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.

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/08/10/white-man-calls-cops-to-report-hoodlums-then-fatally-shoots-b/21448809/

And the dumb train keeps rolling along...

And people wonder why the "I need my gun for defense" argument is difficult to buy.

Another thug wanting to play hero and murder someone. Had to pop his gun boner.

But don't worry guys, racism is over!

Stupidity never ends. Have fun in prison!

At no time are Yoda's words of warning regarding the path from fear to suffering more perfectly illustrated than here.

Im sorry AOL exists still?

Bury him under the jail. I mean, try him in a court of law, and then bury him under the jail.

 Desubot wrote:
Im sorry AOL exists still?

I know, right?

I third the AOL bit, and whatever the "but aren't you guys glad racism is over" sentiment

 LordofHats wrote:
I third the AOL bit,

It's a thing...

Mainly those loyal customers back in the day after the merger with ATT&T.

and whatever the "but aren't you guys glad racism is over" sentiment

Totes.

Do we have more info?

Sounds like a fething looney.

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I third the AOL bit,

It's a thing...

Mainly those loyal customers back in the day after the merger with ATT&T.

and whatever the "but aren't you guys glad racism is over" sentiment

Totes.

Do we have more info?

Sounds like a fething looney.

Here's the article from the local paper that covers Raleigh where the shooting happened.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/crime/article94248182.html

Apparently the guy fired his shotgun from his garage and killed the victim who was running in street because he thought he saw police lights ahead and he was holding a small amount of marijuana. Why the homeowner shot somebody that wasn't even on his property and was heading away from his house is a mystery. Apparently he told 911 that he fired a "warning shot" thought a warning shot was required by law but that's not true, NC doesn't require warning shots in fact warning shots are illegal because they're dangerous. Warning shots are stupid, you should either be shooting at the threat in order to end the threat or you shouldn't be shooting at all. Discharging lethal projectiles into the air just to scare people is dangerous bad idea.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I third the AOL bit,

It's a thing...

Mainly those loyal customers back in the day after the merger with ATT&T.

and whatever the "but aren't you guys glad racism is over" sentiment

Totes.

Do we have more info?

Sounds like a fething looney.

Here's the article from the local paper that covers Raleigh where the shooting happened.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/crime/article94248182.html

Apparently the guy fired his shotgun from his garage and killed the victim who was running in street because he thought he saw police lights ahead and he was holding a small amount of marijuana. Why the homeowner shot somebody that wasn't even on his property and was heading away from his house is a mystery. Apparently he told 911 that he fired a "warning shot" thought a warning shot was required by law but that's not true, NC doesn't require warning shots in fact warning shots are illegal because they're dangerous. Warning shots are stupid, you should either be shooting at the threat in order to end the threat or you shouldn't be shooting at all. Discharging lethal projectiles into the air just to scare people is dangerous bad idea.

Yeesh... I feel like we're mssing a lot of information.

But, ugh, what a moron (re: his "shoot in the air" statement)

He's going to prison for quite some time.

 whembly wrote:

Spoiler:

]

Prestor Jon wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I third the AOL bit,

It's a thing...

Mainly those loyal customers back in the day after the merger with ATT&T.

and whatever the "but aren't you guys glad racism is over" sentiment

Totes.

Do we have more info?

Sounds like a fething looney.

Here's the article from the local paper that covers Raleigh where the shooting happened.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/crime/article94248182.html

Apparently the guy fired his shotgun from his garage and killed the victim who was running in street because he thought he saw police lights ahead and he was holding a small amount of marijuana. Why the homeowner shot somebody that wasn't even on his property and was heading away from his house is a mystery. Apparently he told 911 that he fired a "warning shot" thought a warning shot was required by law but that's not true, NC doesn't require warning shots in fact warning shots are illegal because they're dangerous. Warning shots are stupid, you should either be shooting at the threat in order to end the threat or you shouldn't be shooting at all. Discharging lethal projectiles into the air just to scare people is dangerous bad idea.

Yeesh... I feel like we're mssing a lot of information.

But, ugh, what a moron (re: his "shoot in the air" statement)

He's going to prison for quite some time.

He's definitely in a lot of trouble. It seems that there was a house party down the street from the shooter's house that may or may not have been noisy or a nuisance or whatever that bothered the shooter but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that anyone was trespassing on his property or trying to break into his house or presenting an imminent threat of harm to the shooter. The shooter claims there was a verbal altercation but even his description of that doesn't come anywhere close to justifying him shooting.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Spoiler:

]

Prestor Jon wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I third the AOL bit,

It's a thing...

Mainly those loyal customers back in the day after the merger with ATT&T.

and whatever the "but aren't you guys glad racism is over" sentiment

Totes.

Do we have more info?

Sounds like a fething looney.

Here's the article from the local paper that covers Raleigh where the shooting happened.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/crime/article94248182.html

Apparently the guy fired his shotgun from his garage and killed the victim who was running in street because he thought he saw police lights ahead and he was holding a small amount of marijuana. Why the homeowner shot somebody that wasn't even on his property and was heading away from his house is a mystery. Apparently he told 911 that he fired a "warning shot" thought a warning shot was required by law but that's not true, NC doesn't require warning shots in fact warning shots are illegal because they're dangerous. Warning shots are stupid, you should either be shooting at the threat in order to end the threat or you shouldn't be shooting at all. Discharging lethal projectiles into the air just to scare people is dangerous bad idea.

Yeesh... I feel like we're mssing a lot of information.

But, ugh, what a moron (re: his "shoot in the air" statement)

He's going to prison for quite some time.

He's definitely in a lot of trouble. It seems that there was a house party down the street from the shooter's house that may or may not have been noisy or a nuisance or whatever that bothered the shooter but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that anyone was trespassing on his property or trying to break into his house or presenting an imminent threat of harm to the shooter. The shooter claims there was a verbal altercation but even his description of that doesn't come anywhere close to justifying him shooting.

Makes me wonder how far his garage window is to the street (where I'm assuming the victim was shot)... that's an unlucky shot with a shotgun... right?

<---this guy can barely hit the skeet in trap sessions... still learning tho.

His 911 call and the actual shooting don't seem to connect. I think there's more going on here. Still makes him a nutbag-I would just like to get the connection from the call's statement and his shooting somebody running by.

 Frazzled wrote:
His 911 call and the actual shooting don't seem to connect. I think there's more going on here. Still makes him a nutbag-I would just like to get the connection from the call's statement and his shooting somebody running by.

Agreed. Even if he did get into an argument over noise with somebody who flashed a gun at him that's no reason for him to be firing his shotgun. If he did see a gun he should have gone back inside his home, called 911 and waited in his home for the police to respond. If somebody trespassed onto his property with a gun then things may have escalated to a point where he might have needed to defend himself but so far none of the media reports have presented any kind of justification for him shooting somebody in the street from his garage.

 Frazzled wrote:
His 911 call and the actual shooting don't seem to connect. I think there's more going on here. Still makes him a nutbag-I would just like to get the connection from the call's statement and his shooting somebody running by.

My reading of the article says he called 911, said his title piece, went outside and shot a guy, then came back inside and called 911 again because he was seriously outnumbered.

Anyone else get a different read on the situation?

That's what I picked up from the article.

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
His 911 call and the actual shooting don't seem to connect. I think there's more going on here. Still makes him a nutbag-I would just like to get the connection from the call's statement and his shooting somebody running by.

My reading of the article says he called 911, said his title piece, went outside and shot a guy, then came back inside and called 911 again because he was seriously outnumbered.

Anyone else get a different read on the situation?

He called 911 to state that he was going to go confront "hoodlums" with his shotgun to protect his neighborhood and then a woman called 911 again from his house and he also got on that call and told 911 that he may have hit somebody with his warning shot. He didn't go very far if he fired a shot from inside his garage and he wasn't aiming up in the air for his warning shot since he hit somebody in the street. Still doesn't make much sense.

Obviously there's nothing funny about this situation but the homeowner killing somebody running by with a "warning shot" does remind me of the invisible swordsman scene in Three Amigos.

I'd like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt but this guy is really hard to be give any kind of sympathy. I guess there is a slim chance that there is more to the story. At least with the Travon martin case there was a level of plausible deniability. (Note, I kind-of think Zimmerman should have been guilty, but there wasn't enough evidence). This guy on the other hand looks like he's going to jail for sure.


On there other hand I seem to remember some items in the news from years ago where the "accidental warning shot" actually worked as a defense. Likely he's just a hothead with a gun and bad cover story.

I think the whole "telling the cops what he was about to do and having that on a recorded line" thing will probably be his downfall on any claims of it being an accident.

I agree with you there. I was once told by a lawyer that if you call the cops (or talk to them in any manner) you tell them what you see and what other people are doing, but NEVER what you are doing or your intents. If it's after an incident you NEVER talk to them at all. Regardless of what you think, anything you say might hurt you, but can't ever really help you.

Hypothetically, if this guy was honestly thinking the people were armed confronting them is the worst thing you could do. Stay in the house out of sight, turn off the lights and sounds, and let them get bored until cops arrive. If they are a threat to a third party, that might be something else to consider. However there are too many variables to summarize your options.

 Desubot wrote:
Im sorry AOL exists still?

It doesn't just exist, it's a kind of fascinating example of, well, something. AOL puts all their corporate effort in to media and data tracking. Apparently their data tracking is even pretty good, but it doesn't make any money. Meanwhile the company keeps making bank on its almost entirely ignored internet provision. And even weirder, a lot of their pure profit in that field comes from dial up. There's still about 2 million people paying AOL money for dial up each month. It's unsure how much of their dial up fees are from people who still only have access to dial up, and how much is from people who don't realise they're paying a monthly fee for a service they haven't used since 1997.

 sebster wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Im sorry AOL exists still?

It doesn't just exist, it's a kind of fascinating example of, well, something. AOL puts all their corporate effort in to media and data tracking. Apparently their data tracking is even pretty good, but it doesn't make any money. Meanwhile the company keeps making bank on its almost entirely ignored internet provision. And even weirder, a lot of their pure profit in that field comes from dial up. There's still about 2 million people paying AOL money for dial up each month. It's unsure how much of their dial up fees are from people who still only have access to dial up, and how much is from people who don't realise they're paying a monthly fee for a service they haven't used since 1997.

I'd say it's a pretty good chance that there are thousands of people that are paying for dial-up they don't use. I live in a rural community with surrounding towns with populations under 400. They didn't get access to anything better than dial-up until 2004 or so. My friend was into Everquest and got internet at his parents' home to play it on his Playstation. A couple years later he moved out. Even though they later had Dish provided internet they kept getting billed for dialup because they forgot it was there. I think they went 3 or so years paying for something they didn't use or want.

Another article about the incident was in the local paper today. Looks like it's going to be very difficult for the homeowner to mount a successful self defense case.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/crime/article94904167.html

N.C. Central University Law School professor and defense attorney Irving Joyner says a home or vehicle occupant can shoot someone only if there is a threat of serious bodily injury or death.


Police say Copley was inside his garage when he fired a shotgun, hitting Thomas, who fell on the lawn a few feet from the street.


The man who called police from the house on Singleleaf Lane said he fired a warning shot “like I’m supposed to by law.” It’s not clear what law he was referring to, but neither the castle doctrine or stand your ground laws refer to warning shots.

Warning shots are always, 100% of the time, a big problem legally.. They establish that you weren't in imminent fear for your life (because you didn't take a lethal shot).

Best case scenario, it's reckless endangerment, even if you're not a murderer like this guy seems to be.

Good. I'm of the opinion that guns should only be fired if there is imminent threat to yourself or others, and even then you should try and threaten them first. I despise the castle doctrine, the gak you have in your house is not worth a life. If you think someone is going to raid your house or some gak, just get your family out and call the cops.

My opinion anyway, I'm sure many people think differently.

You do realize that this, based on what has been reported, has nothing to do with Castle Doctrine laws, right?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Good. I'm of the opinion that guns should only be fired if there is imminent threat to yourself or others,

Yes. Also for birthdays, Independence day, and if you're attacked by jackalopes.

and even then you should try and threaten them first.

Thats just stupid.
EDIT: I should add why that is stupid.
1. often in a self defense situation you are reacting not acting.
2. If you are not reacting and there is an imminent threat then that imminent threat is, well imminent. Its not Hollywood. You have no plot armor here. If someone is trying to kill you they are trying to kill you and may well succeed.

I despise the castle doctrine, the gak you have in your house is not worth a life.

Its not about the stuff in the house. Its about the people in the house. The castle doctrine essentially says-based on horrific actual NY court cases-that you have no duty to retreat from your own home.

If you think someone is going to raid your house or some gak, just get your family out and call the cops.

And therein is the problem- the "just" part is the problem.

Being a Jury of his peers, all it takes is one 'peer' who thinks like he does where his gun rights matter, his house matters, his neighborhood matters and the victim probably deserved it in some way and this guy will never be convicted.

In North Carolina, It will be fairly easy to find at least one juror who will see reasonable doubt or believe some sort of justification.

I like the casual disparagement of an entire state. No elitism there...