The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Bang]

27 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I've never drawn a gun on someone, much less shot at someone.

 

But the people who do the training for it, tell the rest of us we should be careful making assumptions like you have.

 

The sheriff certainly doesn't seem to agree with you.

A florida sheriff doesn't agree,,  i am not going to immediately just assume he's fair, or even competent. 

 

My assumption is based off of looking at the video I can see in which the man rolls over, draws his gun takes time to aim and fires.

It's a law that legalizes murder.

 

~Bang

 

[tshile]

3 minutes ago, TMK9973 said:

 

ITs a F'd up law where i have to PROVE that someone who is seen yelling and approaching my family used fighting words -but there is s a presumption that if im shoved I can legally shoot someone .

 

The law has good intentions - the burden of defending yourself against the State is large. It messes up your entire life, sometimes permanently, it can wind up costing you your job, and it certainly cost you a lot of (if not all) of your money. 

 

Shifting the burden to the State so that the State has to do all the work to bring the charges doesn't necessarily sound bad.

 

But it takes a situation like this, where the person might have been arrested and tried where a jury of his peers could decide if he was right or not, and causes no charges to be filed because no one on the State's side wants to take the risk.

 

Because it's not a good case. Even if the burden was still on the defense, it's not a good case. 

 

Self defense is tricky. I agree all day long that I don't think this guy should have pulled the gun. That he shouldn't have fired. Hell, that he shouldn't have been playing parking authority.  But legally, he skirted the line close enough that no one's willing to take him to court over it...

 

Just now, Bang said:

It's a law that legalizes murder.

 

That's what self defense laws do. Justifiable homicide. 

4 minutes ago, Destino said:

This is undeniable in states with stand your ground legislation.  How you imagine things should be doesn't make the bullets bounce harmlessly away.  Right now people need to be made aware that shoving someone gives that person legal cover to draw and fire a weapon.  It's not about agreement, it's a question of public safety.  The public needs to know which actions can lead to their deaths. 

 

Absolutely.

 

Everyone here knows how prevalent guns are. It's discussed ad nausea on this board. In this thread.

 

Be careful putting your hands on someone else. Hell, I'd be careful going after someone verbally.  It isn't worth it. Call the police if there's a problem, otherwise move on with your life.

 

[twa]

1 minute ago, Kilmer17 said:

 

 

This incident could probably go either way in court.  SYG could certainly apply, but the court could also easily say it was excessive.

 

SYG is a affirmative defense to prevent going to court ......going either way in court is what it was passed to prevent.

[twa]

13 minutes ago, Bang said:

 

 

My assumption is based off of looking at the video I can see in which the man rolls over, draws his gun takes time to aim and fires.

It's a law that legalizes murder.

 

~Bang

 

 

Taking time to aim means he was focused on a perceived threat, blindly firing would get him a manslaughter or murder charge if he hit someone else.

You could even say just one shot was restraint.

[Popeman38]

26 minutes ago, Bang said:

A florida sheriff doesn't agree,,  i am not going to immediately just assume he's fair, or even competent. 

 

My assumption is based off of looking at the video I can see in which the man rolls over, draws his gun takes time to aim and fires.

It's a law that legalizes murder.

 

~Bang

Bolded...this is where we are as a society, the people who are "experts" in their field are assumed to be idiots and incompetent until they prove to be otherwise. We see it with judges (recalled judge in Cali who followed recommended sentence), journalists (Fake News!!!), sheriffs (here), scientists (climate change).  Not to call you out specifically Bang, but I'd be willing to bet a fair amount that the Florida sheriff knows more about Florida law then most of us on ES (and I posted earlier that IMO this was murder - or voluntary manslaughter at the least).

[Bang]

You can claim that high ground all day. This is a state in which we are arguing whether or not that was a legal shoot.

frm that perspective, maybe you can see why i am not very trusting of their "justice' system, or what their 'experts' think whn it comes to something like this?

it's dumb as ****.

 

~Bang

55 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Taking time to aim means he was focused on a perceived threat, blindly firing would get him a manslaughter or murder charge if he hit someone else.

You could even say just one shot was restraint.

Which means his focus should have noticed the threat was no longer threatening.

One could say that, but I'd still say it is murder.

 

~Bang

Edited July 23, 2018 by Bang

[tshile]

28 minutes ago, Bang said:

Which means his focus should have noticed the threat was no longer threatening.

 

This is a fundamental problem with properly using a handgun. The aiming process requires a blurry sight picture. It’s why firing a handgun is so difficult. Any dope can take a gun to the range and aim with one eye closed and hit a target. 

 

But firing at a person that may or may not be moving, while having chemicals pump through your brain and body like crazy, with a blurry sight picture is (I’m assuming) a difficult thing to accomplish. 

 

There’s a ton to read about this subject and the difficulty in properly aligning your sights. 

 

Of if he was aiming to pull the trigger properly then the target was a bit blurry. 

 

I don’t know man. I understand exactly why you feel the way you do. A part of me feels the same way watching the video. The part where he fires got a first reaction from me of “come on man you didn’t have to do that....”

 

i wrestled in high school. It taught me a new respect for time and the perception of time. I have no idea how long 2 seconds is to you in that situation. I know two minutes is an eternity in wrestling and I know seconds seem to move too quick sometimes. I don’t know. Certainly doesn’t look reasonable. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, Bang said:

Which means his focus should have noticed the threat was no longer threatening.

One could say that, but I'd still say it is murder.

 

~Bang

I'm guessing you don't have a lot of experience shooting, especially "self-defense shooting" or whatever you want to call it.  Once you have pulled the gun and decided to kill (which I spoke about earlier) you don't look at your target to see what they are doing and judge their actions.  Your are just making sure your sights line up with center mass.  Now this will differ with people taught at a more advanced level or doing long range shooting (where you have to judge where your target will be in a few seconds, not at this moment).  But for the average dude with some basic gun training (the type of training so many want to incorporate as part of being allowed to carry a gun), you aren't judge intentions at that point.  You are making sure you only kill the intended target.

[Destino]

2 hours ago, twa said:

 

You could even say just one shot was restraint.

Maybe muscle memory.  I haven’t spent a lot of time at shooting ranges but when I’ve been there I’ve seen a lot of people draw, aim, and fire once.  Repeat.  Do that hundreds of times and in a tense situation you body will do it almost automatically once you make the decision.  

 

Do it enough and it might even become reflex (which is sort of scary to think about).  

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 minutes ago, Destino said:

Maybe muscle memory.  I haven’t spent a lot of time at shooting ranges but when I’ve been there I’ve seen a lot of people draw, aim, and fire once.  Repeat.  Do that hundreds of times and in a tense situation you body will do it almost automatically once you make the decision.  

 

Do it enough and it might even become reflex (which is sort of scary to think about).  

Interesting thought.  Most ranges have a rule against rapid fire.  Usually require 2-3 seconds between shots.  I don't know if that would lead to a muscle memory though.  Look at most police shootings and the empty their gun.  I haven't even been to a police gun class but I doubt they actively encourage them to shoot like that.   I honestly don't know.  Interesting thought though.

[twa]

never been a fan of people practicing their draw at the range(most here won't allow it), but you have a point.

[RansomthePasserby]

4 hours ago, TMK9973 said:

So you have never - in your entire life - Doubled park in front of the grocery story to pick someone up?  Pulled into a Double white line in a parking lot so someone ran in while you waited? Pulled into a metered space and not pay because the person in your front seat was just jumping out?  Pulled next to a red crub while you waited for your friend to run out to meet you?

You have never done ANY OF THAT? 

 

I haven’t... Especially if it’s a handicap spot. Some people pay attention to those kinds of rules, some people don’t.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

It was a murder. The only reason it wasn't a murder is because Florida has a law where if you say, "I was scared" after you shoot someone, it makes it ok. Nobody who watched that video can honestly say he needed to kill that guy.

 

This Drejka chap apparently also has a history of instigating altercations like this and has previously threatened to shoot somebody for parking in a handicap spot... He's an asshole who went around picking fights over stupid **** because he was looking for a reason to use "Stand Your Ground" as his excuse to shoot someone.

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

  I haven't even been to a police gun class but I doubt they actively encourage them to shoot like that. 

 

They do. Shoot until the threat is stopped. That’s why dudes wind up with 40 bullet holes. 

2 minutes ago, RansomthePasserby said:

 

I haven’t... Especially if it’s a handicap spot. Some people pay attention to those kinds of rules, some people don’t.

 

Theyre paying attention. They know exactly what they’re doing. 

 

They just don’t care. Think their special. 

[twa]

the bar is higher than "I was scared". did the guy that knocked him down have a history as well?

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

14 minutes ago, twa said:

the bar is higher than "I was scared". did the guy that knocked him down have a history as well?

I don't know. There wasn't anything I read that would indicate so but even if he did, it wouldn't be relevant to the incident so why are you even bringing it up?

 

And I understand that the bar is supposed to be higher but it's hard to watch the video and read the Sheriff's response and believe the bar was met. Raise your hand if you've ever been in an altercation on that level... Everybody? Ok, how many of you shot and killed someone over it? This is one of those threads where I can't believe there is even a debate (or a muddying of the waters). There's no gray area here... There was absolutely zero reason to kill that guy other than, "I'll teach you to shove me to the ground."

Edited July 23, 2018 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

16 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Interesting thought.  Most ranges have a rule against rapid fire.  Usually require 2-3 seconds between shots.  I don't know if that would lead to a muscle memory though.  Look at most police shootings and the empty their gun.  I haven't even been to a police gun class but I doubt they actively encourage them to shoot like that.   I honestly don't know.  Interesting thought though.

 

Range I go is like that.  They got pissed when I emptied a 30 round clip in 15-20 seconds.  Yelled at me over the intercom.

[Bang]

Murder is murder.

IMO, that was murder.

If it came to me on a jury, unless there was some sort of other evidence presented that showed he was in some other imminent danger, i'd vote to convict every time.

 

~Bang

 

[bearrock]

I wonder what kind of environment Florida's SYG law creates?  If the deceased came out and saw a dude yelling at his family in a car, at what point does the guy have grounds to shoot the dude rather than knocking him down?  Really angry yelling combined with menacing manner?  Banging on the window?  What if the gun was visible?  Under the circumstances, would it be better for the deceased to just shoot the guy first?  How would the prosecution feel about their ability to successfully bring a charge under those circumstances?

[twa]

9 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I don't know. There wasn't anything I read that would indicate so but even if he did, it wouldn't be relevant to the incident so why are you even bringing it up?

 

 

 

you seemed to think histories mattered a minute ago.

 

2 minutes ago, bearrock said:

I wonder what kind of environment Florida's SYG law creates?  If the deceased came out and saw a dude yelling at his family in a car, at what point does the guy have grounds to shoot the dude rather than knocking him down?  Really angry yelling combined with menacing manner?  Banging on the window?  What if the gun was visible?  Under the circumstances, would it be better for the deceased to just shoot the guy first?  How would the prosecution feel about their ability to successfully bring a charge under those circumstances?

 

You need more than was visible to do EITHER, not rather than. 

The use of a gun in Florida carries severe extra penalties if not justified

 

[bearrock]

12 minutes ago, twa said:

 

You need more than was visible to do EITHER, not rather than. 

The use of a gun in Florida carries severe extra penalties if not justified

 

 

They don't distinguish between justifiable force and justifiable deadly force?

[TheGreatBuzz]

48 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

They do. Shoot until the threat is stopped. That’s why dudes wind up with 40 bullet holes. 

 

 

I know they tell them that.  I meant do they have police at the range practice firing 10 rounds in rapid succession.   That I don't know.

32 minutes ago, Bang said:

Murder is murder.

IMO, that was murder.

If it came to me on a jury, unless there was some sort of other evidence presented that showed he was in some other imminent danger, i'd vote to convict every time.

 

~Bang

 

Even if the instruction given by the judge on the law of the area may say otherwise?  Like would you ignore the law just because you feel it SHOULD BE illegal?  Honest question.

[twa]

4 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

They don't distinguish between justifiable force and justifiable deadly force?

 

 certainly, but force of either kind was not justifiable by anyone until after the guy was knocked down. 

 

 

 

[tshile]

3 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I know they tell them that.  I meant do they have police at the range practice firing 10 rounds in rapid succession.   That I don't know.

 

Well, I don’t know every jurisdiction, but the ones I know have qualifying that goes like this:

2 magazines in belt 1 in gun + 1, holstered

target turns

draw and fire all 3 magazines in X seconds

 

That’s 40 bullets. You’re graded on where they land. If you mishandle a magazine, or if it falls out of the gun, you move on to the next. Not enough time to recover. 

 

If thats the test, then that’s what they practice. 

[bearrock]

2 minutes ago, twa said:

 

 certainly, but force of either kind was not justifiable by anyone until after the guy was knocked down. 

 

 

 

Once the onus on proving lack of justification beyond reasonable doubt is put on the prosecution, it may be difficult to prove in both cases.