paintballdude902
Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2007
- Messages
- 2,872
good for him. but i would like to know if he had a cc permit or if he was open carrying or if he was illegally carrying
An interesting news story from TN
- Thread starter c919
- Start date
- Status
armormodeler
Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2010
- Messages
- 3
I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.I would shoot back.his friends in the car had to have an idea what he was like,so they are taking that risk every time they go somewhere with him.
c919
Member
Yeah it appears that it was on private property. If it wasn't and he was not legally carry carrying, you can believe that any major TN news outlet would have definitely informed us of it.
I suggest anyone thinking of posting anything about religion go read the forum rules first, specifically: "We have learned from bitter experience that discussions of politics, abortion, religion, and sexual orientation often degenerate into less-than-polite arguments or claims that "my God is better than your God". For this reason, we do not discuss such subjects on THR..."
In summary: we do not care what you religion you are or are not, and if you feel the need to spout off about religion in this thread after being warned, you will be summarily ejected from the board. Now, maybe we can get back on topic.
John
In summary: we do not care what you religion you are or are not, and if you feel the need to spout off about religion in this thread after being warned, you will be summarily ejected from the board. Now, maybe we can get back on topic.
John
cauberallies
Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2009
- Messages
- 88
This. If I were to be participating in the removal gang graffiti, I hope I'd have the option of legally doing such a thing. There is no deterrent better than KNOWING that your potential victim will shoot back, and if that doesn't make them change their minds, introducing them to our good friend Mr Double O. Buckshot surely will. He doesn't take no for an answer.
rm23
Member
Five people arrested and only one charged? What?
Hilarious when she came out of the house with the sweater over her face.
Hilarious when she came out of the house with the sweater over her face.
c919
Member
^^^ Aww, give her a break. I'm sure she's a saint. I just can't figure out where that sweet lady went wrong... Lord knows she tried hard.
Malcomhawk
Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 12
In Tennessee a person who uses reasonable force (including deadly force) to defend himself is in pretty good shape legally.
"39-17-1322. Defenses. — A person shall not be charged with or convicted of a violation under this part if the person possessed, displayed or employed a handgun in justifiable self-defense or in justifiable defense of another during the commission of a crime in which that person or the other person defended was a victim."
So whether the gentleman in the video was on his own property or not, as long as there is sufficient evidence to believe he was the victim here, EVEN IF HE WAS CARRYING UNLAWFULLY, he has a statutory defense.
My response to Nematocyst is that even the police in such a situation can't put 100 percent of rounds into a "stationary target" much less a moving one. But, I still want the men (civilian or police) who are inclined to take action on my side, regardless of whether they are perfect shooters. Too many people, including police officers are afraid of liability. Walk in the light and you need never fear the dark.
"39-17-1322. Defenses. — A person shall not be charged with or convicted of a violation under this part if the person possessed, displayed or employed a handgun in justifiable self-defense or in justifiable defense of another during the commission of a crime in which that person or the other person defended was a victim."
So whether the gentleman in the video was on his own property or not, as long as there is sufficient evidence to believe he was the victim here, EVEN IF HE WAS CARRYING UNLAWFULLY, he has a statutory defense.
My response to Nematocyst is that even the police in such a situation can't put 100 percent of rounds into a "stationary target" much less a moving one. But, I still want the men (civilian or police) who are inclined to take action on my side, regardless of whether they are perfect shooters. Too many people, including police officers are afraid of liability. Walk in the light and you need never fear the dark.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Who's light? What light? Put a bullet into one of the houses across the street -- or into a lady sitting in her living room or a toddler on a tricycle in his front yard -- while you're firing on that speeding car and your moral high ground evaporates.
Wouldn't it be nice if the "good" guys could rain death on the bad guys with impunity?
So let's look at this scenario closely, shall we?
You're out painting over gang tags in your neighborhood. You have your paint roller and pan and your pistol on your hip. You're painting away when a car passes on the street at ~25 mph. As it comes just about even with you, the passenger fires a string of shots into the wall around you (let's assume) missing you narrowly.
Your lightning reflexes kick in and you drop the roller, turn, draw, and prepare to fire. If you're fast, you could maybe have that first shot going down range in 1.2 sec. or so. By the time your first (Robbie Laethem-like) shot breaks, the car is 15 yds. past you -- assuming they didn't speed up at all. Now you're firing at what? A threat? No. You're firing at an object that is moving away from you at an increasing rate of speed, carrying away with it whatever threat it might have presented before.
Remember, we don't shoot to kill a criminal. We don't shoot to prevent a bad guy from escaping. We don't shoot to avenge our near injury. We don't shoot to take a gang member off the streets. We don't shoot to wound/mark our assailants so they'll end up in the hospital later. We shoot to STOP a threat.
As there is no longer a threat, why are we shooting?
This is my take on the situation as well. It's a violation of the "be sure of your backstop" rule. The defender is firing blind and unsure of who he's going to hit. That is, he was not firing at an assailant, he was firing at a car full of people moving away from him. The possibilities here range from him being lauded as a local hero to being sent to prison for manslaughter.
In discussions of this case elsewhere, there seem to be two general schools of thought on the matter: One group (by far the largest group) are clapping their hands and saying, "well done, sir." The other, smaller group, thinks that he did not have a clear target.
Here's the news story that Nems trying to get people to avoid,
"Bobby Brown is a typical seven-year-old. He wanted to be a firefighter, but recently changed his mind and decided he'd like to grow up and be a police officer.
On Sunday afternoon, he experienced his first shooting a few decades too early. Bobby was outside playing in the 900 block of West East Street when he was killed in a drive-by shooting incident."
The point being made is that the people living in the neighborhood don't need to be put at risk when the basic rules of firearms safety and self defense aren't followed.
Having a round pass through the vehicle's window and hit a child standing on the porch watching the painting isn't meeting anyone's needs.
Shooting at a fleeing vehicle in a neighborhood isn't smart self defense.
"Bobby Brown is a typical seven-year-old. He wanted to be a firefighter, but recently changed his mind and decided he'd like to grow up and be a police officer.
On Sunday afternoon, he experienced his first shooting a few decades too early. Bobby was outside playing in the 900 block of West East Street when he was killed in a drive-by shooting incident."
The point being made is that the people living in the neighborhood don't need to be put at risk when the basic rules of firearms safety and self defense aren't followed.
Having a round pass through the vehicle's window and hit a child standing on the porch watching the painting isn't meeting anyone's needs.
Shooting at a fleeing vehicle in a neighborhood isn't smart self defense.
Malcomhawk
Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 12
What you are all assuming is that:
1. Defender wasn't aware of his backstop.
2. The vehicle was actively fleeing.
3. Defender would have survived the attack without the use of his own weapon.
4. The attacker wouldn't have hit little Bobby Brown if he had more time to spray in the defenders direction.
You weren't there, Monday Morning Quarterback, neither was I, but I'll always give the benefit of the doubt to the righteous.
I have news for you. If you look at FBI statistics, most shootings are in low light and in urban areas. Also, I've worked a few shootings over the years and you generally find a scattering of blood or casings over a wide area, meaning most likely, the shooters were moving, not standing in one spot waiting to get hit.
If you want 100 percent certainty of your backstop, then only engage threats at your local range in good lighting. Or inside your own house, oh wait, bullets penetrate walls and windows very easily. That sounded sarcastic, I'm sorry about that, I know you are the good guys as well. But, I'm frustrated by what i have seen over the years as more new officers become more and more liability averse to the point that even when a gun is pointed at them they don't defend themselves.
1. Defender wasn't aware of his backstop.
2. The vehicle was actively fleeing.
3. Defender would have survived the attack without the use of his own weapon.
4. The attacker wouldn't have hit little Bobby Brown if he had more time to spray in the defenders direction.
You weren't there, Monday Morning Quarterback, neither was I, but I'll always give the benefit of the doubt to the righteous.
I have news for you. If you look at FBI statistics, most shootings are in low light and in urban areas. Also, I've worked a few shootings over the years and you generally find a scattering of blood or casings over a wide area, meaning most likely, the shooters were moving, not standing in one spot waiting to get hit.
If you want 100 percent certainty of your backstop, then only engage threats at your local range in good lighting. Or inside your own house, oh wait, bullets penetrate walls and windows very easily. That sounded sarcastic, I'm sorry about that, I know you are the good guys as well. But, I'm frustrated by what i have seen over the years as more new officers become more and more liability averse to the point that even when a gun is pointed at them they don't defend themselves.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
One thing to possibly consider Malcom, is that most of our members here aren't law enforcement officers, and neither was the "hero" of the original story, either.
As a private citizen, not a sworn officer, we have very different standards for circumstances under which we may shoot and -- more importantly -- we do not have the backing (legal and financial) of a department behind us to absorb the costs for collateral damage we may incurr -- up to and including negligent (accidental?) death of a bystander.
It is an eternal frustration to all good people that the actions of conscientious, moral folks are hamstrung by our concern for their effects on others -- while the criminal, the terrorist, the killer enacts wanton destruction without a thought for the unintended death and damage he may cause. But it has always been so and will always be so.
And we are responsible for the final destination of every single bullet we fire, period.
As a private citizen, not a sworn officer, we have very different standards for circumstances under which we may shoot and -- more importantly -- we do not have the backing (legal and financial) of a department behind us to absorb the costs for collateral damage we may incurr -- up to and including negligent (accidental?) death of a bystander.
It is an eternal frustration to all good people that the actions of conscientious, moral folks are hamstrung by our concern for their effects on others -- while the criminal, the terrorist, the killer enacts wanton destruction without a thought for the unintended death and damage he may cause. But it has always been so and will always be so.
And we are responsible for the final destination of every single bullet we fire, period.
It's not just a little paint on the wall to the gangstabros. He's disrepectin' them and needs to be taught a lesson. Well, in their minds anyway.
Memphrica, it's like Mogadishu on the Mississippi.
Malcomhawk
Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 12
I've always been lucky. I've either been able to talk an armed threat into surrender, or been able to bring enough force to bear that the suspect gave up to keep from dying himself. Some officers haven't been so lucky and have had to pull the trigger. Some officers will refuse to shoot no matter what the provocation. They are frauds who pretend to be defenders of the community and you don't want them defending your family when it matters.
But this is a differnet situation, a citizen is attacked on the street by individuals who use deadly force against him. He replies with deadly force in defense of his own life.
If you are on the jury with the facts you know right now, are you inclined to convict the defender for reckless endangerment because he chose to defend himself in a neighborhood against an attacker in a moving vehicle? From some of these posts you apparently would, though it is a minority view.
I am concerned because the number who think so appears to be roughly proportional to the number of officers who would never fire in defense of themselves or another. you see, what those officers fear is not death, nor even that they may be sued, but that they may do the wrong thing in hindsight. And so they do nothing. Because they are human.
Far more will take action when action is required, because they have come to believe that someone must do so. A very few will take the wrong action because they are human. And bad things will happen to them, and those who are prejudiced against action will say "See what happens when you stick your neck out" and they will feel vindicated.
Even if nothing bad happens, those who are prejudiced against action will carp "What if!" and still feel vindicated.
But, those I respect and admire will check their weapons, read each situation as best they can, select the best course of action they can, based on their own training and experience, and do what they think is right, whether its shooting or running for cover, regardless of what the second-guessers may think. Those are my heroes.
But this is a differnet situation, a citizen is attacked on the street by individuals who use deadly force against him. He replies with deadly force in defense of his own life.
If you are on the jury with the facts you know right now, are you inclined to convict the defender for reckless endangerment because he chose to defend himself in a neighborhood against an attacker in a moving vehicle? From some of these posts you apparently would, though it is a minority view.
I am concerned because the number who think so appears to be roughly proportional to the number of officers who would never fire in defense of themselves or another. you see, what those officers fear is not death, nor even that they may be sued, but that they may do the wrong thing in hindsight. And so they do nothing. Because they are human.
Far more will take action when action is required, because they have come to believe that someone must do so. A very few will take the wrong action because they are human. And bad things will happen to them, and those who are prejudiced against action will say "See what happens when you stick your neck out" and they will feel vindicated.
Even if nothing bad happens, those who are prejudiced against action will carp "What if!" and still feel vindicated.
But, those I respect and admire will check their weapons, read each situation as best they can, select the best course of action they can, based on their own training and experience, and do what they think is right, whether its shooting or running for cover, regardless of what the second-guessers may think. Those are my heroes.
Additional information on the shooting.
You have a great point in that none of us were there and we did not witness the event as it went down. Agreed in full, and that said, we do have this report to consider:
Since the three bullets fired went into the rear of the car, that suggests Brandon was firing at the fleeing car. There were five occupants in the vehicle, and apparently only one shooter. So numbers 1 through 3 in the quoted list aren't really open to question. Had the vehicle been stationery, with the shooter leaning out and aiming at Brandon, then he could have fired into the side of the car at the shooter and been clear on his target.
Two "what-ifs" to consider: One of the occupants in the car could have been an innocent passenger - a pregnant woman unaware of what was going to happen. Brandon could have hit the driver, causing the car to go out of control with whatever consequences follow from that. Yes - if you are being shot at it is natural to want to shoot back and that's why he is termed "the victim" in this incident and not being charged with anything. This case is worth discussing precisely because we can armchair quarterback and ask if the defender's actions were optimal or if there was something he could have done better.
Shadow 7D
Member
Yet those same innocents would have had a bad time beating a murder rap if they had killed one of these guys painting.
...which could lead to a most unfavorable outcome for the citizen who did that.
Yep--we are pemitted to shoot if immediately necessary in the face of imminent danger.
Too much television?
All of that is true whether we are firing in self-defense or in anger at someone who is driving away.
He replied with deadly force, but was it in defense of his own life? He would have to present evidence that his safety depended upon his immediate use of deadly force. It's hard to visualize how one could still be endangered by a car that had passed. On the other hand, it would probably not be very difficult at all to use re-enactment, testimony, forensic evidence, and simulation to persuade others that a reasonable person could not have reasonably believed himself to still be in danger when he fired.
Personally, I would not like to see that happen here, but that doesn't mean that I think the guy acted prudently or lawfully. The best news for the shooter so far is that he didn't hit anyone.
zxcvbob
Member
You are all forgetting the felony murder rule. The attacker (the shooter in the car) is responsible for innocents that get killed accidentally, not the defender.
This is a cautionary tale.
It's good that Mr. Malone and his friends want to keep their neighborhood free of gangs and gang sign.
It's good that Mr. Malone and their friends had the means and will to defend themselves from gang violence (or wannabe violence).
What we all have to keep in mind is that self defense carries with it a great responsibility for every round we fire and that realistic training and practice will help minimize the potential for injuring real innocents with stray rounds.
When the threat is over, stop shooting.
When you don't have a clear shot, stop shooting.
It's good that Mr. Malone and his friends want to keep their neighborhood free of gangs and gang sign.
It's good that Mr. Malone and their friends had the means and will to defend themselves from gang violence (or wannabe violence).
What we all have to keep in mind is that self defense carries with it a great responsibility for every round we fire and that realistic training and practice will help minimize the potential for injuring real innocents with stray rounds.
When the threat is over, stop shooting.
When you don't have a clear shot, stop shooting.
We don't know that the fine young man in the car with the gun wasn't hanging out the window firing back towards the fence after the car passed, do we? Although it appears by the bullet holes in the rear of the car that the man defending himself was shooting at the fleeing car inappropriately, we don't know that to be the case.
- Status
Similar threads
