Guns Used.....cont

[Tero]

Whereas the perp was trying to short-circuit the judicial system by escaping.

If they'd have killed him they'd be up for manslaughter minimum. As it is they're open to assault with intent to kill, I do believe. You don't shoot people running away, it will get you in prison more often than not.

I think they fucked up, too, for the very same reason. Dude's running away and nobody in danger. Let him go. He'll fuck up sooner or later. Firearms should only come into play in 'clear and present danger' situations.

Exactly my thinking. I would also let stupid young speeders go rather than have the over eager cop chase them at high speed for ten miles. Unless of course they crash into each other, both problems solved!

But the speeder will eventually kill himself with his or her stupidity. Some bystanders will suffer. That's the price we pay for giving a person a license, without a maturity test, to shoot. i mean drive.

[Seth]

So many ways for such a situation to end in tragedy; mistaken identity, innocent bystanders hit, even the criminal killed

Interestingly, the incidences of mistaken identity or innocent bystanders being shot when the person exercising self defense is a civilian are vanishingly small in number. Police officers shoot innocent bystanders or people by mistake (Diallou comes to mind) far, far more often than civilians do.

- street robbery is not a capital offence...

Fuck guns!

Yes, it is if the robber engages in conduct (like pointing a handgun at the victim's chest and threatening to kill him) that justifies the use of deadly force in self defense. Actually, lethal self defense is not a judicial punishment at all, so your claim is entirely specious.

Don't want to get shot dead? Then don't rob people. Pretty simple really.

[Seth]

Don't see anyone protecting or rescuing anyone there?.

All I see is two people shooting at another because yet another said they had has been assaulted

I suspect bad reporting once again, but time will tell. I suspect that the victim told the armed citizens what happened and they pursued the suspect, who very likely aimed his weapon at them and probably fired first, at which point they were fully justified in returning fire in self defense. If they had just pursued the suspect and shot at him first, without any kind of threat from him, the likely outcome would have been the armed citizens being arrested. Cops aren't always dunces, and they are capable of sorting out a crime scene and figuring out who did what when.

[Seth]

Well, we'll have to agree to differ. I am bloody glad to live in a society where well-meaning bystanders are not going to use guns like characters from a B-grade western...

You won't feel the same when it's you facing a deadly attack, or your daughter being raped at gunpoint as you are forced to watch.

[Seth]

According to how the article was written I'm not even sure if it had been the police shooting it would have be justified, sounds like batman and robin started shooting first without even confirmed if the person was armed or not

That's the way I read it. And if Seeth thinks this is an admirable event my respect for his judgment just went into negative numbers.

If it happened the way the story says, then it might not be a lawful shooting, but I doubt it actually happened exactly as reported. Reporters are notorious for mixing stuff up, sometimes deliberately. I suspect it's a reporting error because the cops would have arrested the citizens if it happened like that.

[FBM]

...Apparently the Mercedes-guys left without identifying themselves to the robbery victim, Kevin Dorsey, who said they were his angels and would like to thank them. I might be wrong, but perhaps the Mercedes-guys do not want to be identified, caught up in a police investigation, maybe becoming the targets of a separate investigation, and ending in a court room with Hutchins’ lawyers throwing legal darts at them...

http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2013/01/ ... anonymous/

[aspire1670]

Don't want to get shot dead? Then don't rob people have an armed populace roaming the streets. Pretty simple really.

Fify

[MrJonno]

Don't want to get shot dead? Then don't rob people have an armed populace roaming the streets. Pretty simple really.

Fify

It would sort out those little brats stealing sweets from shops, after all they could be packing (they arent law abiding citizens as they are shop lifting), kid reaches for a Mars bar, who knows he could be stealing it, he could even be reaching for a gun

[Tero]

WTF? Republican dude proposes...OK, so he is in a librul state. With rcent bad news.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... -Magazines

[Seth]

Don't want to get shot dead? Then don't rob people have an armed populace roaming the streets. Pretty simple really.

Fify

Spectacularly wrong. Disarming the law-abiding does nothing about disarming the criminals and merely makes the law-abiding easier victims for the criminals, as our 20+ year experiment with lawful concealed carry proves.

[aspire1670]

Don't want to get shot dead? Then don't rob people have an armed populace roaming the streets. Pretty simple really.

Fify

Spectacularly wrong. Disarming the law-abiding does nothing about disarming the criminals and merely makes the law-abiding easier victims for the criminals, as our 20+ year experiment with lawful concealed carry proves.

You should really get your knee-jerk fixed, young Seth, you've just shot yourself in the foot again. Where did I say that guns should only be taken fron the law-abiding? We can only hope that you acquire wisdom and better judgement as you mature.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Odd that the 2nd Amendment is now about refusing to obey laws passed about dangerous weapons, isn't it?

[Seth]

Don't want to get shot dead? Then don't rob people have an armed populace roaming the streets. Pretty simple really.

Fify

Spectacularly wrong. Disarming the law-abiding does nothing about disarming the criminals and merely makes the law-abiding easier victims for the criminals, as our 20+ year experiment with lawful concealed carry proves.

You should really get your knee-jerk fixed, young Seth, you've just shot yourself in the foot again. Where did I say that guns should only be taken fron the law-abiding? We can only hope that you acquire wisdom and better judgement as you mature.

But you cannot take guns from the criminals because they won't obediently report to turn them in. They will secret them away and hide from the collection Nazis and continue to use them against law abiding people.

You are suggesting utopian nonsense that's factually and practically unachievable. Because that is the case, all confiscating arms will do is victimize the law abiding, and it will have little effect on the ability of criminals to obtain guns.

There are nearly 300 million guns in the US, and there's simply no way to find them all, or even a small proportion of them, in no small part because the moment confiscations begin, most of the guns in the hands of law abiding citizens will disappear overnight...or they will be used to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the right of the people to keep and bear arms by eliminating any government functionary who presumes to try to seize someone's arms, or so my contacts tell me.

In other words, at the first sign of federally-lead confiscation, there will be armed insurrection and any federal agent who tries to seize arms will not live long, I suspect. And every cop I know of, outside of the chiefs of police in big cities, will join with the People in suppressing any attempt to seize arms. Wyoming, for example, is now considering a bill in its legislature making it a felony for any federal agent or officer to attempt to confiscate any firearm from an otherwise law-abiding citizen, and authorizing the use of force to arrest such persons.

You Socialists should not underestimate the determination of the people of the United States not to be disarmed. Doing so is a fatal mistake, or so I'm told by credible sources.

[Seth]

Odd that the 2nd Amendment is now about refusing to obey laws passed about dangerous weapons, isn't it?

Not odd at all because any law which infringes upon the right to keep and bear arms is invalid on its face because it violates the 2nd Amendment. Just because some legislature somewhere passes a law does not mean that said law passes constitutional muster and may be enforced.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that an unconstitutional law is "no law at all."

And I'm under no obligation to obey non-laws that violate my rights, particularly since the Supreme Court ruled in Heller that the right protected by the 2nd Amendment is a personal, individual right which may be exercised without reference to the Militia or membership in it.

As a result of that ruling, many thousands of laws on the books now have been overturned and are no longer valid or enforceable.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I can only imagine what that was about.