Bystander shot in a "stand your ground" case. Who's to blame?

Discussion in 'Blazers OT Forum' started by Eastoff, Aug 19, 2013.

  1. bluefrog

    bluefrog Go Blazers, GO!

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,964
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    Programmer
    Location:
    New Bern
    There is another shooting death with the defense using the Stand Your Ground Law in Florida

    Justified Under Stand-Your-Ground: Choir Director Armed With Stick Being Fatally Shot With Illegal Gun

    I don't think these are good laws. They're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used.
     
  2. Nikolokolus

    Nikolokolus There's always next year

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    30,704
    Likes Received:
    6,198
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is my position as well. You don't get to say "whoops, sorry." and have everything forgiven if you hurt other people. If you kill somebody accidentally, but negligently then that's pretty clearly manslaughter.
     
  3. Natebishop3

    Natebishop3 Don't tread on me!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Messages:
    92,732
    Likes Received:
    55,371
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    A good example of a responsible shooter was the guy at Clackamas town center... he had the shooter in his sights, he could have shot him, but he was unsure if he would hit someone behind the guy so he did not want to take the shot. At that point the shooter's gun had already jammed, so I'm sure he would have weighed his options if the guy was still popping away with his rifle, but at that time the shooting had stopped and he did not think it was worth the risk to others around him to take the shot at the active shooter.

    That is how you assess your surroundings and weigh the risks of discharging your firearm.
     
  4. oldguy

    oldguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,817
    Likes Received:
    78
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Unfortunately, things are seldom black and white. I generally agree that once you pull the trigger, you are responsible for the bullet.

    But, to use the Clackamas Town Center example. The guy at CTC drew down on the shooter, but didn't shoot because he wasn't sure he wouldn't hit a bystander. Good on him. Like Nate says, the shooter's gun was jammed at the moment. What if the shooter cleared the jam, and started shooting other people? Should the guy with the iffy shot pull the trigger to stop the guy killing shoppers? What if he killed a bystander in that circumstance?

    Go Blazers
     
  5. MARIS61

    MARIS61 Real American

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    28,007
    Likes Received:
    5,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Yankee
    Location:
    Beautiful Central Oregon
    That's an idiotic post. You should forfeit your screen name for that.

    Innocent until proven guilty means exactly what it says.

    Rest assured that he will probably be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter or causing a death by reckless use of a firearm.

    The girl gang should face federal charges for terrorism, menacing, attempted murder, and hate crimes.
     
  6. MARIS61

    MARIS61 Real American

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    28,007
    Likes Received:
    5,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Yankee
    Location:
    Beautiful Central Oregon
    No.
     
  7. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,976
    Likes Received:
    10,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    Being arrested does not mean guilt. It means the person won't recklessly use his firearm for a while, during which time the police can gather evidence to show to the judge.
     
  8. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,976
    Likes Received:
    10,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    Yes.

    If you have fired your gun at a person and killed them, there is every reason to believe you have committed a crime.
     
  9. Further

    Further Guy

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2008
    Messages:
    11,099
    Likes Received:
    4,039
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Stuff doer
    Location:
    Place
    What about an officer who discharges his weapon and kills a perp?
     
  10. Natebishop3

    Natebishop3 Don't tread on me!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Messages:
    92,732
    Likes Received:
    55,371
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    I think really in any situation like that you have to weigh the risks. If there's a guy randomly shooting people in a mall, you will have to consider the chances of hitting someone else with the very real possibility that the guy could keep shooting 10 or 20 more people. If the shooter's gun hadn't jammed, who knows how many would have died. Obviously you're not going to shoot at him when there's people obstructing your view, but you might have to risk whatever is behind him to stop the rampage.

    But I'm also someone who has trained with a handgun for many hours. I'm confident in my shot. If it were my dad, who has spent very little time on a handgun but many hours on a rifle, I would hope that he wouldn't shoot unless he felt like he could hit the guy. It would be negligent to shoot in a crowded mall if you don't think your shot has a reasonable chance of hitting your target. A good example would be someone trying to hit the shooter from 50-75 yards away. I know people who could easily make that shot, but there are many who couldn't hit paper at 75 yards with a pistol. Those people should not be shooting unless they are 100% sure.

    The true problem will fall with the media after the fact. If you hit the guy you're a hero, if you miss and kill a bystander you're going to be a villain and you'll be tried in the court of public opinion long before you see any kind of trial.

    In my opinion, you shouldn't carry if you aren't comfortable with the weapon. You should train regularly, you should keep your shooting sharp, and you should be prepared for contingencies. By carrying you are accepting the responsibility that you may have to use your weapon, and you assume the risks that go with that. I have a concealed carry permit but I almost never use it because the only time I carry is when I go hunting or when I go on hikes in the woods.

    Also, side note, I think the mere presence of the guy with the handgun prevented any more killing at Clackamas. The shooter saw him and then ran. In my opinion the guy was a hero just for stepping up and presenting a threat to the shooter that changed his timeline. He accomplished more by not shooting than he probably would have if he had tried to take the guy out.
     
  11. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,976
    Likes Received:
    10,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    They certainly are taken off street duty and the incident investigated.
     
  12. Natebishop3

    Natebishop3 Don't tread on me!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Messages:
    92,732
    Likes Received:
    55,371
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    In today's police state, I think officers are using their firearms much too readily. It seems like every few weeks there's a story about an officer killing someone or something needlessly. I think our police need better training, I think they need to be taught to use their gun as a last resort, and instead should be using their other tools before drawing their firearm. Guns should not be used unless absolutely necessary by police, yet their handgun is the first thing they go for in almost any situation.
     
  13. MARIS61

    MARIS61 Real American

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    28,007
    Likes Received:
    5,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Yankee
    Location:
    Beautiful Central Oregon
    Only if you live in a bubble and lack basic reasoning skills.


    (A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals–or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

    (B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.
     
  14. MARIS61

    MARIS61 Real American

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    28,007
    Likes Received:
    5,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Yankee
    Location:
    Beautiful Central Oregon
    They are not arrested and imprisoned as you suggest should be the case.

    They are given a fully paid vacation, "cleared" by their peers in every instance of any wrongdoing, and hailed as heroes. The perp is always charged with causing the death.
     
  15. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,976
    Likes Received:
    10,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    And?

    You think I argue against using a gun for self defense? Or do you think I argue against carrying one? You are nuts.

    LOL

    Out of your 2.4M number, which is fine, thousands are fired to injure or kill someone. Less than .1%, which is too many.
     
  16. MARIS61

    MARIS61 Real American

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    28,007
    Likes Received:
    5,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Yankee
    Location:
    Beautiful Central Oregon
    Your presumption is wrong. If you used a gun in a confrontation it is 60 times more likely you fired it legally than illegally. Without clear evidence of wrongdoing, it would be inhumane and certainly un-Constitutional to jail the gun owner.
     
  17. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,976
    Likes Received:
    10,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    The data does not fit your insane world view.

    It is not unconstitutional to jail someone. It is unconstitutional to not give the person a speedy trial or to not tell them the charges.
     
  18. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,976
    Likes Received:
    10,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    This. I'd add to the assume risk bit that you assume the responsibility of using the weapon.
     
  19. oldguy

    oldguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,817
    Likes Received:
    78
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So, if the guy with the handgun kills the shooter when he's three rounds into this 30 round mag with his second shot, but kills someone else that was standing beyond the shooter with his first shot....he goes to jail?

    Go Blazers
     
  20. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,976
    Likes Received:
    10,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    Yep. It's still homicide.

    Jail is not prison.
     

Share This Page