GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-18-2013, 18:21   #376
Kingarthurhk
Isaiah 53:4-9
 
Kingarthurhk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Detectorist View Post
Call the police. Aren't you a cop?
Good. Good answer. Not a typical answer that I have seen in GNG. But, I respect your answer.
__________________
Glock 17, 19, 20SF, 21C, 22, 26, 27, Glock E-Tool, Glock knife
Quod ego haereticus appellari sequere Jesum.
Kingarthurhk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 18:22   #377
Kingarthurhk
Isaiah 53:4-9
 
Kingarthurhk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by sputnik767 View Post
The person would go to jail in both cases. Shooting the drunk did absolutely nothing to protect the father's kids. You can't legally shoot after the fact, and you certainly can't kill somebody over killing your dog.
Solid answer. Not a common one I have seen here in GNG, but I respect it.
__________________
Glock 17, 19, 20SF, 21C, 22, 26, 27, Glock E-Tool, Glock knife
Quod ego haereticus appellari sequere Jesum.
Kingarthurhk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 18:23   #378
Kingarthurhk
Isaiah 53:4-9
 
Kingarthurhk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Detectorist View Post
What I don't understand is why the shooter left his kids to go get a gun? I would be more preoccupied with the victims welfare...
Tell me something. Now think logically. If you are a CCL holder where is your firearm typically?
__________________
Glock 17, 19, 20SF, 21C, 22, 26, 27, Glock E-Tool, Glock knife
Quod ego haereticus appellari sequere Jesum.
Kingarthurhk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 18:46   #379
sputnik767
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 8,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundhog34 View Post
You do what you got to do. I got no problems with his actions.
What he had to do was tend to his kids. What he actually did was go get his gun and shoot the guy who hit them. I can understand that his priorities may have been screwed up given his emotional situation, but that does not make what he did right.
sputnik767 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 18:56   #380
racerford
Senior Member
 
racerford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,869


Actually, so far as the facts that have been reported, we don't know that he shot the drunk driver. They don't have the murder weapon. The mother and 9 month old child were there. We don't know know if a cousin drove by and shot him. We don't have an eyewitness that has said they saw him shoot the driver. We have people that have said he went to his house and came back. How far away did he live?

If you have newer information, please post a link. Has the gunsot residue test come back?

How long between the wreck and authorities showing up?
racerford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 19:04   #381
Gallium
CLM Number 182
Charter Lifetime Member
 
Gallium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 47,557


Quote:
Originally Posted by sputnik767 View Post
What he had to do was tend to his kids. What he actually did was go get his gun and shoot the guy who hit them. I can understand that his priorities may have been screwed up given his emotional situation, but that does not make what he did right.
His actions were not right, but they were appropriate for the scenario that unfolded in front of him.

Kinda like how I vomited (no logic to it) the first time I happened upon a hand in a gully, pulled on it, and it came apart from whatever else was there (a decapitated, burnt body).

A friend of mine motors trains for NYC subway system. He happened upon a mannequin in the tracks. Being the diligent worker he is, he picked it up to trash it. Something about the mannequin's eyes did not look right. It was a real human head. It's been (it was) over 6 months, and he's not been able (was not able) to motor a train since.

What do you think should have been the "logical" responses from him and/or I in either of those two scenarios?

I vomited simply because my systems could not handle what I was seeing, yet I had the presence of mind to hurl the vomitus clear of my sandals.

Last edited by Gallium; 02-18-2013 at 19:05..
Gallium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 09:27   #382
Lord
Senior Member
 
Lord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogmower View Post
while i am sympathetic for the shooter, we need to follow the rule of law, or we (gun people) are as bad as our enemies. they seem to think the end justifies the means, and that since their cause is right (to them), any way of achieving it is ok. we all know this is wrong
there is just no way to justify his actions legally. if he had been carrying, he might get off with temporary insanity, but going home to get a firearm and returning is premeditated. it is not self or family-defense, it is revenge. it may also be due justice for the drunk, but not in a legal sense.
my thoughts and prayers go out to this father, and i hope he gets a lighter sentence (extreme extenuating circumstances).
in the same situation, i may do the same thing, but i would expect jail time.
Consider this scenario:

A man has his son kidnapped by the son's karate teacher. The boy is returned home alive, but emotionally scarred due to what took place during the kidnapping.

The father, also emotionally scarred from the ordeal, waits patiently on the phone in an airport while they bring the kidnapper in... as they walk by, he approaches the kidnapper, puts a .38 revolver to the kidnapper's head before anyone can react, and fires a single round killing the kidnapper.

The father is arrested, charged, tried, and acquitted. Reason? Emotional trigger. A trigger that should exist in all parents. Sometimes the letter of the law isn't always justice. Sometimes justice is simply what's right, and that doesn't always jibe right in line with the letter of the law. Sometimes, right is right, and wrong gets dealt with. This was a case that actually happened in California and his acquittal was unanimous vote.

Laws are there as a guideline. Consider, it is against the law to kill. if you kill someone you get charged etc right? Well if you follow the letter of the law, then justifiable homicide would not exist. Justifiable homicide exists because sometimes, right is right, and wrong gets dealt with.

We should start a petition on this guy's behalf.
__________________
Lord
G-19, PT-140 Pro, PT-111 Pro, Core-15

Last edited by Lord; 02-19-2013 at 09:28..
Lord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 09:37   #383
DanaT
Pharaoh
 
DanaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CO & Baden –Württemberg
Posts: 15,827
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk View Post
I don't know if you have:

1. Ever seen a dead person.
2. Ever seen a managled fresh corpse on a road.
Since you directed this at me

1a. I suspect you dont mean at a funeral...

1b. Shall I tell you about the bucket-o-heads? Did you know that 3 heads fit in a 5 gallon bucket?

1c. Shall we talk about the car wreck that I gave first aid to (that likely saved the ladys life) with the dead person next to her. The amount of blood I had on me was unreal. I also got a somenice subpoenas. Both criminal and civil.

1d. Shall we talk about another time where I stopped to assist another car wreck..no had even call it in nor stopped and it was probably 5 minutes old by the time a friend and I happened upon it. My friend actually knew the driver. He was hit by a drunk illegal that left the scene (the police caught him a ways down the road). He was airlifted out. Did not live. I was again bloody and vomit from internal injuries trying to help keep an airway open.

1e. Shall we talk about waiting around for a few days waiting on fresh cadaver (needed one that could be released within 24 hrs) because of the test that we to run required very fresh.

Does this answer your questions?
__________________
Quote:
Twice a week? 14 times a month?
Quote:
2x4=8, not 14.
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.

Last edited by DanaT; 02-19-2013 at 09:39..
DanaT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 01:44   #384
WilliamDahl
Senior Member
 
WilliamDahl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: TX Gulf Coast
Posts: 229
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by guns54 View Post
I have to say,I would have done the same thing to him.
Although one might argue that if you are gong all the way back to your house to get a weapon to kill the drunk with, a container of gasoline might be more appropriate.
WilliamDahl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 01:57   #385
WilliamDahl
Senior Member
 
WilliamDahl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: TX Gulf Coast
Posts: 229
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by sputnik767 View Post
Nowhere in the 2nd amendment is there a clause that permits revenge killings. The 2nd amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms, but not necessarily to use. For the record, I'm from VA, despite my current location being NYC. I believe that all of our rights should be unrestricted, including the one about a trial by jury. Unless you are immediately threatened, you have no right to take that away from somebody.
So, do you believe that felons should be able to own /buy firearms?

Should mentally unstable people be able to own / buy firearms?

Should people who have protective orders filed against them be able to own / buy firearms?

If you can't answer 'yes' to all of these, then feel free to show me where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights where the Founding Fathers said that they couldn't.
WilliamDahl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 01:59   #386
WilliamDahl
Senior Member
 
WilliamDahl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: TX Gulf Coast
Posts: 229
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
Not always. You might seek extended family, friends, etc.
Then eventually someone is going to run out of money for ammo...
WilliamDahl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 05:59   #387
ca survivor
Senior Member
 
ca survivor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 6,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by sputnik767 View Post
So am I right to understand that this shooting was not in self-defense? While I feel for him and for his loss, his actions were absolutely inappropriate and unjustified under the law. Keep in mind that our legal system isn't based on whether the drunk driver deserved it, the decision to charge the shooter is based on whether the shooter broke the law. In this case, he is not going to walk. Having said that, I am glad I'm not going to be sitting on his jury because I would hate to have to convict him.
glad you are not going to be in the jury and the ones he gets let him walk unanimously.
ca survivor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 06:15   #388
66geo
Registered User
 
66geo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: here and there
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamDahl View Post
Although one might argue that if you are gong all the way back to your house to get a weapon to kill the drunk with, a container of gasoline might be more appropriate.
would have been appropriate.I agree with you.
66geo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 06:46   #389
pesticidal
CLM Number 181
Eh?
 
pesticidal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 38,109
Send a message via Yahoo to pesticidal


Quote:
Originally Posted by ca survivor View Post
glad you are not going to be in the jury and the ones he gets let him walk unanimously.

I'm hoping the jury that does get selected bases their decision on facts, not emotions.
__________________
Never pass up the opportunity to pet your dog, talk to an old friend, or play catch with your kid.
pesticidal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 16:59   #390
sputnik767
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 8,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca survivor View Post
glad you are not going to be in the jury and the ones he gets let him walk unanimously.
There is virtually no chance of that happening. Having said that, I'm glad you're not going to be on the jury either, we don't need cases being decided by peoples' emotions.
sputnik767 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 17:03   #391
sputnik767
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 8,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamDahl View Post
So, do you believe that felons should be able to own /buy firearms?

Should mentally unstable people be able to own / buy firearms?

Should people who have protective orders filed against them be able to own / buy firearms?

If you can't answer 'yes' to all of these, then feel free to show me where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights where the Founding Fathers said that they couldn't.
We can go back and forth like this all day, but please tell me where in the bill of rights, the federalist papers, and whatever other historical documents that courts use to interpret constitutional law, is murder permissible?

I'm not a consitutional scholar, lawyer, or anything of that nature. However, what I believe reagrding the points you mentioned has no bearing on what happened in this case.
sputnik767 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 18:49   #392
Gallium
CLM Number 182
Charter Lifetime Member
 
Gallium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 47,557


Quote:
Originally Posted by sputnik767 View Post
We can go back and forth like this all day, but please tell me where in the bill of rights, the federalist papers, and whatever other historical documents that courts use to interpret constitutional law, is murder permissible?
It is fairly disingenuous of you to use the term "murder", when you know full well there is no tome applicable to US law that classifies the just homicide of one human by another "murder".


What do you call collateral deaths in war? Particularly the deaths of children who have not participated in any acts of war?

It is murder, and we do it "all the time", but you're not going to find it in any federalist papers/etc.


If you wanted a reasonable debate, you would ask or seek to discover under what conditions is HOMICIDE justifiable.

In this case, if the dad was certain the drunk was indeed drunk, and was certain he was imminently going to plow down his kids and wife....if he had a gun, would he have been justified in shooting the drunk?

And if the drunk attempted to flee immediately after the act of killing two of his family members, would he have been justified in using deadly force to stop him from fleeing?

Does it matter if it took him 7 min instead of 7 seconds?

I am not arguing any of these points, simply interested in how his case will be presented if it gets that far.

- G
Gallium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 19:15   #393
sputnik767
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 8,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gallium View Post
It is fairly disingenuous of you to use the term "murder", when you know full well there is no tome applicable to US law that classifies the just homicide of one human by another "murder".


What do you call collateral deaths in war? Particularly the deaths of children who have not participated in any acts of war?

It is murder, and we do it "all the time", but you're not going to find it in any federalist papers/etc.


If you wanted a reasonable debate, you would ask or seek to discover under what conditions is HOMICIDE justifiable.

In this case, if the dad was certain the drunk was indeed drunk, and was certain he was imminently going to plow down his kids and wife....if he had a gun, would he have been justified in shooting the drunk?

And if the drunk attempted to flee immediately after the act of killing two of his family members, would he have been justified in using deadly force to stop him from fleeing?

Does it matter if it took him 7 min instead of 7 seconds?

I am not arguing any of these points, simply interested in how his case will be presented if it gets that far.

- G
I wasn't even talking about this specific case. I'm more concerned with the mentality that is so prevalent among the gun owners (at least the ones here), that what the father did is not only acceptable, but is also the right thing to do. Like I keep saying, I can give the father a break given what he went through, but I can never accept the notion that he did the right thing.

As far as the drunk fleeing, killing him would still not be legal nor appropriate. If the law is written in a way that permits the use of a deadly force to protect life or limb, this would not fulfill the scope that law, nor would it change the outcome for the kids. Our police force is terrible at stopping crimes in progress, but they are pretty good at finding the ones responsible. This task should be left up to them. Let's put it this way, the guy was drunk and killed 2 people. He would not have walked anytime soon, and possbly not ever. Our firearms are there to protect us when nobody else can, but their purpose is not to dispense justice as we see fit. And if anybody who is on the fense about gun owners actually reads this thread, I have a feeling they would be terrified of us. And I can't say that I would blame them.

Last edited by sputnik767; 02-21-2013 at 19:18..
sputnik767 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 03:23   #394
Gallium
CLM Number 182
Charter Lifetime Member
 
Gallium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 47,557


Quote:
Originally Posted by sputnik767 View Post
... And if anybody who is on the fense about gun owners actually reads this thread, I have a feeling they would be terrified of us. And I can't say that I would blame them.

The main problem you have is lack of life experience. We are not reacting as gun owners. We are reacting as people who have lost family members ripped from our lives by drunk drivers. I assure you, most folks who are ardent anti-gunner that have experienced this type of senseless loss share many of our sentiments.

Once again, your attempts to castigate gun owners and/or to make this a "gun" issue fails. The opinions expressed here have very little to do with guns. You seem incapable or reluctant to differentiate this.

As I have already pointed out, there are a slew of laws on the books based on emotion, and there are a sliver of laws in one or two states that allow for the use of deadly force even when the commission of the criminal act has ceased.
Gallium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 08:05   #395
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gallium View Post
Once again, your attempts to castigate gun owners and/or to make this a "gun" issue fails. The opinions expressed here have very little to do with guns. You seem incapable or reluctant to differentiate this.
And what you seem incapable or reluctant to admit is that this WILL become a case about the gun.

This is EXACTLY what the anti-gun crowds have been screaming about - wild-west shoot-outs because of traffic accidents. They will conveniently ignore the fact that the one driver was drunk. They will brush over the death of the two children. It will be spun as an angry father taking justice into his own hand, and it will be portrayed as a normal mind-set of gun owners. And if they were to find this thread, that view would be reinforced.

What you're ignoring is that you're "preaching to the choir". Most of the folks here on GT are already gun people. We know that the guns don't cause the problems. But GlockTalk is NOT the news source that will be controlling this story.

So far, this story hasn't broken out in the national media. if it does, it's going to be very much a story about guns. Whether it SHOULD or not is irrelevant, that's what will happen.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 13:32   #396
sputnik767
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 8,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
And what you seem incapable or reluctant to admit is that this WILL become a case about the gun.

This is EXACTLY what the anti-gun crowds have been screaming about - wild-west shoot-outs because of traffic accidents. They will conveniently ignore the fact that the one driver was drunk. They will brush over the death of the two children. It will be spun as an angry father taking justice into his own hand, and it will be portrayed as a normal mind-set of gun owners. And if they were to find this thread, that view would be reinforced.

What you're ignoring is that you're "preaching to the choir". Most of the folks here on GT are already gun people. We know that the guns don't cause the problems. But GlockTalk is NOT the news source that will be controlling this story.

So far, this story hasn't broken out in the national media. if it does, it's going to be very much a story about guns. Whether it SHOULD or not is irrelevant, that's what will happen.
Yes, this is exactly my point. We should be seen as model law abiding citizens, not vigilantes looking for an excuse to "exercise our 2nd amendment rights." This is unfortunately what many people believe, including many who can severely limit our rights.

And Gallium, my life experience or lack thereof is irrelevant. I'm just trying to look out for our interests as gun owners and not give people further further ammunition against us. I just wish that my attitude was shared by more than just the few people here who seem to agree with me. Reading this thread makes it seem like we're our own worst enemy. What you seem reluctant to understand is that for me, this is not about the father or what he did. This is about the majority here expressing support for what amounts to vigilanteeism.

Last edited by sputnik767; 02-22-2013 at 13:38..
sputnik767 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 18:51   #397
xray678
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 561
By the letter of the law, is the father of the two boys guilty? Probably. But our forefathers had the wisdom to give us the right to trial by jury. This gives citizens the right to say, no, the law here does not/did not, cover all possibilities. If we strictly believed in letter of the law justice, there would be no juries.

Laws are not the end all, be all. Sometimes the law is not enough, and then it is up to the citizens of our country to decide what is right. Jury nullification they call it.

By the law, is this father guilty of murder? Yes, he is. But if I was on the jury would I vote to convict him? No, I would not.

If ever there was a case for temporary insanity......this is it. I hope and pray the jury in this case has the wisdom to spare this father a conviction of murder.

Last edited by xray678; 02-22-2013 at 18:52..
xray678 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2013, 11:51   #398
mtbinva
Senior Member
 
mtbinva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Virginia
Posts: 113
What gun?
__________________
"Chance favors the prepared mind."

Louis Pasteur
mtbinva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2013, 15:01   #399
Gallium
CLM Number 182
Charter Lifetime Member
 
Gallium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 47,557


Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
And what you seem incapable or reluctant to admit is that this WILL become a case about the gun.

This is EXACTLY what the anti-gun crowds have been screaming about - wild-west shoot-outs because of traffic accidents. They will conveniently ignore the fact that the one driver was drunk. They will brush over the death of the two children. It will be spun as an angry father taking justice into his own hand, and it will be portrayed as a normal mind-set of gun owners. And if they were to find this thread, that view would be reinforced.

What you're ignoring is that you're "preaching to the choir". Most of the folks here on GT are already gun people. We know that the guns don't cause the problems. But GlockTalk is NOT the news source that will be controlling this story.

So far, this story hasn't broken out in the national media. if it does, it's going to be very much a story about guns. Whether it SHOULD or not is irrelevant, that's what will happen.

I am here to tell you your reasoning is flawed. I've already mentioned this story to 1/2 dozen people (all in one sitting this weekend). Of the 7 of us in the room, one owns a gun, the other six all live in the wealthiest, liberal parts of NJ and Manhattan. All of them are completely anti-gun, Obama supporters. All of them deplored the idea of the dude going back home to get a gun. Four of the six have kids. All of them except one expressed that they could not convict the dude. The one dude who had no opinion was more concerned about if he would be able to sneak weed into court for the trial.
Gallium is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:41.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 922
320 Members
602 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42