Neighbor shoots dead domestic violence suspect who opened fire on him after helping victim

[Aim1]

Amazingly lucky that this neighbor wasn’t hit by the suspect’s first volley and that he was armed doing a chore as innocuous as mowing his lawn.

I never do chores armed. I know my neighbor does though.









https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...e-suspect-killed-intervening-Florida-man.html

 

[scaatylobo]

Point being = you NEVER ,EVER know when or if you will need that tool to save your life ----- or anothers.

 

[AlexanderA]

When I read the headline, I thought it was about the Zombie Apocalypse. Neighbor shoots "dead domestic violence suspect who opened fire." Normally you wouldn't have to shoot someone who was already dead, nor would he have been able to "open fire." And it's odd that this same dead suspect helped the screaming victim escape. This is why word placement and grammar are so important.

In a similar vein, the poor phrasing of the 2nd Amendment has caused all sorts of problems in interpretation.

 

[OARNGESI]

Wonder what the follow up is was the wife grateful or did they blame the guy for killing there dad/husband

 

[AlexanderA]

Wonder what the follow up is was the wife grateful or did they blame the guy for killing there dad/husband

Intervening in a domestic dispute is a thankless task. Typically, both parties will gang up on the interloper. That's why these situations are so dangerous for the police.

 

[Dunross]

Sorry the man had to shoot someone, but good on him for being a stand-up guy. Many would not have done what he did.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Amazingly lucky that this neighbor wasn’t hit by the suspect’s first volley and that he was armed doing a chore as innocuous as mowing his lawn.

I never do chores armed. I know my neighbor does though.

I used to live in Pasco County. There's a reason every other episode of COPS was filmed there.

Having said all that, I'm sitting at my kitchen table eating a bowl of Fruit Loops. There is a Glock 26 on my hip as I type this

 

[SharpDog]

I used to live in Pasco County. There's a reason every other episode of COPS was filmed there.

Did they stop filming after you moved ?

Sorry, couldn't resist

 

[Trunk Monkey]

In a similar vein, the poor phrasing of the 2nd Amendment has caused all sorts of problems in interpretation.

I've noticed that the only people who think the Second Amendment is "poorly phrased" are Leftists who are trying to circumvent it.

I mean it's really not that hard to figure out the intent

 

[SharpDog]

In a similar vein, the poor phrasing of the 2nd Amendment has caused all sorts of problems in interpretation.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

seems pretty clear to me ...

 

[SCMikeyP]

"Why would you carry a gun while you mow the grass????" -Nagging Whiney Voice
*Exhibit A*

 

[Mowgli Terry]

I have friends that go armed in their homes. The fear at an advanced age of being powered down during a home invasion.

There are middle class neighborhoods close enough to the combat zones to hear the nightly gun fire. Parts of this country have gone to hell in a hand basket.

Wonder how many times the police had to intervene during violent conflicts with the now deceased neighbor?

 

[RETG]

I carry when cutting the back acres, but not cause of a two-legged attack (unless the bear is standing up) but because of black bears, cougars and those ballsy coyotes. My nearest neighbor could be setting off explosive devices and I might never know.

 

[AlexanderA]

I've noticed that the only people who think the Second Amendment is "poorly phrased" are Leftists who are trying to circumvent it.

I mean it's really not that hard to figure out the intent

seems pretty clear to me ..

The "clear meaning" of the 2nd Amendment, according Justice Scalia in the Heller case, excludes machine guns and, potentially, all military-looking semiautomatics. That's the result of disregarding the Militia Clause, as he did.

Let's come back to the so-called "clear meaning" of the 2nd after our AR-15's are outlawed and the Supreme Court does nothing about it.

Saying that the 2nd Amendment is self-evident and self-enforcing is the height of stupidity. It is neither of those things.

 

[SharpDog]

The "clear meaning" of the 2nd Amendment, according Justice Scalia in the Heller case, excludes machine guns and, potentially, all military-looking semiautomatics. That's the result of disregarding the Militia Clause, as he did.

Let's come back to the so-called "clear meaning" of the 2nd after our AR-15's are outlawed and the Supreme Court does nothing about it.

Saying that the 2nd Amendment is self-evident and self-enforcing is the height of stupidity. It is neither of those things.

Well, It seems the 'interpretation' is unclear, the meaning of those words is still clear to me. Just because faulty individuals misinterpret a clear meaning does not make it unclear. The fault would be with those individuals. There is no need for 'interpretation'.

 

[Tommygunn]

The "clear meaning" of the 2nd Amendment, according Justice Scalia in the Heller case, excludes machine guns and, potentially, all military-looking semiautomatics. That's the result of disregarding the Militia Clause, as he did.

Let's come back to the so-called "clear meaning" of the 2nd after our AR-15's are outlawed and the Supreme Court does nothing about it.

Saying that the 2nd Amendment is self-evident and self-enforcing is the height of stupidity. It is neither of those things.

As one who earned a B. A. In English I'd proffer the opinion that the 2A's meaning IS clear, though it is not "self-enforcing," nor is any other amendment, or the Constitution.

The meaning is obfuscated by people who oppose private ownership of guns. One incorrect interpretation along this line is the "collective rights" fallacy. It develops the bizarre notion that individuals, thus "anybody," may be denied their right to own or bear any type, or all types, of arms.
Another fallacy is the belief that "well regulated militia" should modify the amendment's meaning such that the govt. gets to control access to firearms through the "well regulated" clause, thus, again denying the "right of the people" to buy, own, and maintain possession of their weapons.

The fact that the Second Amendment is under attack by leftists and poorly defended by some jurists and politicians ought not undermine the fact that the amendment is clear in meaning to those who understand the common and proper meaning of the English language and the history that prompted our Founders to adopt and ratify it over two centuries ago.

 

[Charlie Horse]

Well, It seems the 'interpretation' is unclear, the meaning of those words is still clear to me. Just because faulty individuals misinterpret a clear meaning does not make it unclear. The fault would be with those individuals. There is no need for 'interpretation'.

I had a GREAT constitutional law prof back in the day. She was a former state legislator, judge, prosecutor and extremely sharp into her 80s. We had a conversation on this very subject. She said that if we ratified an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that said in its entirety "4" there would IMMEDIATELY rise 2 factions, one that defended the validity of "4" and one that would try to say that "4" really meant "3+2." When we had class discussions on the 2nd Amendment one or both of us would reference this...

 

[AlexanderA]

Well, It seems the 'interpretation' is unclear, the meaning of those words is still clear to me. Just because faulty individuals misinterpret a clear meaning does not make it unclear. The fault would be with those individuals. There is no need for 'interpretation'.

That's not how the judicial system works. One precedent builds on another. You can't ignore the accumulated interpretations of the courts.

 

[SharpDog]

That's not how the judicial system works. One precedent builds on another. You can't ignore the accumulated interpretations of the courts.

1. What is the fundamental responsibility of the courts re: the constitution ?
2. What matters more, the rights, and the expectation of those rights, by the people or what they are told by the courts ?

 

[AlexanderA]

As one who earned a B. A. In English I'd proffer the opinion that the 2A's meaning IS clear,

Is it the Heller meaning or the Miller meaning? One gives weight to the Militia Clause, and the other doesn't. This is of enormous importance, because without the Militia Clause, we don't have protected AR-15's.

(I'm not talking here about the collective-rights theory versus the individual-rights theory. If militia membership is seen as universal, the way it was in 1791, then the right to military arms enures to each individual citizen.)

 

[AlexanderA]

1. What is the fundamental responsibility of the courts re: the constitution ?
2. What matters more, the rights, and the expectation of those rights, by the people or what they are told by the courts ?

"The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is." You may disagree with this, but in practice that is how all this works.

 

[Tommygunn]

I was refering neither to Miller or to Heller. I was not refering to, or dealing with, any court's opinion or declaration.
I was refering to The Second Amendment, per se.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Well, It seems the 'interpretation' is unclear, the meaning of those words is still clear to me. Just because faulty individuals misinterpret a clear meaning does not make it unclear. The fault would be with those individuals. There is no need for 'interpretation'.

You misunderstand "interpretation". It allows even well educated folks to deviate from actual meaning.

And its use is basically the basis of how the legislative and judicial system operate in this country.

If we keep heading in the direction we are the country will be "interpreted" right into oblivion.

 

[40-82]

"The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is." You may disagree with this, but in practice that is how all this works.

And on a lonely road late at night, I run into a deputy sheriff. Something about me doesn't set right with him. For practical purposes in that moment, he is the law. To contest his authority may well mean that any argument I make over my rights will be made over my carcass in a court of law by other people--if it gets that far.
Your argument that the law is what the highest court in the land says it is has a practical ring and a practical truth. Bear in mind though that the founders were by in large Neo-Platonists and Christians who believed in the existence of an ideal law. They were never so arrogant as to believe they'd found it. The Constitution was their best attempt at finding their ideal law. They believed in the good, the true, and the real--for the most part of course, even that wasn't universal among them.
In practice, they fought each other just as wickedly and as hard as any modern politician.

 

[40-82]

"Why would you carry a gun while you mow the grass????" -Nagging Whiney Voice
*Exhibit A*

For me, it's because I like to. My Colt or Smith & Wesson means nothing, no more than a businessman's silk tie--if that's the best adornment he can afford, who am I to try to make him feel bad? Unless somebody is trying to hurt somebody I don't want to see hurt, then, yes, I might remember the six-gun. I know I'm old but to the untrained eye it might appear that I have instantaneous recall.