How do we stop idiots like this guy ...

[The Heretic]

Back on to the OP's question (at least in the thread title):

I don't think there is anyway to stop idiots like this guy (assuming the representation is correct - which for the sake of argument, let's make that assumption).

There always have been and always will be, in any given group of people (classed by some criteria), people who conduct themselves in an idiotic manner at some point in time. It is human nature.

The best I think we can do is to publicly discourage and disclaim such behavior.

 

[JohnnyMac]

In regards to the original post:

I think it would be helpful to see the NRA get involved in situations like this and condemn them. It would give them an opportunity to prove that they are an organization that pushes firearm safety and responsibility. Might also help anti-2A folks to realize that the NRA is not just a scary organization that is here to save assault rifles.

 

[No_Regerts]

In regards to the original post:

I think it would be helpful to see the NRA get involved in situations like this and condemn them. It would give them an opportunity to prove that they are an organization that pushes firearm safety and responsibility. Might also help anti-2A folks to realize that the NRA is not just a scary organization that is here to save assault rifles.

You'd think stuff like this would make it into some sort of curriculum somewhere. Never used much math with letters and still wonder why we dwelled on Shakespeare so much, but a course on how to get by in life and avoid going to prison would seem pretty helpful!

 

[The Heretic]

In regards to the original post:

I think it would be helpful to see the NRA get involved in situations like this and condemn them. It would give them an opportunity to prove that they are an organization that pushes firearm safety and responsibility. Might also help anti-2A folks to realize that the NRA is not just a scary organization that is here to save assault rifles.

The problem is that everybody is in a rush to condemn the actions of a person or persons based on a skimpy news article, usually reported on with the barest of facts.

So having a national org immediately come out as joining that condemnation is problematic.

Waiting until all the facts are in and all sides are known, is also problematic as by then the incident has been lost in the noise and been forgotten.

 

[deadeye]

Thread cleaned lets follow the site rules when posting please.

 

[No_Regerts]

The problem is that everybody is in a rush to condemn the actions of a person or persons based on a skimpy news article, usually reported on with the barest of facts.

So having a national org immediately come out as joining that condemnation is problematic.

Waiting until all the facts are in and all sides are known, is also problematic as by then the incident has been lost in the noise and been forgotten.

Now we know how a few of us feel when ANOTHER Monday Morning QB thread gets posted after a use of force by a cop.

 

[The Heretic]

Now we know how a few of us feel when ANOTHER Monday Morning QB thread gets posted after a use of force by a cop.

Guilty as charged.

I am well aware of what it looks like when I do that.

 

[Ura-Ki]

FOLKS, lets get back to the Topic of this discussion and stop with the personal attacks, this is not how we play together!
You will note the judicial removal of posts in this thread, next step is the "Red Banner Of Death" and y'all know what happens next, so Play Nice!

 

[Koda]

@Koda said: "This particular guy thought he was in the right to defend his property from tresspassing, with lethal force."


I agree, I would not react like he did, but....
He did not use lethal force. He had it available because he said he had recent problems with criminal activity on his property. I'll let the jury decide if he was justified in having a gun in his hand - there is much we don't know about this incident.

We should not act like Obama, assigning guilt before any facts are known. Innocent until proven guilty.

Having a gun in hand is threatening to use lethal force. How many in this group would not have drawn and shot him for putting their life in danger? There is a huge difference between a holstered gun and a gun in hand, you have a right to have a gun on you, but trespassing is not a life threatening situation that is reasonable to drawing your gun let alone pointing it...
Reasonableness is one of the basic legal principles of self defense, if the property owner had some legal training he would know this.

 

[No_Regerts]

Guilty as charged.

Meh, you'll always be one of my favorites.

 

[No_Regerts]

Having a gun in hand is threatening to use lethal force. How many in this group would not have drawn and shot him for putting their life in danger? There is a huge difference between a holstered gun and a gun in hand, you have a right to have a gun on you, but trespassing is not a life threatening situation that is reasonable to drawing your gun let alone pointing it...
Reasonableness is one of the basic legal principles of self defense, if the property owner had some legal training he would know this.

Yeah, especially if you gotta chase the guy down to get to the point where you point your gun at him for trespassing! Maybe not objectively reasonable....

 

[No_Regerts]

"Red Banner Of Death"

Happens about every 28 days....

 

[The Heretic]

Having a gun in hand is threatening to use lethal force. How many in this group would not have drawn and shot him for putting their life in danger? There is a huge difference between a holstered gun and a gun in hand, you have a right to have a gun on you, but trespassing is not a life threatening situation that is reasonable to drawing your gun let alone pointing it...
Reasonableness is one of the basic legal principles of self defense, if the property owner had some legal training he would know this.

There is a huge difference between having a gun in hand and pointing a gun at someone.

More often than not, if I am carrying a gun on my property, it won't be in a holster, it will be in hand - not because I am threatened, but rather because I don't yet have holsters for the majority of my guns.

 

[Koda]

Yeah, especially if you gotta chase the guy down to get to the point where you point your gun at him for trespassing! Maybe not objectively reasonable....

the homeowner has no clue on reasonableness, proportionality and even avoidance even if he was in a stand your ground state.There is a serious lack of legal training here that makes all gun owners look bad.

 

[No_Regerts]

the homeowner has no clue on reasonableness, proportionality and even avoidance even if he was in a stand your ground state.There is a serious lack of legal training here that makes all gun owners look bad.

That and his shorts. Gun owners tend to wear goofy clothes.

 

[Koda]

There is a huge difference between having a gun in hand and pointing a gun at someone.

More often than not, if I am carrying a gun on my property, it won't be in a holster, it will be in hand - not because I am threatened, but rather because I don't yet have holsters for the majority of my guns.

Not when you chased someone down and blocked their escape (ie attempt to descalate and leave).

An Uncle Mikes holster is pretty cheap when you can afford multiple guns....
Cops have justifiably shot many people for gun in hand, its not really a great way to investigate bumps in the night and not a huge difference than pointing at someone. A trespasser has a legal right to defend his life...

 

[No_Regerts]

Not when you chased someone down and blocked their escape (ie attempt to descalate and leave).

An Uncle Mikes holster is pretty cheap when you can afford multiple guns....
Cops have justifiably shot many people for gun in hand, its not really a great way to investigate bumps in the night and not a huge difference than pointing at someone. A trespasser has a legal right to defend his life...

Uncle Mikes holsters are like Trojan Magnums. Few guns necessitate their size, but they'll all "fit".

A trespasser would have almost no way of proving self defense because he wasn't where he was at legally.

 

[DWaterhouse]

Uncle Mikes holsters are like Trojan Magnums. Few guns necessitate their size, but they'll all "fit".

A trespasser would have almost no way of proving self defense because he wasn't where he was at legally.

In this exact situation we are discussing the driver would have full legal defense to have shot the man menacing them with a firearm when there was no clear threat or intent to cause harm. Technically they were trespassing unknowingly by getting lost, the man pulls and points his pistol. If he was shot in return with that information, those people would never be convicted by a jury.

 

[Koda]

That and his shorts. Gun owners tend to wear goofy clothes.

Id consider voting for goofy clothes control before gun control anyday.

 

[No_Regerts]

In this exact situation we are discussing the driver would have full legal defense to have shot the man menacing them with a firearm when there was no clear threat or intent to cause harm. Technically they were trespassing unknowingly by getting lost, the man pulls and points his pistol. If he was shot in return with that information, those people would never be convicted by a jury.

I didn't even consider that guy a trespasser. If he turned in and turned around, he was probably still on the easement. What I was thinking of was a bonafide trespasser.