Another Central Florida Righteous Shooting

[57_TomCat]

I thought I would pass this on since lately Central Florida has had so many good guys shooting up bad guys and the good guys were not cops.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/orl-bk-good-samaritan-010609,0,3979523.story

Seems a customer at a convenience store interrupted a robbery and aggravated battery, retrieved his handgun from his vehicle and shot the bad guy twice killing him. The female clerk was being beaten by a bottle over the head at the time the good samaritan plugged the bad guy.

Looks like a good shoot to me. Here is an atta-boy for the good guy. :)

[slackmaster]

1. Tragic waste of human life

Too bad that guy decided to be a robber.

[Arctic Dave]

2. I'm going to print this story and put it on my positive affirmations board.

[frebrd]

4. Getting rid of garbage isn't "waste".......

it's "disposal".

Edited to add:

I posted this as a response to reply # 1, but that's not where it ended up (for some reason).

:(

[bluestateguy]

3. "Cleanup in aisle 3!"

nt

[jody]

5. Sad that those who hate guns will hysterically shout the good samaritan should not have harmed that

poor criminal.

[iverglas]

12. sad that jody once again

produces a dog's breakfast of bile and nonsense.

Those who "hate guns" obviously suffer from psychoses. Who cares what they do?

Poor jody, living in his cave, surrounded by invisible posts. Who knows what enlightenment he might find if he busted out?

Might even post something that makes sense some day. Or even something that didn't consist of a gigantic false smear of everybody who disagrees with him.

One can dream, can't one?

[L0oniX]

170. Can you guys please keep the fighting at home?

:evilgrin:

[iverglas]

6. looks like a cowardly asshole to me

If I observed someone beating someone about the head with a bottle, I'm pretty sure I'd grab the nearest object and smack him/her, or simply grab something and pull, without even thinking twice.

Taking the time to go out to a vehicle and get a gun ... the victim could have been dead by then, while the big brave rescuer was busy getting his fetish object, and making sure he didn't break a fingernail.

[57_TomCat]

7. That was pretty much what I expected...

you to write.

In my case I too would probably have done something immediatly. Of course since I carry my gun with me I could have avoided the trip back to the car.

[iverglas]

10. as was

the filth posted in this thread before I added to it.

[TPaine7]

32. Why, when you see filth, do you add to it???

(Not to say that there was any filth here prior to your posting.)

[iverglas]

34. why don't you stop beating that dog?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

134. I think you were first, go ahead and take credit.

[tucsonlib]

29. Righteous

Tell me, what's it like to live in a world of absolutes - where all things are either good or evil? Black or white? Sinful or righteous? Must make your life nice and simple. I think you've inadvertently exposed the basic dichotomy inherent in this forum: We "Gun-Grabbers", y'see, unlike you "Gun-Nuts", have come to realize that the real world is composed of infinite shades of gray.

But, hey, how 'bout that Hiroshima thing, eh? Was that some righteous bombing or what?....

[gorfle]

56. We don't.

Tell me, what's it like to live in a world of absolutes - where all things are either good or evil? Black or white? Sinful or righteous? Must make your life nice and simple. I think you've inadvertently exposed the basic dichotomy inherent in this forum: We "Gun-Grabbers", y'see, unlike you "Gun-Nuts", have come to realize that the real world is composed of infinite shades of gray.

We don't live in a world of absolutes, but this does not mean that things don't happen in this world that are absolute. Not everything can be broken down into black and white, good or evil, or sinful or righteous, but some things can.

Some things really aren't very complicated.

In this case, a violent perpetrator was permanently removed from society while caught in the act of beating someone. Now I'm sure there are tons of shades of gray here - after all, we don't know why he was beating the woman - but all in all, it sounds pretty righteous to me based on what we currently know.

[tburnsten]

68. What circumstances would it take

for a man to be beating a woman in the head with a bottle to be "righteous"? I'll have to read the story again but were I in that position I would have definitely drawn on the man. Hopefully he would have stopped, but that really would have been his choice to make.

Blunt objects can and are used to kill people all the time.

[iverglas]

69. what in the fuck?????

Where could you possibly have got the notion ... what could possibly have made you think you could pass this off ... that your post related even in the most minimal, tangential way to the post it is in reply to???


What circumstances would it take for a man to be beating a woman in the head with a bottle to be "righteous"?

WHO IN THE FUCK said anything that could be interpreted by anyone with a jot of intelligence or a tittle of honesty as meaning that there ARE circumstances in which a man beating a woman on the head with a bottle could be "righteous"?????



But hey, the self-illustrative post.

Someone says that some people see the world in black and white with no grey, and there you go, burbling off about how if something isn't black, it's gotta be white, and ascribing that nutzoid view of the world to the very person who remarked bemusedly upon it in the first place.

Some people live with nuance, you know. Maybe it's all the colour teevee has caused this problem -- black and white film actually comes with loads of nuance ...

Stating that something is not marvellous and stupendous and humongously terrific really is not equivalent to stating that it is appalling and atrocious and unimaginably evil.

Really. Really. It isn't. Really.

[tburnsten]

70. Post #29

"Righteous
Tell me, what's it like to live in a world of absolutes - where all things are either good or evil? Black or white? Sinful or righteous? Must make your life nice and simple. I think you've inadvertently exposed the basic dichotomy inherent in this forum: We "Gun-Grabbers", y'see, unlike you "Gun-Nuts", have come to realize that the real world is composed of infinite shades of gray.

But, hey, how 'bout that Hiroshima thing, eh? Was that some righteous bombing or what?.... "






Check

[tucsonlib]

103. I Rest My Case. n/t

[tburnsten]

105. You should probably read the two posts before that one buddy

[tucsonlib]

130. Black & White vs. Shades Of Grey. Case Rested......

....buddy.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

133. So in your opinion this might have been a righteous shoot?

[tucsonlib]

135. A Righteous Shoot?

You mean, like, "Military Intelligence"? Or "Jumbo Shrimp"?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

137. So there is no gray area on this issue, I've got it.

I call it hypocrisy. I just call it like I see it though.

David

[AtheistCrusader]

155. I am a King Prawn! Ok?

I will agree with you though, these terms 'righteous shoot' etc, are euphamisms, intended to impart spin on the issue. Justifiable Homicide is the legalese term and imparts as much truth as may be relevant..

[iverglas]

157. at least people can pronounce your name

Come to think of it, I never did decide how mine should be pronounced ...

And I am actually rather fond of my latest nickname, Ivy.

You need one. I'll christen you (hahahahahaha) Ace.

[AtheistCrusader]

164. I thought that actually might be your name.

One of my Poetry teachers had the last name Iverson, I assumed your username might be a proper name, along similar lines. (Though I think Mr. Iverson was of an ethnicity that might have come down from Son of Iver, as I believe Icelanders and others are fond of doing. I did not ask.)

I'm curious, did you get the muppets reference, in that subject line?

[iverglas]

167. muppets? muppets?

I'm too old for muppets, my dear boy. I never got the appeal of them, really. Was there, like, a King Prawn muppet?

Something that kills me is that in England, "muppet" is actually a serious insult. You muppet. Imagine somebody in a bar dissing you by calling you a muppet. Apparently it means stupid.

Yes, I am the glas of iver. Actually there used to be an Iverson around here, back in the days when people had intelligent discussions at this site, and I often got confused with him. I'd joined a couple of weeks before he did, but he was better known on the general boards. That was cool, because he was a smartie and we pretty much thought the same things.

Haha! I just went looking for my favourite Supreme Court of Canada decision, but I'll have to look harder. You can find SCC decisions easily by putting "lexum" in the search terms; that's the U of Montreal site that hosts SCC decisions. So I search for lexum fuck and find myself overwhelmed with results!

He became angry and asked Mr. Charlie “what the fuck he was doing”. ... Mr. Charlie responded by saying “fuck you” and spat at him. Mr. Gunning “shook his ...

The T-shirt had "Fuck Off and Die" written on the front of it. The respondent took a number of photographs that were entered into evidence at trial. ...

A. I went fucking ended my fucking torment so I went and shot him. Q. Shot who? ... Made fucking life a torment anyway, the fucking son of a bitch. ...

I was being a fucking retard and trying to scare her or do something really fucking stupid. After the shooting, the shotgun was found in the backyard of a ...

Some that might merit further perusal, and some that I will refrain from coping here.

Anyhow, this is my very favourite. Just reminded of it because I've always been amused at "goof" being such a fighting word in the penitentiary subculture (now knowing what it refers to, of course, but still, it's just pretty silly). Okay, those familiar with it may click on by.

http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1995/1995rcs4-186/1995rcs4-186.html

<"The Crown" is the prosecution, and a preliminary inquiry for an indictable offence is the counterpart of a grand jury hearing for a felony, but held in public. And your witness stand is our witness box. The appeal was from the conviction for contempt of court. The appellant, B.C.K., is referred to by initials only. And he won his appeal!>


The appellant was subpoenaed as a Crown witness to a preliminary inquiry involving a charge of attempted murder against two other accused.
The victim was also subpoenaed but failed to attend the preliminary inquiry.
The appellant attended the preliminary inquiry but refused to be sworn as a witness.
In expressing his refusal to testify, the appellant was insolent and abusive towards the presiding judge as the following transcript of events reflects:

CLERK: Mr. K., do you want to step into the witness box, please.

B.K.: Okay.

CLERK: You have to stand up to be sworn.

B.K.: Oh, fuck.

CLERK: Please take the Bible in your right hand. Please state your full name for the Court.

B.K.: B.C.K.

CLERK: Spell your last name.

B.K.: K.

CLERK: Do you swear that the evidence you shall give touching the matters in question shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God?

B.K.: Fuck it, man, I ain't testifying.

COURT: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

B.K.: I ain't testifying, man. Fucking charge me. Whatever you fucking want, man. I ain't testifying.

According to the presiding judge, in his report to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, the appellant then threw the Bible on the floor immediately in front of the witness box, sat down in the box, sat back, crossed his arms and put his foot up on the railing of the witness box. Following this behaviour, the judge stated:

COURT: I find you guilty of contempt of in the face of this Court.

B.K.: Up yours, you dick.

COURT: And I sentence you to a period of incarceration of six months consecutive to any --

B.K.: Fuck you, you goof.

COURT: ...time now being served.

B.K.: Goof.

COURT: Get him out of here.

B.K.: Fucking goof.

FIELD: I think that my case has not been advanced much by that witness's attendance.

COURT: That would seem to be the case.

[Scout]

166. many of them can't spell it either n/t

[iverglas]

168. I know, it's weird, isn't it?

I have to google myself all different ways. ;)


(I see I've made it onto one proposed Top 10 list for 2008!)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

132. It saved countless American lives seems pretty righteous to me.

[tucsonlib]

136. Not To Mention...

...the tens of thousands of Japanese women and children who were roasted alive, eh?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

140. I didn't think you would like that answer.

[tucsonlib]

142. au contraire!

Every one of your posts confirms the validity of my original contention - that some people here are simply incapable of nuanced thought...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

144. and some people can't detect when someone is teasing them.

[tucsonlib]

147. Awwwww....

How sweet. But, sorry, I don't lean that way.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

148. But there's nothing wrong with it.

[tucsonlib]

150. Not That There's Anything Wrong With That.....

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

151. Gotta love Seinfeld.

[tburnsten]

172. Where is the nuance in stopping someone from beating a woman to death?

[AtheistCrusader]

162. The firebombing of sections of Tokyo

with conventional incendiary bombs killed more civilians. The Japanese were no strangers to the horrors of war, where war intersects a civilian population. They killed nearly 10 million Chinese civilians in the course of that war. Not even the 'good guys' can engage in total war and come away with their hands clean. The United States is no exception.

Razing whole sections of Tokyo didn't break Japan. Hiroshima didn't break Japan. So you continue until you win. War sucks. War is hell.

Shikata ga nai.


I recommend John Hersey's 'Hiroshima', if you have time to read it. It's a pretty horrifying look at what happened, following 6 surviors throughout that day, as they retold what they saw, and did. Has some background, in their own words, on the state of Japan at the time, their willingness to fight, and even their expectation that Hiroshima would be bombed. (Though, they were not anticipating an atomic weapon)

You do the victims of war, on all sides, a disservice when you pop off glib comments like that.

[tucsonlib]

171. Sorry..

that you didn't recognize the sarcasm that dripped from every word in that comment.

[rangersmith82]

8. It could be cowardly, but we don't know how old the shooter was

He could have been a older gentleman.

My father is 68, he wouldn't attack some young guy, he is just no match for him.

This bad guy was probably a younger guy, possible on drugs etc, and if the shooter tried to fight or hit him with something, he might of just got his ass beat along with the lady.

Hopefully he gave the guy a warning to stop,then again the POS should have never laid his hands on the lady.

Some punk assaulting a lady at the counter...what a POS!!!

This was another good example of a gun owner saving a life, and saving us taxpayers from supporting another guy in prison.

[rangersmith82]

9. Also what would have happened if you hit him

And he turned around and started beating the crap out of you??

Then there would be two beat up/possibly dead people.

[iverglas]

11. who knows?

I think the essence of heroism is not worrying about it. I can't guarantee I would risk my life in such a situation, but I expect I would.

There was nothing actually heroic about what this individual did. He risked nothing. He solved a problem, and I find the solution regrettable. A death is regrettable. Period.

If it had been unavoidable, that would be different. It may be that it was unavoidable, that the only way this individual had of stopping a life-threatening attack was to use a firearm, and to kill the attacker. Two shots? I have to wonder why, and whether one would have been sufficient without causing death. As often noted, of course, I am quite aware that individuals in such situations are not required to do mathematical calculations and prove that there were no reasonable alternatives, etc., merely to establish their reasonable belief that what they did was necessary.

Not being a fan of extra-judicial executions, I would expect a very complete investigation and answers to all questions, to determine whether the actions taken were in fact necessary. If I were a resident of Florida, of course, I might have lower expectations.

[gorfle]

14. Why two shots.

There was nothing actually heroic about what this individual did. He risked nothing.

He risked plenty. Any time you make the decision to use a firearm, no matter how in the right you may be, you are risking jail time and lawsuits. This guy's legal fees have probably already started tallying.

He solved a problem, and I find the solution regrettable. A death is regrettable. Period.

Two shots? I have to wonder why, and whether one would have been sufficient without causing death.

It is a common training regimen to fire two quick, consecutive shots at a target. This is called a "double tap". Unlike in the movies, gunshot wounds are frequently non-fatal, and are not always incapacitating.

Not being a fan of extra-judicial executions, I would expect a very complete investigation and answers to all questions, to determine whether the actions taken were in fact necessary.

Of course there will almost certainly be a very complete investigation, as someone was shot and killed.

[iverglas]

16. the sophistry overfloweth

He risked plenty. Any time you make the decision to use a firearm, no matter how in the right you may be, you are risking jail time and lawsuits. This guy's legal fees have probably already started tallying.

I've never heard risking a lawsuit being called "heroic" before.

One would almost think you didn't know what I meant when I referred to the essence of heroism being assuming a risk.


It is a common training regimen to fire two quick, consecutive shots at a target. This is called a "double tap". Unlike in the movies, gunshot wounds are frequently non-fatal, and are not always incapacitating.

Don't we just love the cute little names yougunnies have for things?

Gunshot wounds are frequently non-fatal? Good. Not always incapacitating? Perhaps not, but I'd tend to think one would divert someone from beating someone else about the head with a bottle.

I believe the report is that "at least" two shots were fired in this instance. We shall just have to wait and see.


Of course there will almost certainly be a very complete investigation, as someone was shot and killed.

Glad you trust your authorities to do the odd thing once in a while, anyhow.

[rangersmith82]

19. delete

delete

[gorfle]

41. So does the logic.

I've never heard risking a lawsuit being called "heroic" before.

Well, now you have.

One would almost think you didn't know what I meant when I referred to the essence of heroism being assuming a risk.

You implied there was no risk, when in fact, there was at least a risk of legal and financial consequences. Now, having read up on Florida's use of deadly force laws, it seems that there was less risk than I initially thought.

Doesn't make him any less heroic in my book. Even with no risk, removing scum from the public is heroic in its own right. At a minimum it would rank as a public service in my book.

Don't we just love the cute little names yougunnies have for things?

Your attempts to make them sound "cute" and demean those who use them not withstanding, these are technical firearm terms created and used by credible people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_tap

"The origin of the double tap technique is credited to William Ewart Fairbairn and Eric Anthony Sykes, British Police chiefs in Shanghai during the 1930s to overcome the limitations of FMJ (Full Metal Jacketed) ammunition."

"The tactic is still used today by firearms handlers, police tactical teams, U.S. Army and U.S. Marine infantrymen, counter-terrorist military units, and other special forces personnel."

Gunshot wounds are frequently non-fatal? Good. Not always incapacitating? Perhaps not, but I'd tend to think one would divert someone from beating someone else about the head with a bottle.

Perhaps so, perhaps not. From the above article, "The technique is meant to impose fire control with a semiautomatic pistol while maximizing the potential of incapacitating the target despite the semiautomatics relatively weaker ammunition."

When you fire a firearm in defensive situations such as this, the goal is to incapacitate the target. The double-tap has been shown to be an effective way to do this without a loss of accuracy.

While someone in such a situation could/i] opt to fire once and re-evaluate, I won't question the judgment of someone in a justifiable shooting employing the historic double-tap technique.

I believe the report is that "at least" two shots were fired in this instance. We shall just have to wait and see.

It really doesn't matter to me how many shots the guy put into the perpetrator. It was enough to permanently remove him from the gene pool, which is commendable.

Glad you trust your authorities to do the odd thing once in a while, anyhow.

Thanks to people like you, Iverglas, I fully expect the government to fully investigate all defensive firearm uses. Every time I hear about a defensive firearm use one of the first things through my mind is, "That guy gets to look forward to decades of lawsuits."

[iverglas]

44. filth

It really doesn't matter to me how many shots the guy put into the perpetrator. It was enough to permanently remove him from the gene pool, which is commendable.

There may indeed be someone with major resentment issues here, and I know who it would be.

What prompts such blind seething hatred, I dunno. I mean, I despise right-wing misogynist racist scum, but I don't think you've ever actually seen me advocating that they be killed or offering plaudits to someone who did it. Your present administration has murdered many thousand times more human beings (just for starters on the atrocities for which it is responsible) than the worst "perpetrator" your society has ever produced, and you don't hear me calling for your executive to be offed.

Maybe if you and your crew refocused the fear and loathing you are directing at these bogeymen and aimed it at someone truly deserving of it, the world might improve. And you might feel better.

Meanwhile, please don't let me catch the words "root causes of crime" passing your keyboard ...

[gorfle]

46. What a compelling rebuttal!

Not.

[iverglas]

47. I expanded on it

It was adequate as it stood, but I figured you'd need some help.

[gorfle]

50. What prompts blind, seething hatred.

There may indeed be someone with major resentment issues here, and I know who it would be.

What prompts such blind seething hatred, I dunno.

I don't know, Iverglas. What could possibly be hate-worthy about physically assaulting someone? :eyes:

What prompts such blind sympathy is the real question.

I mean, I despise right-wing misogynist racist scum, but I don't think you've ever actually seen me advocating that they be killed or offering plaudits to someone who did it. Your present administration has murdered many thousand times more human beings (just for starters on the atrocities for which it is responsible) than the worst "perpetrator" your society has ever produced, and you don't hear me calling for your executive to be offed.

Maybe if you and your crew refocused the fear and loathing you are directing at these bogeymen and aimed it at someone truly deserving of it, the world might improve. And you might feel better.

I know you're getting soundly pummeled in this thread, and are desparate to point to something else for a distraction, but kindly stay on the subject at hand.

I'm not going to get into a discussion or comparison with the subject at hand vs. the moral failings and criminal actions of the current administration.

[iverglas]

54. what prompts such untruth telling?

What prompts such blind sympathy is the real question.

Nope. Loaded questions are not real questions. That's the whole point. Questions that contain false premises are mere shit.


I'm not going to get into a discussion or comparison with the subject at hand vs. the moral failings and criminal actions of the current administration.

Aw. Widdums doesn't like his own twisted judgments being pointed at?


I know you're getting soundly pummeled in this thread, and are desparate to point to something else for a distraction, but kindly stay on the subject at hand.

Gosh, I guess if being offered moronic insult by a know-nothing with an axe to grind who's desperately trying to discredit his interlocutor were being "soundly pummeled", you'd be right.

I know what will be happening to this little subthread.

[gorfle]

57. I don't know.

what prompts such untruth telling?

I don't know what prompts you not to tell the truth.

Nope. Loaded questions are not real questions. That's the whole point. Questions that contain false premises are mere shit.

There is no false premise in my question "What prompts such blind sympathy?"

Aw. Widdums doesn't like his own twisted judgments being pointed at?

No, I don't like changing the subject to unrelated topics.

Gosh, I guess if being offered moronic insult by a know-nothing with an axe to grind who's desperately trying to discredit his interlocutor were being "soundly pummeled", you'd be right.

No, you're being soundly pummeled for the usual reasons, Iverglas: the inability to uphold your end of the debate through reasoned logic. At least my insults are the result of torpedoing faulty logic instead of offering moronic insults like calling people "widdums", clearly I know far more about firearm topics than you do, and I proudly grind the axe of firearm rights.

I know what will be happening to this little subthread.

Even if something were to happen to this subthread, which would surprise me since I have not violated any rules, I'll rest in the satisfaction knowing that you read it.

[iverglas]

60. prove your premise

Prove the sympathy.

[gorfle]

76. Simple: read your posts

Just go back and read your posts in this thread. Your sympathy for the criminal is obvious to one and all.

[beevul]

89. Prove your own premise first.

Prove the hatred.

[iverglas]

93. reduced to incoherency then, eh?

[iverglas]

61. "reasoned logic"

Yeah. That's what I would call something that doesn't even pass for armchair psychoanalysis, the intended effect of which is purely and simply and nothing other than to insult and discredit.

"Reasoned logic". You sully the words.

[spin]

24. Lawsuit? Probably not in this case...

The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus on protecting victims.
http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm

[iverglas]

33. "no longer"?

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked.

You say that as if there was a time when you did have to do that ...

Luckily, not everyone is as gullible as the defenders of this indefensible law would hope.


One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

For once, somebody got it right.

Yup, you may kill anybody you find unlawfully in your home who you believe got there by breaking in.

Even if it's the neighbour's unarmed 10-year-old.



typo fixed

[michreject]

59. That was the law in Michigan

You say that as if there was a time when you did have to do that ...

We had to turn tail and run. With the enactment of the "Stand your ground" law, we can defend our self without fear of lawsuits.

[iverglas]

62. BULLSHIT

[michreject]

64. I call your BULLSHIT

and raise you an IDIOT.

Edit to add:

http://www.southsidesportsmanclub.com/stand-your-ground.html

The “Castle Doctrine” package of bills was signed into law on July 20, 2006. The law will become effective on October 1, 2006. Until then, current case law will be applied to all situations.

This law would have been more accurately described as the “Stand Your Ground” law. This law, when it becomes effective, removes the duty to retreat from a violent attack. Individuals in Michigan, as in most states, have always had the right to stand their ground and defend themselves with no duty to retreat when attacked inside the four walls of their home. However, if attacked outside the four walls of their home, even if on their own property (such as the backyard, detached garage, or a pole building), individuals in Michigan were required to retreat from a violent attack if able to do so safely. As of October 1, 2006, there will no longer be a “duty to retreat” from a violent attack as long as the individual is in a place where they have a legal right to be and as long as they are not engaged in illegal activity.

[iverglas]

65. heeeere, bullshit bullshit bullshit

The conversation to date:


You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked.

You say that as if there was a time when you did have to do that

That was the law in Michigan ... We had to turn tail and run.

individuals in Michigan were required to retreat from a violent attack if able to do so safely


Huh.

First it's "have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked". Then, when challenged on that utterly false statement, suddently it's "were required to retreat from a violent attack if able to do so safely".

I'll bet all the reasonable decent people in the vicinity can see that the two things are not the same. With one eye closed.


So I win. What you said was total bullshit.

[michreject]

66. Nice try

You like to deviate from the topic to cause confusion. That has been a trick of yours for years. Ain't gonna work.

[iverglas]

67. snigger du jour

The topic was an allegation. The allegation was proved to be false.

But do tell what you thought the topic was.

[spin]

74. The part you ignored was the civil lawsuit issue...

and my post was a reply to the statement in a previous post about the shooter risking jail time and lawsuits.


To reiterate:

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.
http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm

[iverglas]

82. the part of your post that I addressed

was the part of your post that I addressed.

Foreign concept, I know.

[rangersmith82]

17. I think the guy made the best decision possible

He got help...his firearm.

He chose to fight smart and picked the best solution.

Had he too became a victim, we would have two innocent people dead instead of one dirt bag.

And yes if you rob a store and beat up a poor defenseless lady you are indeed a dirt bag.

In Florida he is the Hero for the day, by his good deeds another criminal is permanently off our streets.

[TPaine7]

21. Interesting

"I think the essence of heroism is not worrying about it."

Sometimes, maybe. At other times, not worrying about it is the essence of stupidity. It could result in two innocent people being kill or injured instead and no one able to help, as someone pointed out earlier.

Main Entry:
1he·ro·ic Listen to the pronunciation of 1heroic
Pronunciation:
\hi-ˈrō-ik also her-ˈō- or hē-ˈrō-\
Variant(s):
also he·ro·ical Listen to the pronunciation of heroical \-i-kəl\
Function:
adjective
Date:
1549

1: of, relating to, resembling, or suggesting heroes especially of antiquity2 a: exhibiting or marked by courage and daring b: supremely noble or self-sacrificing3 a: of impressive size, power, extent, or effect <a heroic voice> b (1): of great intensity : extreme <heroic effort> (2): of a kind that is likely only to be undertaken to save a life <heroic surgery>4: of, relating to, or constituting drama written during the Restoration in heroic couplets and concerned with a conflict between love and honor

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heroic

Heroism is not the reason for keeping and bearing arms. When your loved ones or even strangers are in imminent danger, you would have to be very selfish indeed to concern yourself with whether or not your means of saving them resembled or suggested great figures of antiquity, whether your actions were marked by courage and daring, or whether they were supremely noble or self-sacrificing.

The focus would be saving them by the quickest and most effective means at your disposal. "Heroism" should be the last thing on your mind.

"A death is regrettable. Period."

Out of context, this is true. However... I wish Hitler had managed to die earlier. Stalin too. Ditto for the BTK killer. And...

"Two shots? I have to wonder why, and whether one would have been sufficient without causing death."

This is understandable naivete. A so-called "double tap" is more effective at stopping a criminal than a single shot. That is why it is widely taught to police forces, security personnel and civilian shooters. Two quick shots, then re-evaluate.

When you get to the point of having to shoot someone, you shoot to stop. The point is to end the threat, not to do complex analysis as you correctly note. It's the perpetrator's fault that the situation exists, so he gets to assume all the risks.

"Not being a fan of extra-judicial executions, I would expect a very complete investigation and answers to all questions, to determine whether the actions taken were in fact necessary. If I were a resident of Florida, of course, I might have lower expectations."

An execution is an intentional killing, while a self-defense shooting is an intentional stopping. See the difference?

Better than your usual post, iverglas, criticisms notwithstanding.

[iverglas]

23. Aristotle is a man

All men are mortal.
Therefore all men are Aristotle.

Eh?

me: I think the essence of heroism is not worrying about it.
you: Sometimes, maybe. At other times, not worrying about it is the essence of stupidity.

And at other times, it snows.

The essence of theism is believing in a god.
Believing in a god is the essence of stupidity.

Makes no sense, right?

You got it.

The two statements are not even related, let alone mutually contradictory. Both statements may be correct at the same time:

The essence of heroism is not worrying about it.
Sometimes not worrying about it is the essence of stupidity.

The essence of theism is believing in a god.
Believing in a god is the essence of stupidity.

So you are left brandishing a dull object once again.


The focus would be saving them by the quickest and most effective means at your disposal. "Heroism" should be the last thing on your mind.

And you are telling me this because ...?

I wasn't the one calling this individual a hero (in whatever words were being used). I was responding to the acclaim being heaped on his head.

And what he did was NOT the quickest thing, was one of my points.


This is understandable naivete. A so-called "double tap" is more effective at stopping a criminal than a single shot. That is why it is widely taught to police forces, security personnel and civilian shooters. Two quick shots, then re-evaluate.

Gee, you'd almost think that gunnie received wisdom mattered to me.


When you get to the point of having to shoot someone, you shoot to stop. The point is to end the threat, not to do complex analysis as you correctly note. It's the perpetrator's fault that the situation exists, so he gets to assume all the risks.

Which stone tablet was that last bit received on? Charlton Heston got it, did he?

Would that it even made sense. It doesn't. Really, truly, people do not "assume" the risks of other people's actions by operation of your saying so. Really and truly.


An execution is an intentional killing, while a self-defense shooting is an intentional stopping. See the difference?

Indeed I do. What I said made sense, and what you said begged the question.


Better than your usual post, iverglas, criticisms notwithstanding.

The empty clanging does not get the bullshit a pass.

[TPaine7]

28. My fault...

1) The heroism you think you would display in such a circumstance would, at least in some cases, help no one. Stupid heroism is bad. Simple enough?

2) Quickest and most effective. Effective is a necessary component--if your intention is to actually help someone, and not to flex your ego.

3) If "gunnies" get their "received wisdom" from credible sources in actual reality--combat surgeons, FBI studies, etc.--intelligent and informed people will take it seriously. You on the other hand...

4) By taking criminal action, the criminal apparently provided legal justification for his own shooting. He thus assumed the risk. My taking note of that fact later on had no bearing on it. So you are actually right! On that part, anyway. But where did you get the wacky idea that my saying so was supposed to be a factor?

"The sun is hot, I say" and yet my saying so in no way affects the sun's temperature. Obviously. But who would make a point of that fact? I guess someone under the solar reality distortion field.

5)"What I said made sense." Only inside the field. Really.

6)"The empty clanging does not get the bullshit a pass." Ok. That's a solid point. But I was feeling generous... in the holiday spirit. And your post was only 95% BS. Credit where credit is due... I thought you were showing glimmers of honesty and decency...


...Ok, I fold. My fault.

[gorfle]

38. On assuming risks.

Which stone tablet was that last bit received on? Charlton Heston got it, did he?

Would that it even made sense. It doesn't. Really, truly, people do not "assume" the risks of other people's actions by operation of your saying so. Really and truly.

It makes perfect sense to me also.

If you undertake criminal actions where the citizens are legally entitled to use deadly force against you for doing so, then you are assuming the risk of being killed when you make the choice to engage in such criminal activity. I will not cry a river for people who get shot after choosing to do something for which it's legal to shoot them.

Hopefully more such thugs will assume the risks of other people's actions before they commit another act of violent thuggery!

[iverglas]

40. who asked you to?

I will not cry a river for people who get shot after choosing to do something for which it's legal to shoot them.

I probably wouldn't cry a river if I heard tomorrow that you'd popped your clogs. That doesn't mean that anyone would be entitled to off you.

Not crying a river is quite different from wallowing in glee, btw.


But heck. If you choose to walk down a dark deserted street at 3 a.m. and get mugged, you'll obviously expect to be told that you assumed the risk of the mugger's actions.


And no,

Hopefully more such thugs will assume the risks of other people's actions before they commit another act of violent thuggery!

that didn't make an ounce of sense.

[gorfle]

42. Just sayin'.

I probably wouldn't cry a river if I heard tomorrow that you'd popped your clogs. That doesn't mean that anyone would be entitled to off you.

I don't know what the phrase "popped your clogs" means, but if it is synonymous with beating a woman with a bottle, then I'm glad you wouldn't cry me a river for my actions and it does mean that someone would be entitled to off me.

Not crying a river is quite different from wallowing in glee, btw.

Pardon me for being gleeful when the good guys chaulk one up while simultaneously demonstrating what defensive firearm use is all about.

But heck. If you choose to walk down a dark deserted street at 3 a.m. and get mugged, you'll obviously expect to be told that you assumed the risk of the mugger's actions.

Lots of people wisely avoid walking down dark deserted streets at 3 a.m. because of the risk of getting mugged. If the risk is real, and you ignore it, you do so at your own peril.

Hopefully more such thugs will assume the risks of other people's actions before they commit another act of violent thuggery!

that didn't make an ounce of sense.

Let me try again. I am hopeful that future thugs who engage in violent crime will assume the risks of other people's actions - specifically, the risk of being shot by a law-abiding citizen, before they commit another act of violent thuggery. Perhaps if more violent thugs assumed they would be shot for their crimes more of them would reconsider their actions.

[iverglas]

43. the paucity of the lingo gobsmacks me

To pop one's clogs is to die.

I probably wouldn't cry a river if I heard tomorrow that you'd popped your clogs. That doesn't mean that anyone would be entitled to off you.


And then there's the ongoing use of language to obfuscate rather than elucidate:

Pardon me for being gleeful when the good guys chaulk one up while simultaneously demonstrating what defensive firearm use is all about.

That's "chalk", by the way. And what you are really saying is "when somebody gets killed". Why can't you just spit it out? Why do you need to wrap it up in disguises? Aren't you proud of it?


Lots of people wisely avoid walking down dark deserted streets at 3 a.m. because of the risk of getting mugged. If the risk is real, and you ignore it, you do so at your own peril.

There ya go. Get mugged/murdered, it's your own fault, because you assumed the risk of someone doing that.

Glad to see such consistency.


I am hopeful that future thugs who engage in violent crime will assume the risks of other people's actions

No, listen, it makes no sense.

You are saying that when they engage in violent crime they DO assume those risks. What bleeding sense does it make to say that you HOPE they WILL assume the risks???It's just plain incoherent, is what it is.


Perhaps if more violent thugs assumed they would be shot for their crimes more of them would reconsider their actions.

Yes. The death penalty has worked so well, hasn't it?

[gorfle]

49. Well that would depend.

To pop one's clogs is to die.

I probably wouldn't cry a river if I heard tomorrow that you'd popped your clogs. That doesn't mean that anyone would be entitled to off you.

Well that would depend on what I was doing at the time I "popped my clogs", wouldn't it? Because if I were, oh, say, beating someone with a bottle, then in fact anyone would be entitled to off me.

That's "chalk", by the way. And what you are really saying is "when somebody gets killed". Why can't you just spit it out? Why do you need to wrap it up in disguises? Aren't you proud of it?

Excuse my typographical error. But who are you to lecture me on word choice when you speak of "popping your clogs" and "off(ing)" people?

There ya go. Get mugged/murdered, it's your own fault, because you assumed the risk of someone doing that.

I am not saying it is the fault of someone who gets mugged or murdered that they were mugged or murdered. But one cannot ignore risks and expect to always come away unharmed, either. Sure, it's nice to exclaim that everyone should be able to walk whenever and wherever they like in absolute peace and security. The reality is, there are dangerous places where no one would reasonably expect to be able to do so. When people ignore reasonable expectations of risk and harm subsequently befalls them, even when they have done nothing wrong I am less sympathetic than I might otherwise be.

You are saying that when they engage in violent crime they DO assume those risks. What bleeding sense does it make to say that you HOPE they WILL assume the risks???It's just plain incoherent, is what it is.

I should say, then, that I am hopeful that they will be cognizant of the risks they have assumed. But I think you know what I meant.

Yes. The death penalty has worked so well, hasn't it?

The death penalty is not a deterrent because there is no relationship between the crime and the punishment, which often take place decades apart. For example, in Alabama's most recent execution in 2007, the crime was commited in 1989, 18 years prior.

I'm hopeful that the instant justice of being gunned down while in the act of committing a violent crime would impart more of a sense of immediacy.

[Statistical]

26. Among people who think guns are magical this is a common misunderstanding

If it had been unavoidable, that would be different. It may be that it was unavoidable, that the only way this individual had of stopping a life-threatening attack was to use a firearm, and to kill the attacker. Two shots?

The law in most states doesn't say unavoidable. Most states simply have a provision for reasonable. Most homicides aren't unavaoidable. I could try to wrestle a man larger than me to the ground. It is entirely possible I would die to save the life of the criminal. The law doesn't require that I (or anyone acting in defense of life or serious injury) to take an extreme level of risk (even if it would be successful and prevent any death) to stop the situation. Most states once again use "reasonable" test to determine level of force.

Man violently assaulting an unarmed women... a firearm is a reasonable level of force.

In FL the law is even more protective of the law abiding. FL has no-retreat law on the books and law that shields someone from using lethal force to prevent loss of life or bodily injury. Won't even be a grand jury.

2 bullets?

You don't shoot to kill, you shoot to stop. Lethality is no guarantee the crime won't be completed.

The man could have shot once. The criminal jumped him, used the gun to kill the man and lady, and then still died from blood loss 3-4 minutes later.
Police shot to stop the threat. Civilians have right to shoot to stop the threat. Continue to shoot until the threat is ended. Is the assailant survives then great. If he doesn't well that was his choice to make. Shoot to stop not some arbitrary limit to # of rounds fired.

[iverglas]

31. and now we'll look at what I really said

Here's what you quoted me as saying, and then went on to talk about:

If it had been unavoidable, that would be different. It may be that it was unavoidable, that the only way this individual had of stopping a life-threatening attack was to use a firearm, and to kill the attacker.

Here's what I really said:

He solved a problem, and I find the solution regrettable. A death is regrettable. Period.
If it had been unavoidable, that would be different.

You noticed the word "different" in the bit you copied and pasted? Different from what? one might have wondered. Why, I wonder whether it might have been from something else I had referred to. I wonder whether it would have been my finding the death regrettable that would be different if the death had been unavoidable.

Bugger all to do with The law in most states doesn't say unavoidable and all the rest of it.

I wasn't talking about the law.

Why are you?


FL has no-retreat law on the books and law that shields someone from using lethal force to prevent loss of life or bodily injury.

Yes, Florida is a hellhole. We all know that.

And what the law actually does is shield someone from the legal consequences of using lethal force when the individual had the option of escaping the situation and chose not to use it.

The decay of empire is seen in many manifestations ...

[spin]

27. One shot with a handgun may or may not stop an attack...

a lot depends on shot placement and the type of bullets used. Real life shootings are different from Hollywood movies.

In the authors’ ongoing study of violence against law enforcement officers, they have examined several cases where officers used large-caliber hand guns with limited effect displayed by the offenders. In one case, the subject attacked the officer with a knife. The officer shot the individual four times in the chest; then, his weapon malfunctioned. The offender continued to walk toward the officer. After the officer cleared his weapon, he fired again and struck the subject in the chest. Only then did the offender drop the knife. This individual was hit five times with 230-grain, .45-caliber hollow-point ammunition and never fell to the ground. The offender later stated, “The wounds felt like bee stings.”

In another case, officers fired six .40-caliber, hollow-point rounds at a subject who pointed a gun at them. Each of the six rounds hit the individual with no visible effect. The seventh round severed his spinal cord, and the offender fell to the ground, dropping his weapon. This entire firefight was captured by several officers’ in-car video cameras.

In a final case, the subject shot the victim officer in the chest with a handgun and fled. The officer, wearing a bullet-resistant vest, returned gunfire. The officer’s partner observed the incident and also fired at the offender. Subsequent investigation determined that the individual was hit 13 times and, yet, ran several blocks to a gang member’s house. He later said, “I was so scared by all those shots; it sounded like the Fourth of July.” Again, according to the subject, his wounds “only started to hurt when I woke up in the hospital.” The officers had used 9-millimeter, department-issued ammunition. The surviving officers re ported that they felt vulnerable.
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2004/oct2004/oct04leb.htm#page_15

[tburnsten]

71. You "execute" prisoners

People who are not free, and not beating people with blunt objects.



This sort of thing is called "justifiable homicide", it's what happens when someone decides to use their freedom to severely harm someone else, and the only reasonable or effective way to stop them is to kill them. Such as if someone is being stabbed and manages to get the attacker's knife turned around.



Also, force is either lethal or it isn't, once lethal force is justified it makes no difference what kind or amount of lethal force is delivered. If it is alright to shoot him once to stop him it is certainly a better idea to shoot him more than once.

[iverglas]

83. I live in the 21st century

And I use the language of the 21st century. I don't have my head stuck up the 18th century.

The killing of a human being in order to exact punishment or retribution is an execution. When it is done by vigilantes (non-state actors), it is an extra-judicial execution.

The filth being spewed in this thread constitutes approval of, and in fact praise for, vigilantism. Non-state actors engaging in the killing of human beings to exact punishment or retribution, w/o trial or other due process. Extra-judicial execution.

No one here believes that it was necessary to kill the person who was killed in this case any more than I do. No one here believes that the killing was justified -- by the rules that govern justification, not by their own twisted "moral" code or sociopolitical mores -- any more than I do. That is, no one believes that the use of "legal force" was either necessary or justified in this case any more than I do.

[gorfle]

101. But apparently aren't up on 21st century law.

The filth being spewed in this thread constitutes approval of, and in fact praise for, vigilantism. Non-state actors engaging in the killing of human beings to exact punishment or retribution, w/o trial or other due process. Extra-judicial execution.

In point of fact, I don't really have a problem with non-state actors engaging in the killing of human beings who are caught in the act of violent crime and consequently there is little doubt as to the guilt or innocence of the criminal. I mean, that's what self-defense with deadly force is.

No one here believes that it was necessary to kill the person who was killed in this case any more than I do. No one here believes that the killing was justified -- by the rules that govern justification, not by their own twisted "moral" code or sociopolitical mores -- any more than I do. That is, no one believes that the use of "legal force" was either necessary or justified in this case any more than I do.

It would seem the State of Florida does.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

* Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
* Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

It would certainly seem to me, from the facts currently known, that the shooter satisfied both stipulations.

[tburnsten]

107. she loves the beatings eh?

[iverglas]

112. do you read what you write?

In point of fact, I don't really have a problem with non-state actors engaging in the killing of human beings who are caught in the act of violent crime and consequently there is little doubt as to the guilt or innocence of the criminal. I mean, that's what self-defense with deadly force is.

No, that is not what self-defence is. What "self-defence with deadly force" is, I really wouldn't know. Self-defence is a legal justification for a crime. "Self-defence with deadly force" is what someone might happen to feel like doing a little of, I guess.

Legitimate self-defence can involve the use of "deadly force", but must NEVER involve the intent to kill. The intent must be only to prevent the harm about to be done to one's self, using the least possible force to accomplish that end. It may be that the least possible force results in death, and that is legally justifiable. Intending to cause death, rather than intending to prevent harm to one's self, is not.

So back to your little sheep.

Your self-defence addendum has nothing to do with what you first said here. You have expressly approved of vigilantism. You have expressly approved of making the option available to individuals of punishing people for crimes they believe those people have committed.

If the state permits such actions, it is violating rules such as those set out in your Constitution -- no deprivation of life without due process. It is not due process to permit individuals to harm or kill other individuals at their option. The only exception that is admitted to the rule against doing that is the self-defence justification. There is no exception for "he was a very bad man who was doing a very bad thing". Not in your law, not in my law, not in the law of any civilized society.

What you have said is so contrary to the principles and values of your society as expressed in your Constitution, and the principles and values of the party you purport to support, that it amounts to blowing your cover so thoroughly and completely as to not even require comment.

If I read what you wrote in freeperland, I would snigger at the stupidity and transparent viciousness of the author.

I'll just go snigger now.

[gorfle]

127. Self defense.

What "self-defence with deadly force" is, I really wouldn't know.

Then you need to brush up on your reading skills. I bet everyone else here who read it knows what it is. Maybe you're just playing dumb? I think so.

Legitimate self-defence can involve the use of "deadly force", but must NEVER involve the intent to kill.

I promise you, Iverglas, when you fire a gun at someone you certainly aren't out to tickle them.

It's rule #2 of firearm training: never point a firearm at anything you don't intend to destroy.

Now it is true that in point of fact when you are shooting at a threat you are shooting to eliminate the threat, and this may or may not include killing the threat. But you should assume it will kill the threat.

The intent must be only to prevent the harm about to be done to one's self, using the least possible force to accomplish that end. It may be that the least possible force results in death, and that is legally justifiable. Intending to cause death, rather than intending to prevent harm to one's self, is not.

Like I said, I would never fire a gun at someone without assuming I was going to kill them by so doing.

Your self-defence addendum has nothing to do with what you first said here. You have expressly approved of vigilantism. You have expressly approved of making the option available to individuals of punishing people for crimes they believe those people have committed.

When someone is caught in an act of criminal violence, and there is no question of guilt or innocence, I absolutely do approve such people being shot dead for it. You can call it "vigilantism", or "extra-state executions", or whatever you like. I call it "good".

If the state permits such actions, it is violating rules such as those set out in your Constitution -- no deprivation of life without due process.

Well I guess all those right are subject to reasonable restrictions after all, eh? Like, oh, if you get caught beating the snot out someone and you get shot for it, you might be deprived of your life without due process. Oh darn.

It is not due process to permit individuals to harm or kill other individuals at their option.

Nor have I claimed that it is.

The only exception that is admitted to the rule against doing that is the self-defence justification. There is no exception for "he was a very bad man who was doing a very bad thing". Not in your law, not in my law, not in the law of any civilized society.

I have not claimed an exception for "he was a very bad man who was doing a very bad thing". We are talking about lawful self-defense and the defense of others:

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

* Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
* Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

[AtheistCrusader]

156. Incorrect on all counts.

Like I said, I would never fire a gun at someone without assuming I was going to kill them by so doing.

The assumption or acceptance that the target may die, or the general use of lethal force, does not equate the intent to kill.

The purpose of using lethal force in self defence is not to kill your attacker, (or the attacker of a third party, etc) but to end the threat. This may seem like a semantics game, but it's relevant to any investigation of justifiable homicide.

Think of willing versus intend. You may point a gun at something you are willing to destroy, but do not intend to destroy. Acceptance of the risk of death is not the same as embracing or intending death.

[iverglas]

158. just to muddy the waters

Think of willing versus intend. You may point a gun at something you are willing to destroy, but do not intend to destroy. Acceptance of the risk of death is not the same as embracing or intending death.

That's the distinction that applies when the action itself is justified, i.e. the person will then not be liable (civilly or criminally, as the case may be) if the death was not intended, but the action itself was justified.

(We do tend to disregard the fact around here that it is actually possible to act in self-defence without killing someone, and that the same issues arise in mere assault cases as arise in homicide cases: whether the assault, whether it was ultimately a homicide or not, was justified as self-defence.)

If the action itself wasn't justified, however, the distinction doesn't apply. Being reckless as to the consequence of an action triggers liability for that consequence. Thus a punch becomes a murder if the punchee dies, even if all that was intended by the punchor was a bloody nose, as long as the consequence was foreseeable.

A propos of nothing at all, really. In some places, it might serve to assist in understanding the concept in issue, but this isn't likely one of them.

;)

[TPaine7]

160. A serious quibble.

While as a general rule your statement is correct...

"The purpose of using lethal force in self defence is not to kill your attacker, (or the attacker of a third party, etc) but to end the threat. This may seem like a semantics game, but it's relevant to any investigation of justifiable homicide."

...there are exceptions.

It is perfectly legal and acceptable to act with the explicit intent to kill in some (very rare) defensive cases, IMO. Here are a few examples.

1) A school shooter is walking down the hallway systematically shooting students. A police sniper gets a clean shot and destroys the shooter's brain. "Did you shoot to kill?" asks the civilian reporter. "Absolutely" says the sniper. "Explain."

"Of course. Students were in the process of being killed. A chest shot would have put the student down, providing him instant cover. Had he only been wounded, he could have killed more with the grenade in his left hand, or even with the gun. I was unwilling to risk innocent lives to save a murderer while he was in the act of killing those innocents.

The only way to reliably save innocent lives was to destroy his brain, killing him. So yes ma'am, I fully intended to kill him."

2) The exact same rationale from a trained and knowledgeable CCW permitted student at fairly close range who shot a school shooter in the back of the head with her pistol. (With the possible exception of his falling providing cover).

3) A woman is walking along near some train tracks when she is attacked by a jealous knife-wielding assailant. "I'll kill you bitch" the woman screams as she lunges. Tens of seconds later the victim can see her life flashing. The other woman is stronger, faster, and relentless. She is barely surviving.

Then her assailant's slipping in the victim's blood affords an opportunity. Using her opponent's own momentum and every ounce of adrenaline-laced strength, she shoves her over the protective embankment and on to the third rail--where she instantly dies.

"Did you mean to kill her?" asks the police investigator. "Yes sir, she was faster, stronger, and armed with a knife. There was no one to help me, and knocking her down would have just delayed things. If she hadn't died, I would have."

4) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x194772

If the employee could have, she or he should have destroyed the brain of the criminal. According to some authorities at least, a proper brain shot will be reflex free. (I'm too lazy to find the proof right now.) Destroying the brain is the only way to prevent injury to innocent victims in such cases. Thus it is lawful in such cases to intentionally kill, as killing is the only way to achieve the lawful and moral objective.

Of course your statement is true in the vast, overwhelming majority of defensive scenarios, and is a good rule. Most rules have exceptions, however, and this rule is no exception IMO. I'm interested to know what you think.

[AtheistCrusader]

163. One good, one bad

example there, I think. For the sniper, that's an interesting exception. Disabling motor function may not 'kill' technically. Probably, but not certain. If the first shot knocked the target down, and through the scope, the shooter could clearly see the chest rising and falling, I would not really expect follow-up shots to kill per se.. I think the shooter's motivation is the same, to end the threat. But I agree, by it's very nature, the method would be highly lethal. So, i'll grant a grey area there.

On the other example, death is not necessarily assured. Somewhat likely, but could potentially just result in injury. Safety breakers, and such have gotten better. There is sometimes shielding that will protect a person falling. If the victims goal was to kill her assailant (or his, no reason for this to be gender specific), I could see a prosecutor or grand jury having concerns. An injury might do, to save the victim. Killing is a very deliberate act, and I don't see it being necessary as a specific goal in this situation. I consider it an acceptable outcome, but if killing is the mindset, if that was the stated intention of the victim, I expect very intense scrutiny by prosecutor and possibly a jury.

[TPaine7]

165. It seems we tend to agree on the core point.

If the defensive actor believes in reasonably good faith that killing is the only way to effectively end the threat, intentional killing is allowable.

You make some interesting points, however. I also would not expect to see follow up shots to kill in your scenario (where dropping the target would not provide cover) if the shooter were rendered unconscious or otherwise removed as a threat. The intent to kill in my scenario arose entirely from the fact that killing appeared to be the only way to remove the threat. If the threat is removed any other way, the impetus to kill per se vanishes.

In the second example, I think you somewhat miss the point. The victim intended death, whether her (or my, LOL) technical judgment was correct or not. The intent is the point. I would expect the legal system to judge the legitimacy of her stated intent. I would expect the legal system to acquit her if convinced that she intended to kill because killing itself was her only plausible route to survival. (At least from her good faith point of view.)

Edit: On rereading your second point I think I see more. I agree that if the assailant is shocked and incapacitated, the attack necessarily ends. I am not sure that that hits the nail of my point precisely on the head.

Perhaps my point is best stated in the abstract as in the first sentence of this post. If such a case can be shown to exist, I maintain that intentional killing is justified--legally and morally.

[tburnsten]

106. No one shot anyone for a punishment or retribution

He was shot to stop him from continuing to beat another person with an object. Had he not been stopped he might very well have killed the other person, maybe he wouldn't have killed her but by that point he made his choice.

[iverglas]

108. and now let's refresh our tiny memories

One would have greater success conversing with gnats.

Here is the statement of mine that all this brouhaha is about:

Not being a fan of extra-judicial executions, I would expect a very complete investigation and answers to all questions, to determine whether the actions taken were in fact necessary. If I were a resident of Florida, of course, I might have lower expectations.

See?

I would expect a very complete investigation, to ensure that an extra-judicial execution HAD NOT TAKEN PLACE.

That is what I said, and that is all I said ABOUT THIS CASE.

The chatter then dribbled off into various other drivel being shovelled at me (a large part of which consisted very clearly of the yammering of people who DO support the extra-judicial execution of people they deem unfit to live, i.e. in order to exact punishment/retribution against someone with no trial or other due process), and you evidently became completely confused.

So you see, when you say:

No one shot anyone for a punishment or retribution

you are pissing in the wind. No one said anyone did.

Do YOU not want to see a complete investigation?

And when you say:

He was shot to stop him from continuing to beat another person with an object. Had he not been stopped he might very well have killed the other person, maybe he wouldn't have killed her but by that point he made his choice.

you make no more fucking sense than anyone else engaging in the amusing effort to ascribe one person's intent to another.

He made his choice to engage in an illegal assault. He did not make the choice to be killed by a third party. A kindergarten pupil could recognize your statement as abject nonsense. I certainly do, and once again: if you don't, that's sad; if you do and say it anyway, that's sad.

[tburnsten]

109. Your statement represented the event as an extra-judicial execution

Not as a hope that the investigation will successfully determine whether or not it was an extra-judicial execution.



Try again.

[iverglas]

111. your statement is the result of either

gross stupidity or intentional dishonesty.

Which it might be, I never know.

[tburnsten]

115. You are a terrible deceiver, please try harder

[gorfle]

113. I agree 100%

I believe you have correctly interpreted Iverglas' comments, as that is exactly as I interpreted them also.

[tburnsten]

114. Don't expect the slightest bit of honesty about it out of her though

Must be that extra-special canadian legal training we don't get down here.

[iverglas]

117. no, it's grade 5 grammar

Must be that extra-special USAmerican elementary school education you do get down there.

If I had been asserting that an extra-judicial execution had taken place, I would have said:

Not being a fan of extra-judicial executions, I would expect a very complete investigation and answers to all questions, to determine THAT the actions taken WERE NOT in fact necessary.

What I actually said was:

Not being a fan of extra-judicial executions, I would expect a very complete investigation and answers to all questions, to determine WHETHER the actions taken WERE in fact necessary.

It's actually illiterate to do it, but many people say "whether or not" instead of "whether". "Whether or not" is a redundancy. But you can use it here if it helps you:

Not being a fan of extra-judicial executions, I would expect a very complete investigation and answers to all questions, to determine WHETHER OR NOT the actions taken were in fact necessary.

The verb "determine" has an object here. What is to be determined? Whether the actions taken were in fact necessary is to be determined. NOT "that the actions taken were not in fact necessary", or whatever else you people think you are seeing / pretend to be seeing there.

Why would an investigation be desired if a conclusion were being stated in the same breath?

It's truly a fascinating experience, this is. Talking to a swarm of gnats for whom speech itself is evidently a third language.

[gorfle]

125. Of course not.

Bevul pegged her dead on a year ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=166774

"You don't want to clearly be understood. Anyone that does, makes an honest and obvious attempt at doing so, and you don't. The a full 3/4 of any argument or discussion with you, is getting past your verbiage and the fact that you could say clearly and unambiguously convey any message you liked using a simple sentence or 3, yet you don't. You dont want people to understand you clearly, any more than someone whos playing catch wants thier partner to catch thier throw when its thrown deliberately long or short of where thier partner is. Thats your game. Throwing deliberately long or short, and complaining when your throw isn't caught."

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

85. Anyone worth being shot once should be shot again.

[tucsonlib]

146. Phew!

I'm certainly relieved that there's somebody out there with the divine power to determine who among us is "worth being shot"! Since you're a "Fire Medic", I can only assume that you also have the wisdom to judge who among us is "worth being saved".

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

149. Criminals inflicting serious bodily harm on a woman in the commission of a felony deserve to be shot

Everyone is worth being saved. I work just as hard on the criminals as I do the victims if they are my patient.

David

[tucsonlib]

152. Only If It's On A Woman?

What if it's a woman inflicting serious bodily harm upon a man? Surely you wouldn't deprive her of her right to be gunned down based solely on gender.

But, more to the point of your post: Why is everyone "worth being saved"? You mean the same guy you would have blown away, had you caught him in the act, has magically become worthy of saving?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

153. There are many examples, I just gave you one based on this story.

If I find it necessary to shoot someone, I will likely shoot them twice as that is how I've been trained. If the threat they pose is neutralized by those shots and no one else is injured then I will do my best to save them. I hope that cleared up my position. My answer was speaking about past incidents that I have worked. You see sometimes the drunk driver kills the other people and the drunk driver is the only patient left to treat, sometimes the child molester has a heart attack and when they are my patient I treat them with respect and give them the best care I am able to give. Sorry if that doesn't fit with your ideas about me.

David

[AtheistCrusader]

161. That's a very human response.

I agree with the sentiment. I would want to do the same as you. As a first responder, that's the first thing they train out of us.

A non-violent example. You are alone, you find someone unconscious on the ground, maybe on a bike trail. They have no pulse/respiration. Your first inclination would probably be to start CPR. You cannot. FIRST you must summon EMS. CPR does not generally revive people who have ceased respiration or heart beat. You do more for that person's chances of survival if you get EMS rolling FIRST, then start rescue breathing and compressions.

Another example they worked us over with, you see some workers collapse to the ground in a new foundation of a building at a construction site. Do you run in to help? In the real life example, everyone who did, died. An argon tank, used as a gas exclusion field for a welder had ruptured, displacing all the oxygen. You couldn't see it. You couldn't smell it. It was quite lethal, and more bodies meant more work for the EMS with oxygen tanks and MAPP gear to go in and haul out, in an attempt to save them. (I don't recall if EVERY victim died, but it was pretty lethal)

Same thing here. If I were in that situation from the OP, bravado aside, (in my state we cannot bring a firearm into a liquor store, even with a CPL) I would call the police FIRST. Now, If I felt I had overwhelming physical superiority, I might go grapple with him (or her). If I don't feel completely confident, I'm going to retrieve my firearm while calling the police.


Your sentiment is perfectly normal, a healthy human response to another human in distress. I applaud it. BUT, it is often not the best method to save someone, or protect yourself. In many cases, it can get you killed, and not save the person that was originally in distress.

[gorfle]

13. LOL, cowardly.

Iverglas, if you have to be in a fight, you don't make it a fair one.

Now if you don't have any other option, or if you are an exceptional martial artist, by all means, use what you have at your disposal.

But don't fault a man for using a weapon to overcome his innate weakness and give him an advantage over his adversary while acting righteously. There is nothing cowardly about using a weapon in defense of others. I guarantee you, if it had been a police officer, he would not have put down his weapons and engaged the person "mano a mano". He would have pulled out a weapon, and, if he thought it necessary, shot the perpetrator - just like the good Samaritan did.

If I am ever in a situation where I can come to the defense of someone being beaten and I have the choice of fetching a weapon or not, I'll fetch the weapon. Who but a fool would not?

[iverglas]

18. such reading comprehension

Totally missed the bit where I noted how his taking the time to go fetch his firearm could have meant the difference between life and death for the victim, you did, did you?

I didn't fault a man for using a weapon to overcome his innate weakness and give him an advantage over his adversary while acting righteously (cripes, I hate even copying and pasting those icky buzzwords of the gun brigade's).

If I am ever in a situation where I can come to the defense of someone being beaten and I have the choice of fetching a weapon or not, I'll fetch the weapon. Who but a fool would not?

Someone who cared more about saving the victim than righteously offing a bad guy, I daresay.

[rangersmith82]

20. Got it now

Thanks

[gorfle]

36. I comprehend completely.

Totally missed the bit where I noted how his taking the time to go fetch his firearm could have meant the difference between life and death for the victim, you did, did you?

I didn't comment on it because I didn't think it was necessary, as I have stated my opinion on this many times in the past. I think it's irresponsible to leave a firearm in a vehicle, and I would much rather the fellow have been carrying the weapon and thus saving the trip.

The bottom line is, the man felt he needed a tool to successfully complete the job, so he fetched a tool. Yes, taking the time to fetch the tool could have cost the victim her life, and I wish he had been carrying concealed so as to reduce that risk. But in the end, everything worked out fine.

I didn't fault a man for using a weapon to overcome his innate weakness and give him an advantage over his adversary while acting righteously

You called him a "cowardly asshole". This indicates to me that you found fault with the man and/or his actions. I assumed, based on what you wrote, that you feel he is is a "cowardly asshole" because he used a weapon to defend the victim rather than "grab(ing) the nearest object and smack(ing) him/her, or simply grab(ing) something and pull(ing), without even thinking twice."

It's clear based on your description of my assessment of the event ("icky buzzwords") that you feel that what the guy did was not righteous. One wonders if the victim in this incident feels that her rescuer was acting righteously or not? If someone had similarly saved you from your assault years ago would you harbor such disgust and resentment towards your rescuer?

Honestly in my layman's opinion it sounds to me as if maybe you have resentment issues in that there was no one to save you that day as there was for this woman. It sounds like a good explanation for your attitude towards this citizen's upstanding actions.

Someone who cared more about saving the victim than righteously offing a bad guy, I daresay.

You are making the unfounded assumption that the reason for choosing to fetch a weapon is dictated by some desire to "righteously off a bad guy", rather than, say, necessity, or even self-preservation.

Police do not respond to violent crime disarmed if they can help it - why would anyone else?

[iverglas]

39. what's clear

It's clear based on your description of my assessment of the event ("icky buzzwords") that you feel that what the guy did was not righteous.

is that I don't use icky buzzwords to obfuscate.

A killing is a killing. It may be justified, but I would be hard pressed to find a killing I would describe as "righteous". Nauseating demagoguery and abuse of language is what I would describe that as.

And yes, one dictionary definition of "righteous" is "morally justified". If that were the impression that the use of the word were intended to convey, I can't think of why someone would not simply say "justified".


Honestly in my layman's opinion it sounds to me as if maybe you have resentment issues in that there was no one to save you that day as there was for this woman. It sounds like a good explanation for your attitude towards this citizen's upstanding actions.

Honestly, your filthy presumptuous ignorant personal commentary makes me puke. Or it would if I cared. I care only because I'm sure I'm not the only woman you think you're better than when you so very much are not.



You are making the unfounded assumption that the reason for choosing to fetch a weapon is dictated by some desire to "righteously off a bad guy", rather than, say, necessity, or even self-preservation.

Nope.


Police do not respond to violent crime disarmed if they can help it - why would anyone else?

Police do not wander the streets with firearms subject to no public oversight - why would anyone else?

[gorfle]

45. More clarity.

A killing is a killing. It may be justified, but I would be hard pressed to find a killing I would describe as "righteous". Nauseating demagoguery and abuse of language is what I would describe that as.

And yes, one dictionary definition of "righteous" is "morally justified". If that were the impression that the use of the word were intended to convey, I can't think of why someone would not simply say "justified".

Because "justified" conveys only the sense that perhaps it was only legally justified, when in fact shootings such as this go beyond being merely legally justified and in fact are morally justified.

When violent scum die, the world is simply a better place.

The wasted life of the miscreant is unfortunate. It would have been far better had the miscreant had better opportunities to avail himself to other than crime, and/or had he chosen to avail himself to them. But he didn't. And so while what became of his life is sad, unfortunate, and regrettable, the fact that he is gone from this world now is not.

Honestly, your filthy presumptuous ignorant personal commentary makes me puke. Or it would if I cared. I care only because I'm sure I'm not the only woman you think you're better than when you so very much are not.

Iverglas, the fact that you are a woman has nothing to do with my comments to you. And I don't claim to be better than you, just more correct on firearm issues than you are.

I'm just sitting here wondering why you can hold such distaste for what this good man did when you were in a similar situation yourself. Then it occurred to me that maybe you are just resentful that no one was there to rescue you.

I notice you conveniently ignored my questions:

One wonders if the victim in this incident feels that her rescuer was acting righteously or not? If someone had similarly saved you from your assault years ago would you harbor such disgust and resentment towards your rescuer?

Police do not wander the streets with firearms subject to no public oversight - why would anyone else?

You are dodging my question. You have made the assertion that people should respond to such situations as the one described in this story without a weapon. To which I asked you, if you have the choice to respond to such a situation as in this story with a firearm or without, why would you not do so when police don't do so? The police don't base their decision on public oversight. They base it on its effectiveness.

But to answer your question, other people besides police would wander the streets with firearms subject to no public oversight so that they can lawfully intercede in the face of criminal activity.

[iverglas]

48. nothing occurred to you

I'm just sitting here wondering why you can hold such distaste for what this good man did when you were in a similar situation yourself. Then it occurred to me that maybe you are just resentful that no one was there to rescue you.

You simply made up some filthy ignorant shit and spewed it.

WHO and/or WHAT might someone in my position have been resentful of?? What possible sense could your tortured verbiage make? Hey -- maybe I resent god. God smites down some bad guys, but not that one, so I hate god. How's that? It might even make sense, if I'd believed in such twaddle.

The garbage you spewed was the epitome of ad locutorem "argument". It was baseless and insulting personal commentary issued for no reason but to attempt to discredit. It is transparent as glass.


I notice you conveniently ignored my questions:

One wonders if the victim in this incident feels that her rescuer was acting righteously or not?

That one's easy: who the fuck cares?

If someone had similarly saved you from your assault years ago would you harbor such disgust and resentment towards your rescuer?

Stopped beating that dog yet?

[gorfle]

51. No, it actually did occur to me.

You simply made up some filthy ignorant shit and spewed it.

No, I assure you I did not. I was sitting here trying to fathom what would prompt someone to defend a violent perpetrator who got shot dead in the act. I can't think of one. But then your past experience with an assault occurred to me, and I thought that might explain your hostility against the fellow in this story who saved the victim.

WHO and/or WHAT might someone in my position have been resentful of?? What possible sense could your tortured verbiage make? Hey -- maybe I resent god. God smites down some bad guys, but not that one, so I hate god. How's that? It might even make sense, if I'd believed in such twaddle.

Well as you know, Iverglas, lots of people do believe in such twaddle. So if people can be resentful against fictional people, it's even more reasonable to envision people being resentful of real people.

The garbage you spewed was the epitome of ad locutorem "argument". It was baseless and insulting personal commentary issued for no reason but to attempt to discredit. It is transparent as glass.

I'm not attempting to discredit you or your hostility towards the hero of our story, that is easily done, as I have shown. Rather I'm trying to explain it.

[iverglas]

52. then you are the one with the problem

[gorfle]

53. That could be...

That could be, but since you appear to be the only one in this thread angry at the shooter, I doubt it.

[iverglas]

55. it's all you've got, isn't it?

That could be, but since you appear to be the only one in this thread angry at the shooter, I doubt it.

I don't appear to be any such thing, but you go ahead and say it. It makes the absence of any genuine content that much more glaring.

[gorfle]

58. No, but It's enough.

I don't appear to be any such thing, but you go ahead and say it. It makes the absence of any genuine content that much more glaring.

Give me a break, Iverglas. You are practically acting as champion for the criminal in this thread. You couldn't do a better job rushing to this guy's defense if you were his mother.

[iverglas]

63. you really should

learn to understand the English language.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

79. You appear to be very angry to me.

Hope everything is going okay with your family.

David

[beevul]

90. Whom, exactly, is it that DOES...

Whom, exactly, is it that DOES "wander the streets with firearms subject to no public oversight"?

You did say NO public oversight , right?

Like as in zip, zero zilch nadda.





Where is this mythical place, where anyone might "wander the streets with firearms subject to no public oversight"?



And no, you didn't directly say...but clearly and certainly implied that people "wander the streets with firearms subject to no public oversight".

So, where is this happening, exactly, and how does it pertain to the discussion at hand?

[TPaine7]

92. You beat me to it.

I'm so tired of that particular "misrepresentation."

Unless, of course, she is talking about folks with diplomatic immunity. But wait, even they can be deported, so...

I've got it. Invisible aliens. With six shooters. Or something.

[iverglas]

94. I give up

If we assume for the sake of argument that you have a permit to carry a concealed firearm, and you do so: to whom do you report your movements?

I'll be very curious to hear.

[gorfle]

96. Reporting your movements.

Just because you may not be constantly relaying your movements does not mean there is no public oversight.

But anyway, as we saw from the citizen who shot the violent attacker with the bottle, people who legally defensively use firearms probably report their movement as quickly as possible via 911.

But you just keep moving those goalposts.

[gorfle]

97. I thought the exact same thing.

Whom, exactly, is it that DOES "wander the streets with firearms subject to no public oversight"?

I thought the exact same thing. I didn't say anything because I fully expected the usual Iverglas retort that she didn't mean actually "walking" when she said "wandering", but instead meant people driving around in cars, too. And since you can drive around in your car with a firearm with no public oversight, I didn't bring it up.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

77. A cop might have used a taser.

[gorfle]

98. True, but...

A cop might have used a taser.

It's true that a cop might have used a taser, but they would be the only person I would recommend trying it. Civilian tasers are limited to a range of 15 feet, which is inside the 21 foot range where a knife-wielding assailant can cover the ground to you just as fast as trained handgunners are able to draw and fire 2 rounds (see Tueller Drill).

This means that with the civilian taser, you generally will get one shot, and if you miss, your assailant will be able to cover the ground to reach you before you will be able to draw and use another weapon.

Law-enforcement tasers have a maximum range of 35 feet, which could, in theory, give a police officer time to fire the taser and revert to a backup weapon if he missed.

Because of the limitations of the civilian tasers, I would not recommend one for civilian defensive use unless you find it immoral to use deadly force.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

99. I agree.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

100. I agree.

[TPaine7]

30. To some folks, this guy has to be a "cowardly asshole."

Everyone else needs to click on the link where he speaks for himself (see post 25).

According to the shooter:

1) He didn't leave the woman to retrieve the weapon

2) He thought the guy was beating her with a firearm--the thought it was a "fair"--or if you prefer "heroic"--fight.

3) He doesn't present himself as the "big brave rescuer" of iverglas' anti-gun fantasy

4) His attitude is, at least to me, pitch perfect

Someone might want to take back her stereotypical BS. (Though I seriously doubt an outbreak of integrity, decency, honesty or humanity will afflict her anytime soon.)



To some folks, this guy has to be a "cowardly asshole." To me, however, he appears to be a very decent guy.

[iverglas]

35. and to some people he might be a frail little old man

Put paid to that one, didn't it?

26, and built like the proverbial. Although I did note that his SUV was considerably taller than he was.

Nope. Don't want my safety or life in the hands of that one. Ta very much.

Charming fellow, I'm sure. Total stranger to me, even after 10 minutes of being sucked up to by a reporter who ain't winning no investigative journalism award for that effort.

I tried twice to follow his description of how it went dooown -- "As he came up ... pop pop" ... but after being unable to view the video in Firefox or IE, and opening Netscape for the occasion, and being stymied by some security certificate problem and closing and reopening Netscape and trying again and having the same thing happen, I just couldn't make it out. I am absolutely unenlightened as to what was happening that he decided he had to shoot.


According to the shooter:
1) He didn't leave the woman to retrieve the weapon

According to the news report that is the subject of this thread, and every news report available via google news up to now, he did. Those were the facts on which everyone who posted in this thread declared him a hero.

2) He thought the guy was beating her with a firearm--the thought it was a "fair"--or if you prefer "heroic"--fight.

Forgive me if I think that doesn't make a fuck of a lot of sense. Do many firearms resemble bottles, btw? Or do some people just have gunz on the brain?

3) He doesn't present himself as the "big brave rescuer" of iverglas' anti-gun fantasy

Really? Did I say he did? Or was I addressing what was said in this thread?

4) His attitude is, at least to me, pitch perfect

His attitude was, to me, that of an alien being. Someone who drives around in 16 tonnes of metal and keeps a loaded firearm readily accessible inside the behemoth, and by the bye can quote the laws about shooting people in Florida chapter and verse, nope, that's not someone who inhabits my universe. And it's not someone I want to be within many kilometres of, ever. I do not want my life, or anyone else's - anyone's - depending on the judgment of people like him.

To some folks, this guy has to be a "cowardly asshole." To me, however, he appears to be a very decent guy.

To me, he was a gunshot death waiting to happen.

I wonder what he would have done if he had not had that firearm. I wouldn't doubt him if he said he would have dived in fists flying. And if he had, the odds of anybody at all being dead are really quite slim.

Just the usual. Add a firearm to a situation where nobody would have ended up dead, and somebody ends up dead. Just like in the vast majority of other firearms deaths.

But hell. 97% of the victims are worthless pieces of shit, so who cares?

[gorfle]

37. On the video.

I tried twice to follow his description of how it went dooown -- "As he came up ... pop pop" ... but after being unable to view the video in Firefox or IE, and opening Netscape for the occasion, and being stymied by some security certificate problem and closing and reopening Netscape and trying again and having the same thing happen, I just couldn't make it out. I am absolutely unenlightened as to what was happening that he decided he had to shoot.

Frankly, unless the guy has been cleared to speak about this by his attorney, he was stupid to discuss any aspect of the shooting at all. All of this is likely now submissible in any future lawsuit. While I believe the guy's testimony based on his demeanor, the fact is he is still visibly distraught from the event and I would never advise making statements for the record in that condition.


According to the news report that is the subject of this thread, and every news report available via google news up to now, he did. Those were the facts on which everyone who posted in this thread declared him a hero.

To me, it doesn't really matter whether the guy left to retrieve a firearm or not. But according to the video, he went back to his car to get his cell phone and as he got it he heard the woman (who he says he knows) cry for help, and at that time he also grabbed his firearm, while simultaneously dialing 911.

But whether he went to his car or the moon, the fact of the matter is he saved this woman from being beaten.

Forgive me if I think that doesn't make a fuck of a lot of sense. Do many firearms resemble bottles, btw? Or do some people just have gunz on the brain?

Who knows? Even police have made mistakes in judging what kind of weapon a person they shot was or was not carrying. Here's an example where a police officer mistook a cell phone for a gun and subsequently shot the carrier:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003949613_webshooting14m.html

And in the above case, the person shot wasn't even engaged in a violent act!

His attitude was, to me, that of an alien being. Someone who drives around in 16 tonnes of metal and keeps a loaded firearm readily accessible inside the behemoth, and by the bye can quote the laws about shooting people in Florida chapter and verse, nope, that's not someone who inhabits my universe. And it's not someone I want to be within many kilometres of, ever. I do not want my life, or anyone else's - anyone's - depending on the judgment of people like him.

Well I think he sounds like a reasonable fellow. I don't see what his choice of vehicle has to do with the matter. The fact that he keeps a loaded firearm readily accessible in his vehicle I think is risky, but, given the difficulty of concealed carry I can understand why many people opt for leaving firearms in their vehicles rather than on their person. The fact that he can quote laws about shooting people in Florida shows that he is a knowledgeable, responsible firearm owner. If you are going to own firearms, you have a serious obligation to understand the laws relating to their use in your state. Doubly so if you are going to carry one outside of the home. Also, this fellow has probably already (hopefully) spoken to an attorney, or at least the police who responded to the incident, and they have informed him of where he stands with regards to the law and this incident.

To me, he was a gunshot death waiting to happen.

To me, he was a good Samaritan waiting to happen.

But hell. 97% of the victims are worthless pieces of shit, so who cares?

Yes, Iverglas, I agree with you - 97% of the criminals are worthless pieces of shit. Why don't you try rooting for the home team for once?

[TPaine7]

75. When Rush Limbaugh

talks about a woman's age, build or other physical attributes in a context like this, it is misogyny. Of course. Ditto for any guy on this site, and even any woman who's on the "wrong" side of the CCW issue. But if you're iverglas, and if you're defending your untenable position, it's OK.

26, and built like the proverbial. Although I did note that his SUV was considerably taller than he was.

...

Charming fellow, I'm sure.

Do you have the tiniest scintilla of integrity, decency or consistency, iverglas? Are you like this on all subjects? We know you vehemently deny that your thinking on weapons policy is shaped by phobia, trauma or the like. So what can account for your talking ill of a man you don't know--a man who took action to save a woman--on the basis of his age and physical attributes? And why would any male whatsoever be wrong for doing the same thing in reverse?!

Nope. Don't want my safety or life in the hands of that one. Ta very much.

If you think that, seeing you in that situation, he should have calmly watched you beaten--or killed--who am I do disagree? You know iverglas better than I do.

Oops, maybe not. Here's a quick quiz:

1) Is iverglas a man hater?
2) Is iverglas a feminist?
3) Does iverglas believe in gender equality?

(There may be some overlap, but the quiz was designed for a special case.)

[TPaine7]

78. Apparently that quiz was too difficult...

So here's the revised edition. One question only.

1) Does iverglas believe in anything?

[iverglas]

84. like swimming in mud

Of course, in this instance I'm not actually persuaded you didn't grasp the point.

26, and built like the proverbial.

NOT "a older gentleman" <sic>, "just no match for him" (post 68).

Although I did note that his SUV was considerably taller than he was.

Since I have no idea how tall the individual in question is, the comment was too obviously a comment on the size of his vehicle. An expensive, gas-guzzling, resource-wasting, pointless waste of space vehicle. Not something that anyone I choose to spend time with drives.


So what can account for your talking ill of a man you don't know--a man who took action to save a woman--on the basis of his age and physical attributes?

Stopped beating the dog yet?

A normal person would have turned bright red at the embarrassment of it all at this point.


If you think that, seeing you in that situation, he should have calmly watched you beaten--or killed--who am I do disagree?

If you think you're a clever boy, well, you're mistaken.

We've had equivocation (pretending to interpret my words about the individual and his vehicle in a way no reasonable decent person would interpret them), a loaded question -- and now a false dichotomy!

Going for a record? You'll have a way to go before you beat your own, I fear.

[TPaine7]

91. "A normal person would have turned bright red"

Of course, in this instance I'm not actually persuaded you didn't grasp the point.

26, and built like the proverbial.

NOT "a older gentleman" <sic>, "just no match for him" (post 68).

So you were continuing to build your case against this "cowardly asshole", right?

You had already feminized him--most men don't worry about breaking nails (and yes, it is insulting to suggest femininity in a man while calling him a cowardly asshole). You follow up by saying that he's "26, and built like the proverbial"--he's not an older gentleman. The obvious point being that this fingernail concerned, cowardly asshole was young and stout. (Of course you saw enough of him to know how he was built but not enough to have an idea how tall he was, but I can't dwell on every sophistry.)

Why would a young, stout man arm himself before walking into an unknown danger? No heroic person, careless of danger or risk (such as iverglas imagines herself to be) would do such a thing. Only a fingernail concerned person would do that. A person not willing to take romantic risks. An asshole. Yea that's it. A cowardly asshole.

My "loaded" question...

"So what can account for your talking ill of a man you don't know--a man who took action to save a woman--on the basis of his age and physical attributes?"

...was loaded with evidence.

"A normal person would have turned bright red at the embarrassment of it all at this point."

I agree. But you persist. Is it masochism?

Seriously. Is that why you call me Master?

I may bring you Paine, but I don't mean it that way. Really. This is a political place, a safe haven. At least it's supposed to be.

[iverglas]

110. tell that to the hockey players

You had already feminized him--most men don't worry about breaking nails (and yes, it is insulting to suggest femininity in a man while calling him a cowardly asshole). You follow up by saying that he's "26, and built like the proverbial"--he's not an older gentleman. The obvious point being that this fingernail concerned, cowardly asshole was young and stout. (Of course you saw enough of him to know how he was built but not enough to have an idea how tall he was, but I can't dwell on every sophistry.)

Why would a young, stout man arm himself before walking into an unknown danger? No heroic person, careless of danger or risk (such as iverglas imagines herself to be) would do such a thing. Only a fingernail concerned person would do that. A person not willing to take romantic risks. An asshole. Yea that's it. A cowardly asshole.

What a house of cards you do build.

http://www.hockeyfights.com/fights/55083/3 (my emphasis)

Hockey fights. The sport of he-men.

Date / Time Away / Home Team Away / Home Player
Dec 26, 2008 Philadelphia Flyers Mike Richards
3pd 12:47 Chicago Blackhawks Troy Brouwer
Comments: Other Penalties: Richards received a slashing.

<reader comment> This really wasn't worth commenting on. New Rule - it can't be called a fight when only one guy is throwing punches!!! New Rule #2 - if you're not going to throw punches, don't drop your gloves! Looked like Richards didn't want to break a finger nail. Geez that was lame.

How about a car guy? Wanna call him a pansy? A car guy whose home page says AMERICA FIRST!?

http://www.oa5599.us/v8c.htm

Then it was time to get the engine bolted down once and for all... Of course, it was kind of a nightmare as usual. First the trans cross member got bolted to the frame rails. That was pretty easy especially since Miata frame rails are made of tin foil. Actually, a lightened version of tin foil. I was gonna just poke my pinky through the sides to make the bolt holes, but didn't want to break a fingernail, so I used an electric drill.

Now, that one was literal. A guy, concerned about literally breaking a fingernail. For shame.

But the first one was ... c'mon, you know by now what's coming ... it was ... A FIGURE OF SPEECH.

Just like it was in my comment.

And who's the sexist here btw, anyhow?

Why, it's quite obvious that it's the one who chooses to make an issue of a woman's use of (what he considers to be) a woman's turn of phrase.

We just can't win, we can't. Curse like a sailor, and we're deviant. Talk like ladies, and we're deviant. If you ever want a clue, you can start with Women and Madness, Robin Morgan I think it was. Seminal, but of course surpassed by three decades of thought that I'm sure has never entered your cranium.


Oh, and I saw enough of the individual in question to observe his own height-width ratio. Not to see his height:world at large ratio. I saw his height:SUV ratio, but believe me, I don't know how fucking tall an SUV is.


So you were continuing to build your case against this "cowardly asshole", right?

Nope. I was pointing out that all the speculation about how he might have been a frail old gent was now known to be inaccurate. As you know. There are some things you do know, I know.


html fixed

[TPaine7]

129. Google is *not* your friend...

(nor for that matter is wikipedia).

Let's see iverglas. You managed to find two entire sources, the first of which supports my point, the second of which is irrelevant.

Impressive.

Hockey fights. The sport of he-men.

Date / Time Away / Home Team Away / Home Player
Dec 26, 2008 Philadelphia Flyers Mike Richards
3pd 12:47 Chicago Blackhawks Troy Brouwer
Comments: Other Penalties: Richards received a slashing.

<reader comment> This really wasn't worth commenting on. New Rule - it can't be called a fight when only one guy is throwing punches!!! New Rule #2 - if you're not going to throw punches, don't drop your gloves! Looked like Richards didn't want to break a finger nail. Geez that was lame.

Come on, iverglas! Can't even you see what the commentator is saying?

"Richards is a pansy. He drops his gloves like he's ready to fight, then serves as the other guys punching bag. What a sissy! I guess he didn't want to break a fingernail."

Sounds a lot like your point under discussion:

Taking the time to go out to a vehicle and get a gun ... the victim could have been dead by then, while the big brave rescuer was busy getting his fetish object, and making sure he didn't break a fingernail.

You're both mocking the guy concerned about his fingernail. For being "unmanly," a wuss. Thanks for proving my point.

The second source is talking about literally breaking a fingernail, a rare occurrence and an even rarer concern for most men. And beside the point.

You got caught, iverglas. Why not shock us all and admit it?

That, at least, would be genuinely interesting. Taking apart your sophistries is getting boring, monotonous even. It's far too easy. Are you even trying?!!!!

[iverglas]

138. the only one worried about being "unmanly" here

is not me. The concept would not have, and didn't, occur to me. The inherent contradiction in critiquing the actions of someone playing the big brave he-man hero and at the same time calling him a girlyman would have made my head explode. My head has a low threshold of tolerance for total nonsense.

The fact is that YOU think that being a coward is "unmanly". I think it's just being cowardly. I think both sexes are equally capable of cowardice. I think it has sweet fanny adams to do with sex. As did my comment on doing what the individual here did. I might assume he was acting out of ideas of "manliness" himself, but my comment was on his decisions and actions from a purely gender-neutral standpoint. He hauled out his pistol and started shooting while ensuring that he was himself at no risk. He caused a death without pausing for a second to attempt to stop harm from being caused to the victim without causing a death, without breaking a sweat ... or a fingernail.

I don't doubt that he was acting out of well-primed gun adrenaline, all trained and learnèd in the laws as he was, all prepared for someday having to do the deed, all righteously girded for the righteous shoot. But that's an entirely separate matter. What he did was cause a death without giving an instant's thought to trying to stop the harm otherwise, in a way that might have put himself at some risk but that would have been very, highly unlikely to result in any death.


All concerned about being called "unmanly" as you are, it's no damned wonder you're so married to the gunz.

Just don't be wondering why somebody brings up that old stereotype next time it rears its head. You just made yourself the poster boy for it. Don't be callin' the gun guys unmanly. They get all, er, self-righteous on your ass.

[X_Digger]

143. Where's that magic crystal ball you talk about?

What he did was cause a death without giving an instant's thought to trying to stop the harm otherwise

I've watched the videos, don't remember him saying that..

[TPaine7]

154. Yeah, that's it

"The inherent contradiction in critiquing the actions of someone playing the big brave he-man hero and at the same time calling him a girlyman would have made my head explode.'

Actually, it makes perfect sense to critique "someone playing the big brave he-man hero" by calling him a "girlyman." You could see that if it weren't for that pesky gun control reality distortion field.

"My head has a low threshold of tolerance for total nonsense."

LOL! See exhibit A above. It's not your most egregious example, but it is total nonsense.

'The fact is that YOU think that being a coward is "unmanly".'

Yes, that's why I've argued for utilitarian lifesaving while you've argued for heroic insensitivity to danger and romantic hand-to-hand combat.

'All concerned about being called "unmanly" as you are, it's no damned wonder you're so married to the gunz.

Just don't be wondering why somebody brings up that old stereotype next time it rears its head. You just made yourself the poster boy for it. Don't be callin' the gun guys unmanly. They get all, er, self-righteous on your ass.'

This exchange is not about heroism. It's not about judging a man by his physical characteristics. It's not about your personal fearlessness. It's not about your inability to read under the gun control reality distortion field. It's not about your sources supporting my point. It's not about your using terms, the implications of which you have no clue about--"the paucity of the lingo" I think it's called hereabouts. It's not even about your inability to concede the obvious.

No. It's about my deepseated fear of being called unmanly.

Yea, that's it.

[tburnsten]

116. You base your personal relationships on the other person's vehicle?

Shallow!

[iverglas]

118. you have the equation inside out

A person who drives an SUV is shallow (for starters), and I don't engage in relationships with shallow people.

You're welcome.

[tburnsten]

121. Couldn't make this stuff up

"A person who drives an SUV is shallow (for starters), and I don't engage in relationships with shallow people.

You're welcome."




Amazing.

[iverglas]

122. just what I say to myself every time I visit this place

I mean, you could make it up. But only as in the stuff nightmares are made of.

I dreamed I slept in marble halls
where each damp thing that creeps and crawls
went wobble wobble on the walls.

Shallow is actually a reasonably good word for it. The completely unthinking parroting of graven memes by people who never lift their eyes from what's in front of them and look over the horizon. Swimming in the shallow end, that will be a pretty good description of hanging out here. Paddling around lifting the rocks.

Cannonball!!

[chrisa]

81. Good god. Monday Morning QB much?

Do you think he should have sat there and analyzed the situation while the criminal was beating the shit out of the woman? Everything looks like a gun when your adrenaline is pumping.

"Just the usual. Add a firearm to a situation where nobody would have ended up dead, and somebody ends up dead. Just like in the vast majority of other firearms deaths."

Yup, he should have charged the criminal instead, upon which the perp pulls out a knife and slashes both of their throats, or puts a bullet into his head. I'm glad you think charging at somebody who could be armed with fists flying is a good tactic.

[iverglas]

86. you beat your dog EVERY DAY???

[iverglas]

119. oh, and I object to the sexist language

Master Paine tells me it is insulting to use an idiom that ordinarily refers to one sex in reference to the other.

He was wrong in my case, but he would be right on this one as far as the nature of the idiom: I didn't even have a clue what "Monday Morning QB" meant until about the 8th time I looked at it and decided to set my mind to it.

No, I am not a big burly football-player looking woman, so please don't impugn my femininity with these slurs.

[chrisa]

131. Haha... What?

You're not making much sense.

[iverglas]

139. click the link, sweetie; follow the conversation

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=196259&mesg_id=196577

It's right here in this thread.

[X_Digger]

145. Oh, the paucity of lingo!

I didn't even have a clue what "Monday Morning QB" meant

*snort* 'pop your clogs', indeed!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

80. Surely you realize that people have died from being struck with a bottle.

I would guess that serious bodily injury is common for victims struck in the head with a bottle multiple times. This was definitely a legally justifiable and morally justified "righteous" shooting based on the limited information that we have. I don't like women being assaulted by anyone, including criminals in the act of committing a felony, so I may be biased.

David

[gorfle]

15. A fantastic anecdote!

This is a fantastic anecdote of how defensive firearm use is supposed to work.

[the_real_38]

22. Looks like a clean shoot.

And a happy ending.

[spin]

25. Raw TV interview with the man who did the shooting...

Form your own opinions...

http://www.wftv.com/video/18421326/index.html

[rrneck]

72. Killing people

is wrong. Every time. I don't care who. I don't care why. Sometimes it is necessary. Welcome to the human condition.

I watched the footage provided by spin (thanks) and the young man was distraught and upset by the entire incident. He is also caught up in the midst of his fifteen minutes of fame. How this will play out for him emotionally who can tell? I hope he comes out of it ok, but he may not. As for the guy he killed? He's dead. But I won't judge him. The fact that he died assaulting another should not obviate the fact that we all failed him a long time ago. There were uncountable chances for society to steer him in another direction, and they were ignored. As far as I'm concerned, we all killed him. And that's nothing to be proud of.

[jmg257]

73. Don't be so hard on yourself. Could be he had ample direction and just plain refused

to go the right way. Hard to know - but a 40 yr old male willing to beat a women with a bottle for some money may have been beyond society's reach.

He might have to take the blame for his own demise.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

87. He is completely responsible his own death.

He killed himself, I had nothing to do with it.

David

[iverglas]

88. surveillance video

http://www.wesh.com/video/18432314/index.html

[gorfle]

102. I feel bad for the shooter.

I hope I'm never in that situation. What a life-scarring event.

[spin]

95. TV video, Florida guns laws explained. (applies to shooting incident)

http://www.wesh.com/video/18424106/index.html

[iverglas]

104. check the post above yours

I watched the "gun laws explained", but of course prefer my law straight up.

I must say Christopher did seem to have a good grasp of those laws in his latest interview.

[rrneck]

120. What is your

law straight up? Even just a link if it's no trouble.

[iverglas]

123. a dissertation

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=125237&mesg_id=125237


It ain't "my law", of course. That was another figure of speech, I trust we understand.

[rrneck]

128. Absolutely. It might

take me a while to plow through that one. Mind if I get back to you?

[spin]

126. Yes, I believe he understands the law...

and feels what he did was necessary.

Perhaps the most important thing that the interviews show is how different real life is from the movies or TV.

Post shooting trauma often effects police officers:

After a shooting, some officers retreat into a period of isolation. This can affect their job performance and family relationships. Some no longer participate in family functions. Others no longer have any interest in their usual outside activities such as hunting. A lack of communication between the officer and his family members is very common.

This withdrawal can also affect the officer's sex life. A percentage of officers involved in shootings suffer from some form of sexual dysfunction or impotence. This is especially true if they were wounded and lost the gun battle.

Sometimes there are periods of depression and helplessness. Some officers will sit and cry over insignificant things. Others are moved to tears by the sound of patriotic music. The officer cannot explain why this happens to him, but he knows it does.

Some begin to engage in self destructive behavior. Some take on a "John Wayne Syndrome", taking unnecessary chances. They don't wait for assistance on dangerous calls. They start to feel indestructible. If they survived the first time, what can happen the next time?

For others the realization can become unbearable. Thoughts of suicide are common among officers who have killed. In fact, police officers have a very high suicide rate under normal conditions. Compound it with Post Shooting Trauma and the results can be phenomenal. This depression can become worse during holiday seasons. An officer who has killed sometimes starts to feel sorry for the family of the person he killed. He starts to dwell on the fact that there is someone missing. Someone's son, someone's father, or someone's husband. Though he is happy to be able to spend the holiday with his family, someone's family is feeling the loss he believes he caused. (11) I know. I was depressed the first Thanksgiving and Christmas following my incident. The man I killed would have killed me if he could have, but his family never did a thing to me. I grieved for them.
http://www.tearsofacop.com/police/articles/aftergun.html

Police departments have many resources to help officers overcome post-shooting trauma. A civilian often tries to face the psychological problem on his own.

Christopher seems like nice guy and I hope things work out for him.

[spin]

124. Another interview and more surveillance video

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/MyFox/pages/sidebar_video.jsp?contentId=8212903&version=1&locale=EN-US

Unlike TV or the movies, shooting someone is not something a rational person ever wants to do.

[iverglas]

141. here's an idea then

Think about that BEFORE YOU SHOOT SOMEBODY.

Maybe Christopher can take his show on the road, kinda like those drunk drivers who kill people ...

[spin]

159. People do need to understand that shooting someone...

is to most normal individuals is a very serious life changing event. It's something to avoid unless truly necessary.

Of course, Christopher would have to live with the results of not shooting to defend the clerk. If he would have decided to merely stand there and allow the woman to be beaten while he was on the phone with the 911 operator, she might have died or suffered very serious injury. Knowing he had access to a firearm and didn't use it to help save the clerk could also cause Christopher serious psychological problems. Christopher may lay awake at night thinking about how he actually killed someone or he could lay awake at night realizing that he had done little or nothing and the clerk died or suffered a serious injury that she might not recover from.

Perhaps he could have attempted to use the knowledge he had gained through years of watching TV and movies to grapple with the man and save the clerk's life. Maybe he could have grabbed a bottle and attempted to hit the man. Unfortunately, what you see in the movies is unrealistic. Getting into a fight with a violent criminal is not a good idea for an untrained individual. Even training in karate or judo or jujutsu may not prepare an individual to take on a street fighter. Sometimes martial arts techniques work effectively and sometimes they fall short. The criminal may have seriously injured not just one but two victims.

And you have to remember that Christopher wasn't really sure that the attacker didn't have a handgun in his hand that he was using to beat the woman.

In my opinion, Christopher did the right thing. Many people will consider him a hero. The problem with being a hero in a situation like this is that you have to live with what you did.

[L0oniX]

169. I would have done the same but I am not that big and strong enough physically to take on anyone.