"Bet you don't have one of these"

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Medium of Death**

You know what's equally boring? People that don't live in America arguing about gun control laws in America. I've done it before, but no more.

**SilverMK2**

Nothing in that article (other than the title) suggest the guy who got shot was attempting to rob anyone.

As far as we know he was simply a smoker who was also a gun enthusiast and wanted to show off his weapon but before explaining that it worked as a magical shield against all harm and had a million uses other than to kill things he was cruely shot by an anti-gun law supporting person demonstrating exactly why you should not flood your society with guns.

**Dreadclaw69**

sebster wrote:
That story is awesome, thanks for posting it Ouze.

The response we've already seen in part and will no doubt see dozens more times in which pro-gun people mistakenly think a single incident has meaning for a nation wide issue, is of course, very boring. Almost boring enough to ruin a really awesome news story. Almost.

Or people will be interested in this story because it contradicts the narrative from a Bloomberg funded astroturf group that claims that defensive gun uses never happen

SilverMK2 wrote:
Nothing in that article (other than the title) suggest the guy who got shot was attempting to rob anyone.

As far as we know he was simply a smoker who was also a gun enthusiast and wanted to show off his weapon but before explaining that it worked as a magical shield against all harm and had a million uses other than to kill things he was cruely shot by an anti-gun law supporting person demonstrating exactly why you should not flood your society with guns.

The man began to walk away, when , police say, he turned around and said "I bet you don't have one of these", pointing a gun in his direction.

He brandished a weapon, and appears to have pointed it at another person. That makes his actions hostile and the other person was perfectly within his right to defend himself. You may stop being facetious

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
He brandished a weapon, and appears to have pointed it at another person.

I am pretty sure pointing a weapon toward someone is a crime worthy of the death penalty.

**Dreadclaw69**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I am pretty sure pointing a weapon toward someone is a crime worthy of the death penalty.

You may note from the article itself the individual who brandished his weapon was wounded but is very much alive. But I shan't let facts get in the way of your hyperbole.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
You may note from the article itself the individual who brandished his weapon was wounded but is very much alive.

That is too bad! Oh well, for all we know, maybe the guy who was shot will never be able to walk again. Or maybe he is disfigured. Or he lost his naughty bits.

Who am I kidding? Gun shots can be brushed off with ease, with no lasting effect whatsoever.

**Frazzled**

Medium of Death wrote:
You know what's equally boring? People that don't live in America arguing about gun control laws in America. I've done it before, but no more.

Amazing agreement. I never discuss gun control in England except of course, if only Richard II had had a Bren gun...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
He brandished a weapon, and appears to have pointed it at another person.

I am pretty sure pointing a weapon toward someone is a crime worthy of the death penalty.

Yes it is in fact, in pretty much every portion of the world except NYC. Its called the right of self defense. Even in France...

**SilverMK2**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The man began to walk away, when , police say, he turned around and said "I bet you don't have one of these", pointing a gun in his direction.

He brandished a weapon, and appears to have pointed it at another person. That makes his actions hostile and the other person was perfectly within his right to defend himself. You may stop being facetious

According to the person who shot him.

**CptJake**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
He brandished a weapon, and appears to have pointed it at another person.

I am pretty sure pointing a weapon toward someone is a crime worthy of the death penalty.

http://cc.army.mil/pubs/armymagazine/docs/2010/CC_ARMY_10-02%20(FEB10)%20Morality-of-Killing.pdf

Pretty decent argument, in my opinion.

In part:

Rights are intangible, so it helps to use a concrete “visual” when we think about them. Imagine, if you will, the “right not to be killed” as a bubble that surrounds each person (Figure 1). Each of us possesses the right that no one else “violate our bubble” and harm us. By virtue of being human, every person possesses a bubble. This is consistent with our moral intuitions. When we are walking down the street, for exam- ple, it would be morally wrong to physically assault a person walking past us. Why? In terms of this explanation, we would be violating that person’s bubble. He possessed the funda- mental human right not to be physically harmed.

Yet we also know that someone can forfeit that right— can “burst his own bubble.” A right is a right as long as it does not violate the more fundamental right of another. Thus, we recognize that if a person intentionally violates (or threatens to violate) the bubble of another, he forfeits his own bubble.For example, if we are walking down the street and someone confronts us with a gun, we are morally permit- ted to use violence against the person to protect our- selves. Why? Because by consciously choosing to violate the bubble of another, the man had forfeited his own bub- ble of rights. The concept of forfeiting rights also applies to situations of coming to the defense of another. For exam- ple, if we witness a man pull a woman into an alley and continue assaulting her, we are morally permitted to use violence against that man to protect the victim, just as the victim herself is morally right to fight back against her at- tacker. Why? Because the attacker, by virtue of violating the bubble of someone else, had forfeited his own bubble, so our use of violence against him violated no right .

**Dreadclaw69**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
That is too bad! Oh well, for all we know, maybe the guy who was shot will never be able to walk again. Or maybe he is disfigured. Or he lost his naughty bits.

Any injury is regrettable, however the individual in question pointed a firearm at another and that person rightly defended himself from the aggressor. Any injury that the aggressor received was the direct result of his own actions.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Who am I kidding? Gun shots can be brushed off with ease, with no lasting effect whatsoever.

I don't believe that anyone made that claim but I shan't let facts get in the way of your hyperbole. Again

SilverMK2 wrote:
According to the person who shot him.

It seems that some people have skipped the article;
"The man began to walk away, when , police say, he turned around and said "I bet you don't have one of these", pointing a gun in his direction".
This could mean that either the person who defended himself made this claim, that it was substantiated by eyewitnesses/CCTV, that the aggressor corroborated this version of events, or some combination of these.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Frazzled wrote:
Yes it is in fact, in pretty much every portion of the world except NYC. Its called the right of self defense. Even in France...

No, it is not. There are way more rules than that which specifies what you have the right to do and when. And I do not think there are many places outside of the U.S. where you can just shoot without warning

. Even the cops usually have to wait until the criminals shoot first. Most of the time, if anything else can be done to protect yourself, you are not allowed to shoot.

Not to point the obvious fact that self-defense is not about inflicting punishment for a crime but about defending yourself, and that only the state can actually carry the death penalty.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The man began to walk away, when , police say, he turned around and said "I bet you don't have one of these", pointing a gun in his direction.

He brandished a weapon, and appears to have pointed it at another person. That makes his actions hostile and the other person was perfectly within his right to defend himself. You may stop being facetious

According to the person who shot him.

And the Police, apparently.

But of course, let's not let the facts get in the way of your agenda.

**Dreadclaw69**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Even the cops usually have to wait until the criminals shoot first. Most of the time, if anything else can be done to protect yourself, you are not allowed to shoot.

Absolute nonsense. If there is risk of imminent harm then the police may act (very similar to what the happened in the article)

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Not to point the obvious fact that self-defense is not about inflicting punishment for a crime but about defending yourself, and that only the state can actually carry the death penalty.

Again, no one died in this incident. And self defense is not about inflicting punishment for a crime - it is about defending yourself. Private citizens do not have the ability to legally determine guilt unless as part of a jury

**Frazzled**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Yes it is in fact, in pretty much every portion of the world except NYC. Its called the right of self defense. Even in France...

No, it is not. There are way more rules than that which specifies what you have the right to do and when. And I do not think there are many places outside of the U.S. where you can just shoot without warning . Even the cops usually have to wait until the criminals shoot first. Most of the time, if anything else can be done to protect yourself, you are not allowed to shoot.

Not to point the obvious fact that self-defense is not about inflicting punishment for a crime but about defending yourself, and that only the state can actually carry the death penalty.

Don't have a clue do ya boy.

BG threatened GG with firearm.
GG reacted before BG could shoot him and shot him instead.

Please show me the jurisidiction where if someone is threatening you with immediate deadly force, you cannot defend yourself. And not your ravings but actual case law thanks.

**SilverMK2**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
It seems that some people have skipped the article;
"The man began to walk away, when , police say, he turned around and said "I bet you don't have one of these", pointing a gun in his direction".
This could mean that either the person who defended himself made this claim, that it was substantiated by eyewitnesses/CCTV, that the aggressor corroborated this version of events, or some combination of these.

Sure, indeed it could. Although given the wording, it seems extremely likely to be a comment on the witness statement from the guy who shot him.

The point being that we can all wait until such time as things go to court and the evidence is presented and (assuming that it is felt, based on the evidence presented) the guy who was shot is found guilty of brandishing a weapon with intent to commit a crime (or whatever the exact charge is) before we can feel justified in calling for people to shoot first, don't ask questions.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
And the Police, apparently.

Based, most likely, on the witness statement provided by the shooter.

But of course, let's not let the facts get in the way of your agenda.

Facts are nothing but a point of view based on presentation of evidence

**Frazzled**

Why would it go to court?

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Any injury is regrettable, however the individual in question pointed a firearm at another and that person rightly defended himself from the aggressor.

So, he pointed a firearm. Was it loaded? Was the safety on? And basically, was that guy being a stupid idiot making a stupid joke, or was he actually planning to kill someone?

CptJake wrote:
http://cc.army.mil/pubs/armymagazine/docs/2010/CC_ARMY_10-02%20(FEB10)%20Morality-of-Killing.pdf

Give a look to figure 4. Here there were hints of capabilities and intent, but proof of neither. Especially intent.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Not to point the obvious fact that self-defense is not about inflicting punishment for a crime but about defending yourself, and that only the state can actually carry the death penalty.

[…]And self defense is not about inflicting punishment for a crime - it is about defending yourself. Private citizens do not have the ability to legally determine guilt unless as part of a jury

I want to add that self-defense is not about inflicting punishment for a crime, it is about defending yourself, and only the state can legally carry the death penalty.

**Frazzled**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Any injury is regrettable, however the individual in question pointed a firearm at another and that person rightly defended himself from the aggressor.

So, he pointed a firearm. Was it loaded? Was the safety on? And basically, was that guy being a stupid idiot making a stupid joke, or was he actually planning to kill someone?

Those questions are irrelevant in pretty much any location on the planet. You've been watching too much TV...or something.
In the US, if the GG has a reasonable belief of imminent death or gross bodily harm to himself or others (that definition can change slightly depending on jurisidiction) then they have the right of self defense.

This one wouldn't even make it to a grand jury to be no billed.

**SilverMK2**

Frazzled wrote:
Why would it go to court?

I'm assuming here that the police may, at some point if they feel the evidence is good, charge the guy who got shot with some kind of crime and so there will be a trial in court?

Or indeed if they feel in the other direction that the guy who shot was acting in a dangerous way/commited a crime (for example they look at the CCTV, see the guy who got shot was holding a carton of smokes and not a gun), then there will be a court case for that reason.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
It seems that some people have skipped the article;
"The man began to walk away, when , police say, he turned around and said "I bet you don't have one of these", pointing a gun in his direction".
This could mean that either the person who defended himself made this claim, that it was substantiated by eyewitnesses/CCTV, that the aggressor corroborated this version of events, or some combination of these.

Sure, indeed it could. Although given the wording, it seems extremely likely to be a comment on the witness statement from the guy who shot him.

The point being that we can all wait until such time as things go to court and the evidence is presented and (assuming that it is felt, based on the evidence presented) the guy who was shot is found guilty of brandishing a weapon with intent to commit a crime (or whatever the exact charge is) before we can feel justified in calling for people to shoot first, don't ask questions.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
And the Police, apparently.

Based, most likely, on the witness statement provided by the shooter.

But of course, let's not let the facts get in the way of your agenda.

Facts are nothing but a point of view based on presentation of evidence

Jumps to a conclusion and exploits an incident to illustrate his anti gun agenda...then tells pro gun people not to jump to conclusions...

**SilverMK2**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Jumps to a conclusion and exploits an incident to illustrate his anti gun agenda...then tells pro gun people not to jump to conclusions...

I believe you will find that I employed a "petitio principii" (facetiously I will admit) argument in reply to a number of people's posts in order to illustrate how incomplete information was being used to enhance their own arguments.

**Frazzled**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Why would it go to court?

I'm assuming here that the police may, at some point if they feel the evidence is good, charge the guy who got shot with some kind of crime and so there will be a trial in court?

Agreed. I'm saying unless there are other facts, with the limited fact pattern before us, unless the DA wants to make a name (and in LV that wouldn't work) then no charges will be filed if the carrier could legally carry at the time.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Just to clarify, I'm not pro gun per se, as I'm British with no dog in this race so to speak. I just find it amusing when two biased and polarised sides bicker and tell each other not to jump to conclusions, then jump to conclusions themselves.

Ima go get my popcorn now.

**SilverMK2**

Frazzled wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Why would it go to court?

I'm assuming here that the police may, at some point if they feel the evidence is good, charge the guy who got shot with some kind of crime and so there will be a trial in court?

Agreed. I'm saying unless there are other facts, with the limited fact pattern before us, unless the DA wants to make a name (and in LV that wouldn't work) then no charges will be filed if the carrier could legally carry at the time.

I'm sorry - slightly confused here. Possibly because I am attempting to update some code I wrote a while ago and am starting to suffer brain burnout

The shooter - the guy who opened fire, is unlikely to go to court if the police feel he acted lawfully (ie the guy who was shot fulfilled whatever criteria he had to meet the self defence requirements of the law).

But are you saying that the guy who was shot is unlikely to go to court either, even if the police decide to try and charge him for, say, brandishing a firearm and attempted robbery?

**Chancetragedy**

MrDwhitey wrote:
motyak wrote:
Missed opportunity to quote Dirty Harry before pulling on him.

Robber: "I bet you don't have one of these"

Shooter: "You've gotta ask yourself a question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?" *Blam*

Of course, by the time he's done the dramatic quote, the robber has beaten him down and taken his stuff.

Or shot him.

Or watched a movie, considering the delivery time of the line.

Hopefully the movie he watched was the good the bad and the ugly so he could shoot first and reply with "if your gonna shoot, shoot. Don't talk."

**Frazzled**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Why would it go to court?

I'm assuming here that the police may, at some point if they feel the evidence is good, charge the guy who got shot with some kind of crime and so there will be a trial in court?

Agreed. I'm saying unless there are other facts, with the limited fact pattern before us, unless the DA wants to make a name (and in LV that wouldn't work) then no charges will be filed if the carrier could legally carry at the time.

I'm sorry - slightly confused here. Possibly because I am attempting to update some code I wrote a while ago and am starting to suffer brain burnout

The shooter - the guy who opened fire, is unlikely to go to court if the police feel he acted lawfully (ie the guy who was shot fulfilled whatever criteria he had to meet the self defence requirements of the law).

But are you saying that the guy who was shot is unlikely to go to court either, even if the police decide to try and charge him for, say, brandishing a firearm and attempted robbery?

No sorry, your first statement. Not sure what happens to the BG (also known as, the shootee...)

**Dreadclaw69**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Sure, indeed it could. Although given the wording, it seems extremely likely to be a comment on the witness statement from the guy who shot him.

The point being that we can all wait until such time as things go to court and the evidence is presented and (assuming that it is felt, based on the evidence presented) the guy who was shot is found guilty of brandishing a weapon with intent to commit a crime (or whatever the exact charge is) before we can feel justified in calling for people to shoot first, don't ask questions.

Except that the wording does no such thing, the narration of the incident comes from the police. It does not say what sources that they used to arrive at their version of events and that does not mean they relied solely on the person who defended himself.

You don't seem to grasp the concept of self defense, and risk of imminent harm. When a person feels that his/her life is in imminent danger of being harmed (such as having a gun pointed at you by a stranger in a parking lot) then that person is entitled to take reasonable steps to defend him/herself.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
So, he pointed a firearm. Was it loaded? Was the safety on? And basically, was that guy being a stupid idiot making a stupid joke, or was he actually planning to kill someone?

You are proposing an impossible standard for self defense by asking whether the person forced to defend himself knew the intentions of the aggressor. Unless at extremely close range, and unless the assailant is using certain models of pistol, it is impossible to visually confirm the readiness of a pistol. Most reasonable people would not be comfortable with having a firearm pointed at them by a stranger, especially when you consider the four rules of gun safety;
RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED
RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY
RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET
RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I want to add that self-defense is not about inflicting punishment for a crime, it is about defending yourself, and only the state can legally carry the death penalty.

Again, no one died in this instance (thankfully). Here is another concept for you to wrestle with; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide

**forgotten ghosts**

i think the big difference is that with the guns you have the choice to protect yourself, and otherwise you have to put your life into the hands of the police and the insurance company, and if this robbery takes place you know your notting getting a tv in time for game of thrones. in america you can legally shoot a man that breaks into your house as long as you fire a warning shoot so why wait around for the system to start working (as it is more broken than gw)

**CptJake**

I've never lived in a state that required firing a warning shot. In fact, in many places what you would consider a warning shot will get you in trouble.

**Dreadclaw69**

CptJake wrote:
I've never lived in a state that required firing a warning shot. In fact, in many places what you would consider a warning shot will get you in trouble.

Yup. If you are in a position to fire a warning shot then legally you have a very difficult time in claiming that your feared imminent harm