Man who shot at car thief is sentenced for death of neighbor he hit instead

[Citizen T]

I'd be okay with a shorter training course, provided it did not compromise on essential knowledge.

I would accept NRA safety training, military/police training, hunter's safety courses, etc - they all cover the same material, and it is the knowledge that is important, not the paper that says where you obtained the knowledge.

There is a gun registry in my state, but upon further review, it is only for assault weapons that were legally owned prior to bans in 1994 and 2013, not for ordinary firearms that are legal to purchase today.

Not sure how to deal with grandfathering of people who already own and use guns legally if such a measure were enacted. Perhaps a grace period of 2 years to get the training, and misdemeanor charges thereafter for those possessing a firearm without the required training? Sentencing for the charge would be requirement to attend a training course and pay a small (~$100) fine?

My ultimate goal here is to find some sort of reasonable middle ground where liberals and conservatives can agree on responsible gun ownership. No conservative or gun rights supporter is ever going to agree with repealing 2A. Nor will any liberal or gun rights opponent ever agree with unfettered access to whatever type of gun you want without restrictions.

There has to be a sensible middle ground here, and I am convinced that it can be found.

If this were to work, it would have to be a federal system so that the curriculum were consistent. I'd agree to this if it were tied to a national conceal carry permit that was recognized across the US.

[Easo]

Nobody will learn anything from this. Your guns are more important that this, I suppose.

[Barnabas]

8 1/2 years when all you had to do was pick up the phone instead.

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody will learn anything from this. Your guns are more important that this, I suppose.

As a gun owner the guy was wrong.

[Poopymonster]

8 1/2 years when all you had to do was pick up the phone instead.

- - - Updated - - -



As a gun owner the guy was wrong.

What will be done to prevent it from happening again is the important question.

We already know the answer. #thoughtsandprayers

[Deleted]

I think he should have got a harsher sentence. A very stupid and as it shows, dangerous thing to do. 20 years of hard labor is the min he should have got. But of course they do not even do hard labor anymore. :P

The thief should get double that then.

[Poopymonster]

The thief should get double that then.

Thief didn't kill anyone.

[Antiganon]

What will be done to prevent it from happening again is the important question.

We already know the answer. #thoughtsandprayers

You could read two posts up and see a reasonable bipartisan compromise.

If we all pushed our representatives to advocate for such a reform we could likely affect positive change.

[arandomuser]

They could just track him down and get the car back and tools, dudes a jackass tough guy, probably ex military or ex cop

[Antiganon]

Thief didn't kill anyone.

In some jurisdictions, he would be legally responsible as though he did. He was in the process of committing a felony, and the neighbor died as a direct result.

[Mormolyce]

Being fully aware of the law, then you must have little respect for it as removing anyone's rights requires due process. This is not something a bureaucratic federal agency is supposed to be doing. This is something that the courts do as in the need to be adjudicated as mentally incompetent.

Not all "mental handicaps" impair one's judgement or ability to safely handle a firearm.

You're quite correct about my lack of respect for US gun law.

But you're being obtuse, the mental handicaps in question make you incapable of managing your own affairs. It's astonishing that anyone finds it controversial that someone who can't be trusted with a pen can be trusted with a gun.

[dextersmith]

I thought the criminal would be responsible for all injuries and deaths resulting from his crime, like during a bank robbery.

[Egomaniac]

In some jurisdictions, he would be legally responsible as though he did. He was in the process of committing a felony, and the neighbor died as a direct result.

Not in this situation...there is no direct causation between a perpetrator breaking into a car and the owner of the car choosing to fire his gun at the fleeing perpetrator. That's an entirely separate crime.

[Barnabas]

What will be done to prevent it from happening again is the important question.

We already know the answer. #thoughtsandprayers

Encourage gun owners to practice common sense and call the police instead of spending 8 years in prison for killing their neighbor? You can mail it to all registered gun owners. Put posters up in gun shops. It doesn't take peoples guns away nor is it confrontational. Sure some gun owners are dipshits and will laugh before tossing it in the trash bin. The repetition though is what is key.

[Egomaniac]

I thought the criminal would be responsible for all injuries and deaths resulting from his crime, like during a bank robbery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony...le#Description

In reality, situations are not as simple as the above summary suggests. Not all felonies will apply in most jurisdictions. To "qualify" for felony murder, the underlying offence must present a foreseeable danger to life, and the link between the offence and the death must not be too remote. If the receiver of a forged check has a fatal allergic reaction to the ink, most courts will not hold the forger guilty of murder. Furthermore, the merger doctrine excludes felonies that are presupposed by a murder charge. For example, nearly all murders involve some type of assault, but so do many cases of manslaughter. To count any death that occurred during the course of an assault as felony murder would obliterate a distinction carefully set by the legislature; however, merger may not apply when an assault against one person results in the death of another.

[dextersmith]

As for firearm negligence, the firearms industry (via NRA) has pushed for dismantling of many legal safeguards, so many states are very hesitant to charge people with negligence. As such, they will typically only prosecute for criminal negligence which has a much higher bar that needs to be cleared.

Worthwhile read if you are interested - https://newrepublic.com/article/1216...gligence-crime

Even the blind can have guns??

[Citizen T]

You're quite correct about my lack of respect for US gun law.

But you're being obtuse, the mental handicaps in question make you incapable of managing your own affairs. It's astonishing that anyone finds it controversial that someone who can't be trusted with a pen can be trusted with a gun.

You call me obtuse without even educating yourself on the issue. *shrugs*
The mental handicaps that were included in the blanket ban were everyone that collected SSDI and had a designate payee. This means that someone collecting SSDI for a back injury that has trouble with reading and/or numbers (such as those with dyslexia) or someone wheelchair bound and has trouble getting out of their house for banking matters would be banned from owning a firearm. One can request a designated payee, it is not necessarily something required for those with mental handicaps. The law explicitly states that they have to be adjudicated mentally incompetent. This is a legal determination. Bureaucrats cannot take away one's Rights.

[Ozzyorcborne]

The second amendment at its finest *old glory waving in the background

[Easo]

As a gun owner the guy was wrong.

Thank you. But overall... exceptions just prove the rule. :/

[Mormolyce]

You call me obtuse without even educating yourself on the issue. *shrugs*
The mental handicaps that were included in the blanket ban were everyone that collected SSDI and had a designate payee. This means that someone collecting SSDI for a back injury that has trouble with reading and/or numbers (such as those with dyslexia) or someone wheelchair bound and has trouble getting out of their house for banking matters would be banned from owning a firearm. One can request a designated payee, it is not necessarily something required for those with mental handicaps. The law explicitly states that they have to be adjudicated mentally incompetent. This is a legal determination. Bureaucrats cannot take away one's Rights.

You're really struggling to find some edge cases where you can be incompetent to manage your own affairs but competent to own a gun there.

[Antiganon]

You're really struggling to find some edge cases where you can be incompetent to manage your own affairs but competent to own a gun there.

I mean, its not unreasonable for someone who lives with a spouse or adult children to have a named beneficiary who handles all the bills in the house, particularly if the recipient has a disability that prevents them from, say, driving to the bank.