house, he's got the right to do whatever in most states. Unless there was another 911 call earlier from him asking for police and they never came, nothing he does makes any sense at all to me. Maybe if he'd been calling all night and being ignored by the cops, he'd be pissed enough to fire off a round in his garage to scare folks. Still stupid of course.

In any case, it's certainly possible the idiot fired a warning shot into the air or the ground or something and it caused the fatality. Seems easy enough for forensics to catalog and decide if it's just manslaughter or whatnot.

Should be ya. Point is this isn't some social injustice here.

When is the last time that a black man killed a white man (non-cop) and that made headlines? Never.

It must never happen then, right?

Or maybe it just doesn't further the agenda.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

A stupid missed "warning shot" that got someone killed and landed him in jail.

Assuming one was firing a warning shot. Wouldn't that usually be aimed in such a manner that it would not be possible for anybody to be hit by the bullet?

[Dug]

Assuming one was firing a warning shot. Wouldn't that usually be aimed in such a manner that it would not be possible for anybody to be hit by the bullet?

If you were to shoot upwards yeah, firing "warning shots" towards your target is uh.. just shooting at them.

[Annoying]

For reference: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2743504

They say that they were outside for a party that was two doors down from where the shooting happened.

I feel like there's an entire part of the story missing. People walking to the party and he yells at them to quiet down? Goes to the party to yell at them? Who knows, need more info before making a judgment. Well, I'll make a judgment that warning shots aren't required or legal in NC, so the justification for firing the gun is certainly wrong.

[Theinquisition]

Few things.

1. He said they had weapons and were brandishing them at him. That's why he shot, not because of profanities. So all of you claiming he shot them over words, just stop.

2. Warning shots are not at all legal and actually will get you in more trouble than shooting someone on purpose. You are not even supposed to brandish your weapon in self defense. The only time it's legal to pull a weapon is when you intend to defend yourself with it by shooting the threat. You should never brandish or fire a warning shot. The only real exception to this is if the attacker runs away. you obviously should not shoot them in the back, and should just put away your weapon.

3. This guy was stupid. He had already called the cops, these people weren't breaking into his house or anything. He didn't do anything right, but that does not mean you should all jump to the conclusion that he shot the victim because of anything other than stupidity. Not race, not words, not fear. A stupid missed "warning shot" that got someone killed and landed him in jail.

Pretty much this.

I know people will want to make this a race/guncontrol thread instead though.

[BreakerOfWills]

Pretty much this.

I know people will want to make this a race/guncontrol thread instead though.

How do you know they werent law abiding citizens legally carrying weapons?. With zero information besides the 911 call where a man displays poor judgment in the extreme there isnt enough info to decide he was behaving within the law.

[anon5123]

so I fired a warning shot," he says. "And, uh, we got somebody that got hit."

Yeaaaahh..."warning shot".

[Phatsamurai]

Assuming one was firing a warning shot. Wouldn't that usually be aimed in such a manner that it would not be possible for anybody to be hit by the bullet?

Exactly why I put warning shot in quotes. I'm not calling it that, that's what the man who shot it called it.

- - - Updated - - -

How do you know they werent law abiding citizens legally carrying weapons?. With zero information besides the 911 call where a man displays poor judgment in the extreme there isnt enough info to decide he was behaving within the law.

Because it's against the law to brandish a weapon. So if they had them out, they are, by definition, not Law Abiding.

[BreakerOfWills]

Exactly why I put warning shot in quotes. I'm not calling it that, that's what the man who shot it called it.

- - - Updated - - -


Because it's against the law to brandish a weapon. So if they had them out, they are, by definition, not Law Abiding.

We only have his word on that, we cant keep just deciding that whoever is left alive when the bullets stop flying is in the right.

[Theinquisition]

How do you know they werent law abiding citizens legally carrying weapons?. With zero information besides the 911 call where a man displays poor judgment in the extreme there isnt enough info to decide he was behaving within the law.

They may have been, im not saying they weren't.

All I was stating is that mmoc would make it a racial/gun control issue instead of a dumbass doing dumbass things issue.

[Annoying]

Because it's against the law to brandish a weapon. So if they had them out, they are, by definition, not Law Abiding.

I think you entirely missed the point of his post. We don't know that they were even brandishing. We know that he said they were in the 911 call. All we know is what he said. We can't prove they were brandishing weapons, but we can prove that he fired an illegal warning shot and killed someone with it. Which means a court of law can prove that what he did was illegal, and can't prove that his reasoning for it actually happened.

[Phatsamurai]

We only have his word on that, we cant keep just deciding that whoever is left alive when the bullets stop flying is in the right.

Maybe go read my post on the first page about how the guy is an idiot and I in no way agree with what he did, let alone believe he's in the right...


When all we have to go in is a story, I'm just trying to keep the story straight. The guy said they had weapons out. Then someone in the thread said "how do you know they weren't law abiding citizens with weapons" and then I said "If they were brandishing them then they could not have been law abiding."

- - - Updated - - -

I think you entirely missed the point of his post. We don't know that they were even brandishing. We know that he said they were in the 911 call. All we know is what he said. We can't prove they were brandishing weapons, but we can prove that he fired an illegal warning shot and killed someone with it.

See above.

I never said they were brandishing weapons. I'm just answering his question. He asked "how do you know they weren't law abiding citizens with weapons" and I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record now, but again, "if" they had them out, the would not have been abiding by the law. I'm not saying they even had weapons at all, let alone had them out. But when we only have the story to go off of, and no real facts other than someone is dead we cannot expect to reach logical conclusions by injecting presumptions into said story.

[Svifnymr]

If you were to shoot upwards yeah, firing "warning shots" towards your target is uh.. just shooting at them.

I'm not defending the guy by any means, but if a guy 30' in front of me has a gun, and I fire a warning shot into the tree to my left, it's possible to hit some other guy behind the tree and kill him.

You're still responsible for the death, even if it's not premeditated murder.

But then, we're all discussing articles with very little actual facts. I mean, it should be fairly easy for forensics to determine if the victim was hit by a direct shot from the guy at his garage, but the articles don't look for details.

[Powerogue]

"The dispatcher then attempts to get a numeric address for the caller, but he declines and hangs up."

That seems like where he screwed up. If he had given his address, the police could've came and intervened like they were supposed to.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I'm not defending the guy by any means, but if a guy 30' in front of me has a gun, and I fire a warning shot into the tree to my left, it's possible to hit some other guy behind the tree and kill him.

Yeah...but if the guy is in front of you and you fire a "warning shot" to the tree on your left...it's rather unlikely you are going to hit the guy directly in front of you. If you shot the guy directly in front of you...it's probably because you were shooting in that direction.