JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
... You don't know how often this guy practices, he could have potentially never fired that gun, he could have only fired it once when he bought it. ... Some people can't hit a target at the range, let alone under duress.

More things for a prosecutor to love: Admitting that you don't know how to use the gun, its characteristics if it isn't your first gun, "it just went off" -- you're admitting to negligently killing someone. Same with being a bad shot -- in that circumstance, you're negligent any time you pull the trigger because of all the bystanders you put in danger and if you know you can't shoot, that goes beyond mere negligence.
 
More things for a prosecutor to love: Admitting that you don't know how to use the gun, its characteristics if it isn't your first gun, "it just went off" -- you're admitting to negligently killing someone. Same with being a bad shot -- in that circumstance, you're negligent any time you pull the trigger because of all the bystanders you put in danger and if you know you can't shoot, that goes beyond mere negligence.

I didn't say negligence, you are interjecting your own assertion there, I said that based on his own proficiency level he made have needed additional moment to accurately fire in self defense.

Your premise is as holey as cheese. The majority of gun owners in the country don't practice shooting all that often, are you going to claim that they are all incompetent of using a gun defending themselves too?
 
Here's a headline, 'felon blindside assaults man in parking lot and dies of single gunshot wound fired in self defense'

Amazing how the partiality of the media can play a role in reporting isn't it?
 
I didn't say negligence, you are interjecting your own assertion there, I said that based on his own proficiency level he made have needed additional moment to accurately fire in self defense.

Your premise is as holey as cheese. The majority of gun owners in the country don't practice shooting all that often, are you going to claim that they are all incompetent of using a gun defending themselves too?

I'm playing prosecutor here and given that you must have acted as a reasonable person would have in a SD situation, any time you acted less than that, a prosecutor will pounce and surely use the word negligent here and the word unreasonable there and probably any other number adjectives.

Anyway, if you have the time to take careful aim, you're acting like a sniper. Imminent means "right now" -- immediately -- it doesn't mean "hang on dude, let me get my sights lined up."

The majority of gun owners who don't practice are probably a good resource for defense attorneys' yachting dreams.
 
I'm playing prosecutor here and given that you must have acted as a reasonable person would have in a SD situation, any time you acted less than that, a prosecutor will pounce and surely use the word negligent here and the word unreasonable there and probably any other number adjectives.

Anyway, if you have the time to take careful aim, you're acting like a sniper. Imminent means "right now" -- immediately -- it doesn't mean "hang on dude, let me get my sights lined up."

The majority of gun owners who don't practice are probably a good resource for defense attorneys' yachting dreams.

I suppose cranking off a shot without thinking of applying basic fundamentals to hitting an intended target is preferential even if it means missing and killing someone in the store.
 
Lets back up to the video for a min! Show of hands here, How many of you are taking the video at face value? How many of you believe the video is actual unaltered and 100% pure?
Watch it again!
This video has been so heavily edited and altered that there is no way it would stand up as factual evidence in any court! I posted this very early in this very thread, that this video is completely altert to show facts that are not true or accurate! And where is the other camera footage from that store? You cannot tell me they only have the one camera covering the front of the store! Want proof? If this video is Color, then why is every thing black and white except the three patrons with only colored tops? Why are all the cars a funky shade of gray, yet the two cars that drive through the back ground are red and maroon? why are the nice sneaks all 100% white? Pants all 100% white? Notice how the camera is "Aimed" at the beginning and steady, then seems to shift its view and is grainy and shaky? I would assume that in this modern age that a video surveillance system would record in at least Hi-Def and the mounting would be more stable, Fact is, this video was "adjusted" to hide information that should be easily seen! What about the obvious time delay between the draw and the shot? 1.25 seconds? More like .5 seconds from draw to shot! Watch again, pay attention to the people close to the camera, blue shirt, notice how he some how seems to hover for about a second at exactly the same time the delay of the shot occurs?
Tell me you guys haven't sucked to the bottom of the Kool-Aid and take this video as factual evidence!:eek::eek:
Tell me your not basing all your arguments on this highly Fked with video :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
Come on folks!:eek::eek::eek:
 
Lets back up to the video for a min! Show of hands here, How many of you are taking the video at face value? How many of you believe the video is actual unaltered and 100% pure?
Watch it again!
This video has been so heavily edited and altered that there is no way it would stand up as factual evidence in any court! I posted this very early in this very thread, that this video is completely altert to show facts that are not true or accurate! And where is the other camera footage from that store? You cannot tell me they only have the one camera covering the front of the store! Want proof? If this video is Color, then why is every thing black and white except the three patrons with only colored tops? Why are all the cars a funky shade of gray, yet the two cars that drive through the back ground are red and maroon? why are the nice sneaks all 100% white? Pants all 100% white? Notice how the camera is "Aimed" at the beginning and steady, then seems to shift its view and is grainy and shaky? I would assume that in this modern age that a video surveillance system would record in at least Hi-Def and the mounting would be more stable, Fact is, this video was "adjusted" to hide information that should be easily seen! What about the obvious time delay between the draw and the shot? 1.25 seconds? More like .5 seconds from draw to shot! Watch again, pay attention to the people close to the camera, blue shirt, notice how he some how seems to hover for about a second at exactly the same time the delay of the shot occurs?
Tell me you guys haven't sucked to the bottom of the Kool-Aid and take this video as factual evidence!:eek::eek:
Tell me your not basing all your arguments on this highly Fked with video :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
Come on folks!:eek::eek::eek:

I was on tv it must be true.
 
Dude, I can edit this chit with my phone, how hard can it really be to fk with a video using professional gear to "Edit" in a delay and to hide details by making it black and white and fuzzy, yet add in color to only a few objects?

And the T.V. and interwebs are as true and holy as the bible!:eek:
 
Let this shooting be an example for us all.

When you carry , you need to as close to 100 % "right" , correct or blameless as possible , in everything that you do and each interaction that you have.
You will be judged seven ways to Sunday , by the media and folks who were there , weren't there , can relate to you and by those who don't have a clue....all before you end up in court.
Not to forget the media checking and displaying the backgrounds of all involved for the world to see and judge...whether it is relevant to the case at hand or not....

Before intervening , have a plan...weigh all the possible outcomes...
That said... remember that other people , have no notion of your plan and will not play by your rules.
If you choose to intervene in a non life threatening situation , use this example to remember that it can change in the blink of an eye...is the issue that you are getting yourself in the middle of , worth that happening...?

You have no control over how other folks react to what you say and do....But remember that you chose to intervene , rightly or wrongly...you put yourself into a situation...that may very quickly and easily go any number of ways , that you didn't count on.

Even if you intervene in a life threatening situation ....you may have gotten there in the middle or near the end of it...Just what is really going on...? Who is actually the aggressor...?

Again when you carry it seems to me , that you must be as close to blameless in all that you do ...and left with no other recourse , thru no fault of yours , if you need to shoot.
Andy
 
The shooter started the whole thing. Period.
Not the person who first broke the law? She started this chain of events, like it or not. That's a fact.

Playing a bit of Devil's advocate here, as I have a disabled mother. I have been on both sides of this verbally. I politely asked a healthy man to move his car once. He was illegally parked in the last handicapped spot. I have also been berated by others for using a handicapped spot with my mother in the car and her placard on my mirror.

Really, I see nothing wrong with asking someone to move before I call the cops.
 
Bottom line is that these laws are controversial at best, bad at worst and this fellow's actions were clearly not prudential.

There are states that do impose a "duty to retreat"... IMO that is scary. Imagine having to run out the back door when an intruder or worse and armed intruder comes into your house. In my mind, SYG is intended to affirm that you do NOT have a "duty to retreat". I really can't say that I have seen it misused, this case may turn out to be the exception.

Bad law. Face it - each of us could be next, depending on the situation. How would that feel?

Not sure what you are saying... in what manner would I be next? You mean if I assaulted someone and got shot? How would that feel, you ask? Not sure since I've never been shot. And since I would be dead, the feeling wouldn't last very long...

You're in a bar ordering a roiund. Drunk hits on your wife or girlfriend. Right up in her chest. She gives you "the look." You step in, the guy shouts at you and you shove him away. He draws and kills you.

Good law?

You think SYG allows that sort of thing? I can't see it.

Really, I see nothing wrong with asking someone to move before I call the cops.

I have a disabled parking sticker. Some days I don't really need it, other days I can barely move around. I've thought about confronting violators before, it has always seemed to me that somebody that does that is also someone that might start some schlit... no thanx. I have a responsibility to avoid fights... I say something (politely if I'm in a good mood, if I'm not I might sound more pizzed off), the violator gets all jacked and curses me out, I get all cursive too, they come over and get physical, now I either get my azz beat or I retreat to my car and take off, or I have to defend myself the best I can (which for me is a weapon since I am old and not in good shape). Nah, I think I'll pass, even tho I'd like to curse and yell.
 
Im a little late to this thread, but what a lose lose situation all around. Theres no excuse for using violence to solve an argument and shove someone to the ground, the guy was a bully and in the wrong for parking illegally and uses violence to get away with it.

But the shooter is a narcisstic bully too, empowered by his ccw.... With a police record of threatening others to stroke his ego.
I normally am adamant about defending self defense rights, all the legal elements of clajming self defense are there as I see it currently, but I hope this guy gets convicted. It may be a legal shoot, but it wasnt a righteous shoot, this guy is the reason gun owners look bad and cause people to impose more limitations on our right.
 
Im a little late to this thread, but what a lose lose situation all around. Theres no excuse for using violence to solve an argument and shove someone to the ground, the guy was a bully and in the wrong for parking illegally and uses violence to get away with it.

But the shooter is a narcisstic bully too, empowered by his ccw.... With a police record of threatening others to stroke his ego.
I normally am adamant about defending self defense rights, all the legal elements of clajming self defense are there as I see it currently, but I hope this guy gets convicted. It may be a legal shoot, but it wasnt a righteous shoot, this guy is the reason gun owners look bad and cause people to impose more limitations on our right.

Exactly this, except I don't want to see him get convicted because that would be a misread of the laws and situation to punish a gun owner for a subjective "non-righteous" shoot after the fact. If precedence like that is set against gun owners defending themselves, that is dangerous to all of us(CHL/CPL/CCW/whatever you want to call it holders).
 
Exactly this, except I don't want to see him get convicted because that would be a misread of the laws and situation to punish a gun owner for a subjective "non-righteous" shoot after the fact. If precedence like that is set against gun owners defending themselves, that is dangerous to all of us(CHL/CPL/CCW/whatever you want to call it holders).

Thats my concern too. I hate this case...
Talk about cognative dissonance.

I dont know what else to say right now.... Im contemplating the impact on lawful and moral gun owners who carry for protection if this guy gets convicted, as he should.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top