RP Daily Trivia Challenge - ptooey - Sep 24, 2017 - 11:00am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - tomcool - Sep 24, 2017 - 10:13am
 
Trump - oldviolin - Sep 24, 2017 - 10:13am
 
True Confessions - oldviolin - Sep 24, 2017 - 10:12am
 
What Did You See Today? - Coaxial - Sep 24, 2017 - 10:05am
 
Name My Band - oldviolin - Sep 24, 2017 - 9:40am
 
Little known information...maybe even facts - oldviolin - Sep 24, 2017 - 9:38am
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Sep 24, 2017 - 9:28am
 
All Dogs Go To Heaven - Dog Pix - oldviolin - Sep 24, 2017 - 9:12am
 
What are you listening to now? - Steely_D - Sep 24, 2017 - 8:52am
 
Celebrity Face Recognition - Antigone - Sep 24, 2017 - 8:31am
 
Suggestions Please... - SeriousLee - Sep 24, 2017 - 8:22am
 
Fun Birthday Ideas - miamizsun - Sep 24, 2017 - 8:16am
 
RP3 Beta Player - gpsfreak - Sep 24, 2017 - 8:07am
 
SHOES SHOES SHOES - SeriousLee - Sep 24, 2017 - 8:05am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Sep 24, 2017 - 7:54am
 
Crazy conspiracy theories - Red_Dragon - Sep 24, 2017 - 7:10am
 
Canada - SeriousLee - Sep 24, 2017 - 6:37am
 
The Obituary Page - n4ku - Sep 24, 2017 - 5:10am
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - Lazy8 - Sep 24, 2017 - 4:45am
 
What The Hell Buddy? - SeriousLee - Sep 24, 2017 - 4:05am
 
Things You Thought Today - SeriousLee - Sep 24, 2017 - 3:40am
 
What Did You Do Today? - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 23, 2017 - 9:09pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 23, 2017 - 9:08pm
 
Movie rental suggestions & reviews - Netflix or Blockbuster - Antigone - Sep 23, 2017 - 8:10pm
 
Accessing song ratings - wetdog - Sep 23, 2017 - 6:11pm
 
Tales from the RAFT - Antigone - Sep 23, 2017 - 4:42pm
 
Radio Paradise Comments - Jonathon - Sep 23, 2017 - 3:27pm
 
Graphic designers, ho! - GeneP59 - Sep 23, 2017 - 2:36pm
 
THE Question of Our Time - Proclivities - Sep 23, 2017 - 9:46am
 
Spambags on RP - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 23, 2017 - 8:25am
 
Geeky Jokes - kctomato - Sep 23, 2017 - 8:25am
 
What makes you smile? - Coaxial - Sep 23, 2017 - 7:04am
 
Poetry Forum - SeriousLee - Sep 23, 2017 - 6:04am
 
Russia - sirdroseph - Sep 23, 2017 - 5:09am
 
BACK TO THE 80's - R_P - Sep 22, 2017 - 10:59pm
 
Tell the Truth! - Red_Dragon - Sep 22, 2017 - 7:50pm
 
RPeep News You Should Know - SeriousLee - Sep 22, 2017 - 4:22pm
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - R_P - Sep 22, 2017 - 2:22pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Sep 22, 2017 - 1:40pm
 
Dear Retail Fashion Industry - Proclivities - Sep 22, 2017 - 1:18pm
 
Those Crazy Condiments - aflanigan - Sep 22, 2017 - 12:50pm
 
Health Care - Steely_D - Sep 22, 2017 - 12:13pm
 
Sweet horrible irony. - sirdroseph - Sep 22, 2017 - 11:31am
 
Things that make you go Hmmmm..... - Coaxial - Sep 22, 2017 - 10:24am
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - Proclivities - Sep 22, 2017 - 10:19am
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - Proclivities - Sep 22, 2017 - 10:07am
 
Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest - Red_Dragon - Sep 22, 2017 - 9:29am
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Sep 22, 2017 - 8:03am
 
First World Problems - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 22, 2017 - 7:29am
 
I ain't got my taco! - Red_Dragon - Sep 22, 2017 - 7:18am
 
What are you doing RIGHT NOW? - kurtster - Sep 22, 2017 - 6:56am
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - Proclivities - Sep 22, 2017 - 6:19am
 
HALF A WORLD - oldviolin - Sep 21, 2017 - 11:28pm
 
Australian Listeners - oldviolin - Sep 21, 2017 - 9:49pm
 
Make Jrzy Laugh - JrzyTmata - Sep 21, 2017 - 8:16pm
 
Saudi Arabia - R_P - Sep 21, 2017 - 2:17pm
 
Republican Party - miamizsun - Sep 21, 2017 - 4:44am
 
Sunrise, Sunset - Rod - Sep 21, 2017 - 12:21am
 
• • • P H O T O C H A T • • • - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 20, 2017 - 11:00pm
 
Beer - kcar - Sep 20, 2017 - 10:34pm
 
Photos you have taken of yourself - Coaxial - Sep 20, 2017 - 5:45pm
 
The House I Want (Today) - BlueHeronDruid - Sep 20, 2017 - 5:40pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - Antigone - Sep 20, 2017 - 4:35pm
 
I'm Thankful For.. - buddy - Sep 20, 2017 - 2:32pm
 
• • • Poopoo • • • - SeriousLee - Sep 20, 2017 - 2:20pm
 
Australia has Disappeared - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 20, 2017 - 9:38am
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - sunybuny - Sep 20, 2017 - 7:03am
 
Anti-War - Red_Dragon - Sep 20, 2017 - 6:33am
 
The strange tale of KFAT - oldviolin - Sep 19, 2017 - 9:59pm
 
Scam the Scammer - Red_Dragon - Sep 19, 2017 - 3:21pm
 
Just Time Lapse - trekhead - Sep 19, 2017 - 12:40pm
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - meower - Sep 19, 2017 - 11:12am
 
September 19th is International Talk Like A Pirate Day - PoundPuppy - Sep 19, 2017 - 8:27am
 
Using the cache on an Android Phone - jarro - Sep 19, 2017 - 8:24am
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » Guns Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 424, 425, 426  Next
Post to this Topic
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 16, 2017 - 7:11am

 haresfur wrote:
Discharging a gun isn't ambiguous either. Either you did or you didn't. I agree that you should be able to leave the scene in a self defense situation - then call the cops. Of course, she would have been smarter to just leave in the first place. She was in a car so it's hard for me to believe that she was really threatened but I don't know the details. But bottom line, if you chose to carry a gun, you are choosing to accept responsibility for your actions and their consequences. 

I certainly don't know Tennessee law, and do agree that any new laws should be evaluated for unintended consequences. I am in fundamental disagreement with you that laws are all a trap. But hey, I think that libertarianism is a major threat to society and public safety.

If she actually broke the law (and she's charged with a very serious crime) then that isn't an argument for more laws. If she ignored a law against murder she'd have ignored a law requiring her to report a shooting. An additional layer of law adds nothing here. In this case the law has done about all it can.

If you've been reading this thread then you see we're in agreement on taking responsibility for carrying a deadly weapon. If she really was attacked then reaching for a can of pepper spray would have left the attacker a sadder but a wiser man and her out of handcuffs. She acted irresponsibly even if her story is true, and she will face consequences for it.

So...does this terrible threat that libertarians pose to public safety justify deadly force? Even if that's what you believe libertarians will defend your right to make that claim.

You're welcome.
sirdroseph
Endeavor to Perservere
sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Sep 16, 2017 - 5:07am

haresfur wrote:



But hey, I think that libertarianism is a major threat to society and public safety











Makes the joke; "why you no love freedom?" quite literal in your case, innit?

haresfur
I get around
haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 16, 2017 - 1:50am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 haresfur wrote:
There are, as you pointed out laws requiring you to report crimes and they are not considered self-incrimination. Hey you get into a traffic accident and you aren't supposed to just walk away if someone was hurt - even if it was your fault. 

In this case her lawyer-dad is claiming self defense so I assume that is something that can get her off or get her a reduced charge. Whether or not her story is true that she didn't know she shot him so didn't know she was leaving him to die - you are saying there should be no additional consequences for bugging out. I'm saying she left someone to possibly die because of her actions and that in itself is ethically worse than shooting him in the first place. So yeah, I'd say she is part of the problem and I'd be more than happy to say that she and other gun owners should be required to take responsibility for their actions. It ain't a trap - don't screw up. And yeah, she is part of an actual problem. 

You aren't required to report your own crimes (5th amendment) but crimes you were witness to—and I hasten to add that even that requirement is not universal. Traffic accidents aren't ambiguous—you were in one or you weren't, and you're not even allowed to leave the scene, injury or not. Can't see that applying to a legitimate self-defense situation. The victim should be allowed to flee.

If a jury buys her story then yes, self-defense would get her off the attempted murder charge. If she wasn't legitimately defending herself then the additional charges you're proposing wouldn't mean much compared to the penalty for the actual shooting, and as I keep pointing out requiring her to report her own crime is forbidden by the 5th amendment anyway. If her story is true (and she's maybe not a great example for this sort of situation, but imagine something less ambiguous—like a shopkeeper who shoots at armed robber who flees the scene without making it obvious he was hit) you are penalizing someone who did nothing wrong.

And yes, it's a trap. Most laws are. They aren't a fence to keep you on the narrow path, they're mines buried alongside it that may or may not go off if you stray. You can only find out where the path is by studying the law—something most of us don't have the time to do—or stepping on a mine.

Most people arguing for more and more laws have no idea what the current law is. You're arguing from another country, and the perception abroad is often that the US is a lawless place where all sorts of things civilized folk are forbidden to do are perfectly acceptable. My copy of Gun Laws of America is 378 pages of dense text, and that's just federal law.It's also 20 years old, so the current edition is doubtless longer. State and municipal laws add even more layers.

Here is a quick summary of the consequences of reporting your own defensive use of a firearm. It's limited to drawing (but not firing) a weapon; actually firing would open up further worm cans. The fact that the Porsche pilot damsel didn't report the shooting will likely prove costly for her in court, but none of us have seen the video yet. Presumably the cops have, and that went into their decision to charge her. She is facing consequences, severe ones, as would most anyone in her situation*.

* Except a cop. Don't get me started. But that's a separate rant.

 
Discharging a gun isn't ambiguous either. Either you did or you didn't. I agree that you should be able to leave the scene in a self defense situation - then call the cops. Of course, she would have been smarter to just leave in the first place. She was in a car so it's hard for me to believe that she was really threatened but I don't know the details. But bottom line, if you chose to carry a gun, you are choosing to accept responsibility for your actions and their consequences. 

I certainly don't know Tennessee law, and do agree that any new laws should be evaluated for unintended consequences. I am in fundamental disagreement with you that laws are all a trap. But hey, I think that libertarianism is a major threat to society and public safety.
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 16, 2017 - 12:04am

 haresfur wrote:
There are, as you pointed out laws requiring you to report crimes and they are not considered self-incrimination. Hey you get into a traffic accident and you aren't supposed to just walk away if someone was hurt - even if it was your fault. 

In this case her lawyer-dad is claiming self defense so I assume that is something that can get her off or get her a reduced charge. Whether or not her story is true that she didn't know she shot him so didn't know she was leaving him to die - you are saying there should be no additional consequences for bugging out. I'm saying she left someone to possibly die because of her actions and that in itself is ethically worse than shooting him in the first place. So yeah, I'd say she is part of the problem and I'd be more than happy to say that she and other gun owners should be required to take responsibility for their actions. It ain't a trap - don't screw up. And yeah, she is part of an actual problem. 

You aren't required to report your own crimes (5th amendment) but crimes you were witness to—and I hasten to add that even that requirement is not universal. Traffic accidents aren't ambiguous—you were in one or you weren't, and you're not even allowed to leave the scene, injury or not. Can't see that applying to a legitimate self-defense situation. The victim should be allowed to flee.

If a jury buys her story then yes, self-defense would get her off the attempted murder charge. If she wasn't legitimately defending herself then the additional charges you're proposing wouldn't mean much compared to the penalty for the actual shooting, and as I keep pointing out requiring her to report her own crime is forbidden by the 5th amendment anyway. If her story is true (and she's maybe not a great example for this sort of situation, but imagine something less ambiguous—like a shopkeeper who shoots at armed robber who flees the scene without making it obvious he was hit) you are penalizing someone who did nothing wrong.

And yes, it's a trap. Most laws are. They aren't a fence to keep you on the narrow path, they're mines buried alongside it that may or may not go off if you stray. You can only find out where the path is by studying the law—something most of us don't have the time to do—or stepping on a mine.

Most people arguing for more and more laws have no idea what the current law is. You're arguing from another country, and the perception abroad is often that the US is a lawless place where all sorts of things civilized folk are forbidden to do are perfectly acceptable. My copy of Gun Laws of America is 378 pages of dense text, and that's just federal law.It's also 20 years old, so the current edition is doubtless longer. State and municipal laws add even more layers.

Here is a quick summary of the consequences of reporting your own defensive use of a firearm. It's limited to drawing (but not firing) a weapon; actually firing would open up further worm cans. The fact that the Porsche pilot damsel didn't report the shooting will likely prove costly for her in court, but none of us have seen the video yet. Presumably the cops have, and that went into their decision to charge her. She is facing consequences, severe ones, as would most anyone in her situation*.

* Except a cop. Don't get me started. But that's a separate rant.
haresfur
I get around
haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 15, 2017 - 10:48pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
 haresfur wrote:
Burglary isn't easy to enforce but there are still laws against it. Let's keep it simple and restrict it to cities. If you discharge a weapon in a public area or where you may have shot off your property, you report it. Say you fired a warning shot - who's to say you didn't hit someone two blocks over? You report it and they say, "you prick, you hit an old lady sitting on her porch. At least you are taking responsibility." Why the hell would you be shooting if there wasn't some crime taking place?

It isn't pointless. If you catch someone who, say, has shot someone and tried to bug out with the statement "I didn't know I shot them." You have some teeth to say they should have reported it rather than leaving them to die. Maybe you won't be able to convict them of attempted murder but at least there would be consequences. And, if nothing else, it would clarify what they should do.

It's stuff like this that could make someone think that the talk of responsible gun owners is just smoke.

If you discharge a gun in just about any city in the US you have committed a crime. There are exceptions for self-defense in many, but not all such statutes. Never heard of a statute requiring the reporting of such, but if you were defending yourself you were obeying the law. If you weren't you're being required to incriminate yourself, and no court would let that stand.

If you were defending yourself legally then the person you were defending yourself from was committing a crime. Some places you're legally required to report such things, some places not; that depends on state law. Prosecutions are exceedingly rare; juries tend to look askance at punishing crime victims.

If you shoot someone and claim you weren't trying to hit them but did anyway you are going to be charged with (at a minimum) reckless endangerment; depending on jurisdiction that alone could be a felony. The situation you're concerned with is already well-covered by existing law.

Who exactly is going to report discharging a weapon? Someone who did so legally. If you shoot someone and leave them to die you aren't going to call that in—that's already a felony. What penalty are you going to add with this?

It's proposals like this that convince people like me that people like you don't want to actually solve real problems, they just want to set traps for gun owners to step into, to harass (and by "harass" I mean "threaten with prison") people who aren't part of any actual problem.

 
There are, as you pointed out laws requiring you to report crimes and they are not considered self-incrimination. Hey you get into a traffic accident and you aren't supposed to just walk away if someone was hurt - even if it was your fault. 

In this case her lawyer-dad is claiming self defense so I assume that is something that can get her off or get her a reduced charge. Whether or not her story is true that she didn't know she shot him so didn't know she was leaving him to die - you are saying there should be no additional consequences for bugging out. I'm saying she left someone to possibly die because of her actions and that in itself is ethically worse than shooting him in the first place. So yeah, I'd say she is part of the problem and I'd be more than happy to say that she and other gun owners should be required to take responsibility for their actions. It ain't a trap - don't screw up. And yeah, she is part of an actual problem. 
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 15, 2017 - 3:10pm

 haresfur wrote:
Burglary isn't easy to enforce but there are still laws against it. Let's keep it simple and restrict it to cities. If you discharge a weapon in a public area or where you may have shot off your property, you report it. Say you fired a warning shot - who's to say you didn't hit someone two blocks over? You report it and they say, "you prick, you hit an old lady sitting on her porch. At least you are taking responsibility." Why the hell would you be shooting if there wasn't some crime taking place?

It isn't pointless. If you catch someone who, say, has shot someone and tried to bug out with the statement "I didn't know I shot them." You have some teeth to say they should have reported it rather than leaving them to die. Maybe you won't be able to convict them of attempted murder but at least there would be consequences. And, if nothing else, it would clarify what they should do.

It's stuff like this that could make someone think that the talk of responsible gun owners is just smoke.

If you discharge a gun in just about any city in the US you have committed a crime. There are exceptions for self-defense in many, but not all such statutes. Never heard of a statute requiring the reporting of such, but if you were defending yourself you were obeying the law. If you weren't you're being required to incriminate yourself, and no court would let that stand.

If you were defending yourself legally then the person you were defending yourself from was committing a crime. Some places you're legally required to report such things, some places not; that depends on state law. Prosecutions are exceedingly rare; juries tend to look askance at punishing crime victims.

If you shoot someone and claim you weren't trying to hit them but did anyway you are going to be charged with (at a minimum) reckless endangerment; depending on jurisdiction that alone could be a felony. The situation you're concerned with is already well-covered by existing law.

Who exactly is going to report discharging a weapon? Someone who did so legally. If you shoot someone and leave them to die you aren't going to call that in—that's already a felony. What penalty are you going to add with this?

It's proposals like this that convince people like me that people like you don't want to actually solve real problems, they just want to set traps for gun owners to step into, to harass (and by "harass" I mean "threaten with prison") people who aren't part of any actual problem.


haresfur
I get around
haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 15, 2017 - 2:38pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
 haresfur wrote:
So don't y'all have any sort of law that you have to call the police when you shoot at someone? Or would that somehow interfere with your freedom to blast away?

Nope. Seems like it wouldn't be easy to enforce: prove I shot at someone if nobody was hit.

'Course, just because a law is impractical and pointless doesn't mean it's not on the books somewhere...
 
 
Burglary isn't easy to enforce but there are still laws against it. Let's keep it simple and restrict it to cities. If you discharge a weapon in a public area or where you may have shot off your property, you report it. Say you fired a warning shot - who's to say you didn't hit someone two blocks over? You report it and they say, "you prick, you hit an old lady sitting on her porch. At least you are taking responsibility." Why the hell would you be shooting if there wasn't some crime taking place?

It isn't pointless. If you catch someone who, say, has shot someone and tried to bug out with the statement "I didn't know I shot them." You have some teeth to say they should have reported it rather than leaving them to die. Maybe you won't be able to convict them of attempted murder but at least there would be consequences. And, if nothing else, it would clarify what they should do.

It's stuff like this that could make someone think that the talk of responsible gun owners is just smoke.
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 15, 2017 - 8:42am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Absolutely.
 
Note that in the Biden example, he's talking about a shotgun. The first two examples deal with bullets. #3 is a shotgun but he broke a different fundamental rule.

Depending on the size of the shot you could conceivably find a safe direction (like straight up*) to fire a warning shot from a shotgun, but it's still a bad practice for reasons 4-10.

It's also bad mental conditioning. Using a firearm should never be thought of as anything but deadly force. Concealed carry instructors often use the adage "If the gun comes out somebody dies." It's a way to make the carrier take the responsibility seriously—even if you don't actually shoot, you have to understand that unholstering a gun means the situation is now a gun fight. You've raised the stakes for your attacker, and that doesn't mean he'll back down—he can double down.

Just another reason Joe Biden is an idiot, but I digress.

* If you're outside. There is no safe direction for a warning shot in, say, the lower floors of an apartment building.
ScottFromWyoming
I eat pints
ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Pisces
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: Sep 15, 2017 - 7:24am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Well in this case, prove she shot at him even though he was hit. She says she closed her eyes and fired warning shots. Which is actually sort of vaguely believable. And if the jury believes her on that, it's not attempted murder, so they've over-charged her.

Yeah, even if her story is 100% true she's still not an example to emulate.

 
Absolutely.
 
Note that in the Biden example, he's talking about a shotgun. The first two examples deal with bullets. #3 is a shotgun but he broke a different fundamental rule.
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 15, 2017 - 6:56am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Well in this case, prove she shot at him even though he was hit. She says she closed her eyes and fired warning shots. Which is actually sort of vaguely believable. And if the jury believes her on that, it's not attempted murder, so they've over-charged her.

Yeah, even if her story is 100% true she's still not an example to emulate.
ScottFromWyoming
I eat pints
ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Pisces
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: Sep 14, 2017 - 10:45pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
 haresfur wrote:
So don't y'all have any sort of law that you have to call the police when you shoot at someone? Or would that somehow interfere with your freedom to blast away?

Nope. Seems like it wouldn't be easy to enforce: prove I shot at someone if nobody was hit. 
 
Well in this case, prove she shot at him even though he was hit. She says she closed her eyes and fired warning shots. Which is actually sort of vaguely believable. And if the jury believes her on that, it's not attempted murder, so they've over-charged her.
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 14, 2017 - 9:55pm

 haresfur wrote:
So don't y'all have any sort of law that you have to call the police when you shoot at someone? Or would that somehow interfere with your freedom to blast away?

Nope. Seems like it wouldn't be easy to enforce: prove I shot at someone if nobody was hit.

'Course, just because a law is impractical and pointless doesn't mean it's not on the books somewhere...
 

Coaxial
Shine On.
Coaxial Avatar

Location: 543 miles west of Paradis,1491 miles east of Paradise
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Capricorn
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Sep 14, 2017 - 9:07pm

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

I think this episode is maybe not germane to the guns thread exactly. She seems like a symptom of something we should maybe have checked out. 
 



 
The crazy in this one is strong.
ScottFromWyoming
I eat pints
ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Pisces
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: Sep 14, 2017 - 8:59pm

 haresfur wrote:

So don't y'all have any sort of law that you have to call the police when you shoot at someone? Or would that somehow interfere with your freedom to blast away?

 
I think this episode is maybe not germane to the guns thread exactly. She seems like a symptom of something we should maybe have checked out. 
 


haresfur
I get around
haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 14, 2017 - 8:40pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
 Red_Dragon wrote:
Right. Because wtf is that street urchin to bother her privileged white ass? I bet she gets off without a slap on the wrist.

Accounts differ, but there's surveillance video so maybe we'll find out what actually happened.

 
So don't y'all have any sort of law that you have to call the police when you shoot at someone? Or would that somehow interfere with your freedom to blast away?
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 14, 2017 - 7:23pm

 westslope wrote:
Katie Quackenbush was sitting in her Porsche with the engine idling.

She should be charged with crimes against the climate in addition to the rest.

Frankly, she does not look too bright and I would guess her street smarts are within an epsilon of zero.  Prior felony assault charge?  Hmmm.....   I wonder if she likes to indulge in cocaine.  Katie is the perfect candidate for a gratuitous shooting.

Being white, female and attractive, I am guessing that she will spend a few months in jail?   Community service?  
How is that quick 'n easy judgementalism?    {#Cowboy}

Quick & easy, just how we like it in the news cycle! Just pick the version that matches who you sympathize with and it saves a bunch of effort thinking & stuff.
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Sep 14, 2017 - 7:06pm

 westslope wrote:
Katie Quackenbush was sitting in her Porsche with the engine idling.

She should be charged with crimes against the climate in addition to the rest.

Frankly, she does not look too bright and I would guess her street smarts are within an epsilon of zero.  Prior felony assault charge?  Hmmm.....   I wonder if she likes to indulge in cocaine.  Katie is the perfect candidate for a gratuitous shooting.

Being white, female and attractive, I am guessing that she will spend a few months in jail?   Community service?  
How is that quick 'n easy judgementalism?    {#Cowboy}

 
A thing is known.
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC desert


Posted: Sep 14, 2017 - 6:45pm

Katie Quackenbush was sitting in her Porsche with the engine idling.

She should be charged with crimes against the climate in addition to the rest.

Frankly, she does not look too bright and I would guess her street smarts are within an epsilon of zero.  Prior felony assault charge?  Hmmm.....   I wonder if she likes to indulge in cocaine.  Katie is the perfect candidate for a gratuitous shooting.

Being white, female and attractive, I am guessing that she will spend a few months in jail?   Community service?  
How is that for quick 'n easy judgementalism?    {#Cowboy}


Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 13, 2017 - 9:10pm

 Dragonfly_Launch wrote:
I read the father's account. And he was not present. But, sorry, the only way the woman is justified is if the video shows the homeless man going into his stash for a pistol. Of course, he would not have one, he would have sold it for food. If he comes at her with a bat, a branch, a tire iron, any of these, even a heavy fist then you get in your car and leave. You drive away. But you do not shoot them, leg, arm or otherwise. You are not justified. And you should lose your right to own firearms for life. Pay a fine and serve some time, yes those hurt. But you are banned from the right to own and carry after this. For your entire life. 

I'm not going to pass judgement on anyone based on what I know now. There are enough red flags flying here to treat everybody's story with suspicion—the woman has a history of aggressive behavior (including a pending assault charge), the homeless guy was aggressive enough to prompt a businessman to install a video camera. I wasn't there, don't know if the woman could have de-escalated the situation.

Agree that leaving the scene is preferable to resorting to violence, and the law sees it that way too, but that implies there was such a choice. The law does not require that you take a beating. We don't need to be in a hurry to pass judgement, other than we want the story to fit our preconceived notions about the people involved.

If the earlier assault charge is a felony (and she's convicted) she'll be banned from so much as holding a firearm in her hand for life regardless of how this case comes out. Obviously the cops aren't buying her story—she's charged with attempted murder. She will face lifelong consequences.
Dragonfly_Launch

Dragonfly_Launch Avatar

Location: Conway, Ar
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Gemini
Chinese Yr: Dog


Posted: Sep 13, 2017 - 7:55pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
 Red_Dragon wrote:
Right. Because wtf is that street urchin to bother her privileged white ass? I bet she gets off without a slap on the wrist.

Accounts differ, but there's surveillance video so maybe we'll find out what actually happened.

 
I read the father's account. And he was not present. But, sorry, the only way the woman is justified is if the video shows the homeless man going into his stash for a pistol. Of course, he would not have one, he would have sold it for food. If he comes at her with a bat, a branch, a tire iron, any of these, even a heavy fist then you get in your car and leave. You drive away. But you do not shoot them, leg, arm or otherwise. You are not justified. And you should lose your right to own firearms for life. Pay a fine and serve some time, yes those hurt. But you are banned from the right to own and carry after this. For your entire life. 
Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 424, 425, 426  Next