How not to claim self defense when using a gun.

[Xandrigity]

In the eyes of the law, would she have been justified in shooting the fleeing assailants dead?

Fleeing, probably not. But if she felt cornered or they were advancing. Perhaps.

[drukai]

"A jury of his peers rendered him innocent, but I know EXACTLY what happened and he murdered that poor innocent child beating his head into the concrete"

Sure, I can do that too.

It's far more complex than "rendered him innocent." As is almost always the case with stand your ground laws. At the end of the day the jury decided there was enough room for interpretation or doubt that they couldn't definitively decide that he was guilty, and in our legal system, if there is any reasonable doubt that the defendant may not have committed the crime that the prosecution claims they committed - the defendant is supposed to be found not guilty. Which is not the same as innocent.

[Noogai131]

You talking about OJ Simpson?

Et tu, brute? Exceptions are not the rule. Just like one muslim suicide bomber does not mean all muslims are terrorists, a statistically small percentage of incorrect cases does not invalidate the judicial system.

If it does, you'd better get your guns ready, boyo.

[Nyoken]

Why didn't she shoot the fucking robbers instead?! She got a note saying they were gonna kill them unless they gave money to them?? That's a death threat...is that some kind of joke to most people?? Nono kind robbers...take our money, we gonna lay down here nice and quiet and not do shit about it. Fucking retarded boss she got.

[xero5141]

It means people should be required to take a sufficiently thorough course in firearm safety before they're allowed to own and/or operate firearms lawfully, so that we don't have dumbasses who think firing shots into the air is OK or half the parents who leave their guns unsecured and wind up with dead children. I mean, I'm pretty sure it's plain illegal in a lot of places to aimlessly shoot your weapon skyward. It would also allow for the option of punishing reckless use of firearms without having to do anything crazy like sending a person to jail.

The problem is, the people who do dumb things usually don't do them because they're ignorant. It's usually because they just don't care enough to think thoroughly.

Your own equation was likening a firearms course to a driving test, do people who pass driving tests not act ridiculous when driving?

Not that I don't basically agree with you, people are just dumb and I don't think it would do anything.

[Logwyn]

It means people should be required to take a sufficiently thorough course in firearm safety before they're allowed to own and/or operate firearms lawfully, so that we don't have dumbasses who think firing shots into the air is OK or half the parents who leave their guns unsecured and wind up with dead children. I mean, I'm pretty sure it's plain illegal in a lot of places to aimlessly shoot your weapon skyward. It would also allow for the option of punishing reckless use of firearms without having to do anything crazy like sending a person to jail.

Drivers licenses doesn't help with any of this. People are still horrible driver in fact they get worse as time goes on. I'd say the same for guns would happen.

[TITAN308]

People like this are the reason we have problems with firearms in the U.S. Total lack of understanding of what safely using a gun means.

No actually people like gang members are why we problems with firearms in the U.S.

[Theinquisition]

Oh yeah, that time George Zimmerman hunted down and killed a kid, despite 911 dispatch telling him to stay away multiple times.

Maybe you have access to "super ultra top secret classified info" again, or maybe you're one of those people who thinks OJ never killed anyone?

1. Dispatcher is not a legal authority

2. Trayvon assaulted him by jumping on him

3. Trayvon got what was coming to him.

[TITAN308]

In the eyes of the law, would she have been justified in shooting the fleeing assailants dead?

No, very rarely can someone claim self defense on shooting someone who is fleeing unless they can articulate an active and present danger.

Rough example: Someone fleeing but turns to point a weapon at you while fleeing.

A spouse who is heavily abused may also have success in a case in shooting their abuser even if at the time he was not actively abusing the person. Though this is more of a jury thing than anything. I'd vote not guilty if its proven someone has been actively abused badly over a period of time.

[Deleted]

It means people should be required to take a sufficiently thorough course in firearm safety before they're allowed to own and/or operate firearms lawfully, so that we don't have dumbasses who think firing shots into the air is OK or half the parents who leave their guns unsecured and wind up with dead children. I mean, I'm pretty sure it's plain illegal in a lot of places to aimlessly shoot your weapon skyward. It would also allow for the option of punishing reckless use of firearms without having to do anything crazy like sending a person to jail.

You are more angry at the person firing warning shots in the air than at the three people who stole money and threatened to kill them if their demands werent met.

You reach a new low every day.

[mickybrighteyes]

This is why I wish we could license firearms in a manner similar to driving.

I think this already happens...


I personally don't seem to be required to take any further classes or testing, but then again I've slept with a rifle more than I have any other person and already made my qualifications on a 500m firing range

[Dystemper]

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/01...g-robbery.html



She needs to get some training and a better understanding of how the law works (for right or wrong).

There is no such thing as a "Warning Shot" - you either are justified in using your smoke wagon or you are not.

Also there is no such thing as "safely" firing a gun in the air outside of a shotgun using ammo specific for bird hunting. Science yo.

Joe Biden can, he says so

[TITAN308]

Joe Biden can, he says so

Well he was talking about a shotgun right? lmao

[Dystemper]

This is why I wish we could license firearms in a manner similar to driving.

Because that stops shitty and reckless drivers

[TITAN308]

Because that stops shitty and reckless drivers

Like my grandfather, God reset his soul. 95 years old and was still driving before he croaked.

I refused to ride with him. My wife made the mistake once, she said never again.

[Dystemper]

I'm not angry at anyone, but I apologize if I offended you by discussing the topic of the thread, rather than a minor element of the story I think we all agree constitutes people knowingly doing things they shouldn't.

- - - Updated - - -





It 1) almost certainly makes things better than they would be otherwise, 2) guarantees they have been given the necessary resources to know how to properly handle it, and 3) provides for a way to punish people who fuck it up without having to send them to jail or anything. I'm hardly suggesting it's a panacea to gun woes, but I think it's a better solution than what we have now.

Meh considering the huge number of Gun owners ( over 100 million) and the number of accidents, I think we are doing pretty good.

[Ehrenpanzer]

You are more angry at the person firing warning shots in the air than at the three people who stole money and threatened to kill them if their demands werent met.

You reach a new low every day.

As astounding as it is, I find myself defending Nixx on this...

What kind of moron, AFTER the robbery has been committed and AFTER the robbers are already fleeing, pulls out a gun and begins shooting into the air? The fuck does she think that will accomplish? I mean, surely escalating the situation with new weapons which she clearly has no idea how to use effectively will certainly have a positive result right?

- - - Updated - - -

Because that stops shitty and reckless drivers

True. But consider this following scenario:

I live in Canada.. watching the news one day I get really really mad with the US because of "foreign policy reason #23" and decide they need to be taught "a lesson". Under current laws and weapon regulations, I could go to Toronto, board a plane to Phoenix, go to a gun show, buy whatever firearms I decide are necessary, then drive to wherever to commit mass assault.

At least with licencing you could MOSTLY monitor and control WHO is getting weapons and that they have SOME sort of proper training with them.

[Fudal]

It's far more complex than "rendered him innocent." As is almost always the case with stand your ground laws. At the end of the day the jury decided there was enough room for interpretation or doubt that they couldn't definitively decide that he was guilty, and in our legal system, if there is any reasonable doubt that the defendant may not have committed the crime that the prosecution claims they committed - the defendant is supposed to be found not guilty. Which is not the same as innocent.

There are multiple problems with the popular account of this case versus the evidence presented in court. First the defense was not a SYG issue it was simple self defense. Second there was eyewitness testimony that Zimmerman was on the ground while Martin was assaulting him by slamming his head into the ground. Forensic evidence supports the eyewitness accounts. The recording of the 911 call ( not the edited NBC version of it) clearly demonstrates that Zimmerman was already out of his vehicle looking for the suspicious person moving between houses in a gated community. Zimmerman was a member of the community watch, he had a legitimate reason to be where he was performing the actions that he was at that time. You are free to have your own opinion about Zimmerman as a person, You are not free to fabricate events to make them fit your agenda.

[Noogai131]

As astounding as it is, I find myself defending Nixx on this...

What kind of moron, AFTER the robbery has been committed and AFTER the robbers are already fleeing, pulls out a gun and begins shooting into the air? The fuck does she think that will accomplish? I mean, surely escalating the situation with new weapons which she clearly has no idea how to use effectively will certainly have a positive result right?

- - - Updated - - -



True. But consider this following scenario:

I live in Canada.. watching the news one day I get really really mad with the US because of "foreign policy reason #23" and decide they need to be taught "a lesson". Under current laws and weapon regulations, I could go to Toronto, board a plane to Phoenix, go to a gun show, buy whatever firearms I decide are necessary, then drive to wherever to commit mass assault.

At least with licencing you could MOSTLY monitor and control WHO is getting weapons and that they have SOME sort of proper training with them.

No, you can't. You need to be an american citizen, or holding a green card, to purchase a firearm at a gun show.

Gun shows require you to have an FFL or perform a NICS background check before purchases are complete. You are literally incorrect, you know nothing of american firearm laws, please stop commenting where you are woefully inadequately informed.

[Fudal]

[/QUOTE]
True. But consider this following scenario:

I live in Canada.. watching the news one day I get really really mad with the US because of "foreign policy reason #23" and decide they need to be taught "a lesson". Under current laws and weapon regulations, I could go to Toronto, board a plane to Phoenix, go to a gun show, buy whatever firearms I decide are necessary, then drive to wherever to commit mass assault.

At least with licencing you could MOSTLY monitor and control WHO is getting weapons and that they have SOME sort of proper training with them.[/QUOTE]

I love the BS that people pull out of their asses on this site. I have been to many gun shows and the majority of the people selling weapons are licensed dealers who are required to complete a background check on you. Also, the law in every state requires you to prove you meet residency laws. But, it is much more fun to just go with the anti- gun position of over regulation of law abiding citizens "in order to prevent the criminals from getting guns". This has been proven to be garbage in so many places that it is pointless to even argue with people who still believe it works.