Greenwood mall shooting

[BehindBlueI's]

Well, you did kinda try to mush it up by including "every defense shooting"... but I will not go along with moving the goal posts that far.

I asked this question:

So you think every self defense shooting that happens in this state let the bad guy shoot someone first?"

about your beliefs due to these statements in an attempt to clarify your position:

It is really sad to say but if one did it perfectly and took out the killer before he killed anybody, one would be in deep crap. In other words it is important that somebody got shot.

I disagree. I think he would have been charged with murder. The poor disgruntled kid didn't do anything worth getting killed for. Anyone that shot him would be fried.

Because, frankly, this was an ideal self defense/defense of 3rd party situation. If you think he had to let someone get shot in this one, and this one is about as text book perfect for the shooter as you can get, do you believe that to be a universal rule?

 

[nonobaddog]

Because, frankly, this was an ideal self defense/defense of 3rd party situation. If you think he had to let someone get shot in this one, and this one is about as text book perfect for the shooter as you can get, do you believe that to be a universal rule?

No no no to the "universal rule" stuff, that can has way too many worms in it.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

No no no to the "universal rule" stuff, that can has way too many worms in it.

So then why, in your mind, would waiting for a gunman coming out of a bathroom in a mall food court with a long gun and raising it toward a crowd be risking a Murder charge to take a shot at? How is that not completely and obviously justified regardless of if he gets the chance to pull the trigger? You've got better odds of being hit by a meteorite before pulling the trigger than you do of eating a Murder charger after in this circumstance. Pointing a firearm is a felony in and of itself. A reasonable person would expect that the person raising the firearm intends to cause harm to a third party. I just can't fathom how you imagine this works if you think you have to let them fire first.

 

[nonobaddog]

So then why, in your mind, would waiting for a gunman coming out of a bathroom in a mall food court with a long gun and raising it toward a crowd be risking a Murder charge to take a shot at? How is that not completely and obviously justified regardless of if he gets the chance to pull the trigger? You've got better odds of being hit by a meteorite before pulling the trigger than you do of eating a Murder charger after in this circumstance. Pointing a firearm is a felony in and of itself. A reasonable person would expect that the person raising the firearm intends to cause harm to a third party. I just can't fathom how you imagine this works if you think you have to let them fire first.

I'll try to explain it to you.
Using the example we are talking about and NOT spreading it out to every self defense situation ever and anywhere.

Eli is making the decision so we have to limit this to what information Eli had on which to base that decision.

He sees a person come out of a bathroom with what appears to be a rifle that looks like it could be an AR-15.
He sees this from over 40 yards away. From that distance he can't tell much more than it looks like an AR-15.
He can't tell if it is loaded. He can't even tell if it is a real gun. He can't read the guy's mind so he can't know what is going on.

Possibility 1 - A local arteestic type with very few brains is shooting a homemade movie using his phone. The guy coming out of the bathroom has a prop gun that looks like an AR-15. The arteestic type wants to film the realistic reactions of the crowd fleeing from the mean looking gun guy actor. You shoot and kill him and everyone says you were justified, even the county prosecutor. (yeah, right)

Possibility 2 - It is an AR-15. The person brought it to the mall to impress or threaten his girlfriend working at the waffle hut. There is no ammunition in the rifle or anywhere in the guy's possession. You shoot and kill him and everyone says you were justified, even the county prosecutor. (yeah, right)

Possibility 3 - It is an AR-15 and is loaded. The guy has already committed several crimes but he has not fired his gun and he has not shot anybody. You shoot and kill him and everyone says you were justified, even the county prosecutor. (yeah, right)

I am saying there is a chance the prosecutor doesn't like citizens killing people that have not committed any violent crimes just because you think they were going to commit violent crimes. You could be screwed.

Before the guy shot at some people, Eli did not have enough information to take a human life.

 

[actaeon277]

With those odds, why do you even carry a gun then?
There are no guarantees.
Rittenhouse had all kinds of evidence, yet he went through all that.
You do what you can to minimize the odds, but they will NEVER be zero.

 

[chipbennett]

Right - stop at that point - before anybody got shot.

If Joe citizen takes him out he is risking murder charges. Now if he is in a protected class like FBI, Police, etc that would be different.

Brother, please take Guy Relford's Basics of Indiana Gun Law class. It's only $50.

 

[chipbennett]

I'll try to explain it to you.
Using the example we are talking about and NOT spreading it out to every self defense situation ever and anywhere.

Eli is making the decision so we have to limit this to what information Eli had on which to base that decision.

He sees a person come out of a bathroom with what appears to be a rifle that looks like it could be an AR-15.
He sees this from over 40 yards away. From that distance he can't tell much more than it looks like an AR-15.
He can't tell if it is loaded. He can't even tell if it is a real gun. He can't read the guy's mind so he can't know what is going on.

The law hinges on the reasonableness of one's actions - in the case of use of deadly force in self-defense, the reasonableness of one's fear of death or great bodily harm. Seeing someone emerge from a bathroom holding a rifle in shooting position absolutely meets the standard of reasonableness, whether one uses deadly force in self-defense before or after the suspected assailant starts shooting.

Possibility 1 - A local arteestic type with very few brains is shooting a homemade movie using his phone. The guy coming out of the bathroom has a prop gun that looks like an AR-15. The arteestic type wants to film the realistic reactions of the crowd fleeing from the mean looking gun guy actor. You shoot and kill him and everyone says you were justified, even the county prosecutor. (yeah, right)

This scenario meets the standard of reasonableness. (It also constitutes "**** around and find out" on the part of the "local arteestic type".)

Possibility 2 - It is an AR-15. The person brought it to the mall to impress or threaten his girlfriend working at the waffle hut. There is no ammunition in the rifle or anywhere in the guy's possession. You shoot and kill him and everyone says you were justified, even the county prosecutor. (yeah, right)

This scenario meets the standard of reasonableness. Ammo in the gun or not is entirely irrelevant. It is unreasonable a) to think that a wielded rifle has no ammunition, or b) to wait until the assailant starts shooting to confirm the presence of ammunition.

Possibility 3 - It is an AR-15 and is loaded. The guy has already committed several crimes but he has not fired his gun and he has not shot anybody. You shoot and kill him and everyone says you were justified, even the county prosecutor. (yeah, right)

This scenario meets the standard of reasonableness. It doesn't even matter if the person acting in self-defense has personal knowledge of the prior crimes committed by the assailant.

I am saying there is a chance the prosecutor doesn't like citizens killing people that have not committed any violent crimes just because you think they were going to commit violent crimes. You could be screwed.

Before the guy shot at some people, Eli did not have enough information to take a human life.

Completely wrong.

 

[nonobaddog]

The law hinges on the reasonableness of one's actions - in the case of use of deadly force in self-defense, the reasonableness of one's fear of death or great bodily harm. Seeing someone emerge from a bathroom holding a rifle in shooting position absolutely meets the standard of reasonableness, whether one uses deadly force in self-defense before or after the suspected assailant starts shooting.



This scenario meets the standard of reasonableness. (It also constitutes "**** around and find out" on the part of the "local arteestic type".)



This scenario meets the standard of reasonableness. Ammo in the gun or not is entirely irrelevant. It is unreasonable a) to think that a wielded rifle has no ammunition, or b) to wait until the assailant starts shooting to confirm the presence of ammunition.



This scenario meets the standard of reasonableness. It doesn't even matter if the person acting in self-defense has personal knowledge of the prior crimes committed by the assailant.



Completely wrong.

You seem to like taking chances with today's prosecutors. Good luck.

 

[nonobaddog]

With those odds, why do you even carry a gun then?

For the same reason we all do. Self defense.
We could talk about different scenarios if you want but in the case of a guy with what looks like a gun in the mall I would err on the side of caution before I would start shooting. You, of course, are free to do it your way.

 

[jamil]

Brother, please take Guy Relford's Basics of Indiana Gun Law class. It's only $50.

Isn’t NNBD in Minnesota? Maybe I’m mistaking him for someone else. I thought I saw somewhere that he is though.

 

[Ingomike]

He woke?

Probably never ever slept…

 

[nonobaddog]

Isn’t NNBD in Minnesota? Maybe I’m mistaking him for someone else. I thought I saw somewhere that he is though.

Yes, you are right.
Livin' large in the state of hockey.

 

[jamil]

And peaceful protests.

 

[jamil]

I think the whole discussion has two different goals. BBI is talking about what is legal and reasonable and all that. NNBD is making a more political point, that if you're in a jurisdiction with one of these bat **** crazy activist prosecutors, what is legal and reasonable and all that, is not going to matter. But, I would argue that if this is the case, you're going to be prosecuted no matter how much evidence is on your side.

 

[Cameramonkey]

And peaceful protests.

Which might explain his skewed views on prosecutors. LOL

 

[actaeon277]

For the same reason we all do. Self defense.

Yes. But you are worried about stuff that is so statistically insignificant, that it sounds like your gun won't be used.
There are bad (political) prosecutors/DAs. And people defending themselves have been prosecuted.
That's why it's supposed to be a last line of defense, and used when there are no other options.

But if you're gonna wait for them to get the first shot off...

 

[nonobaddog]

I think the whole discussion has two different goals. BBI is talking about what is legal and reasonable and all that. NNBD is making a more political point, that if you're in a jurisdiction with one of these bat **** crazy activist prosecutors, what is legal and reasonable and all that, is not going to matter. But, I would argue that if this is the case, you're going to be prosecuted no matter how much evidence is on your side.

Plus I don't want to be the guy that shot the stupid guy with the phony or unloaded rifle.
It doesn't matter if I am technically right to do so.
It doesn't matter what the prosecutor says or what the law says - I don't want to be that guy.

 

[nonobaddog]

Yes. But you are worried about stuff that is so statistically insignificant, that it sounds like your gun won't be used.
There are bad (political) prosecutors/DAs. And people defending themselves have been prosecuted.
That's why it's supposed to be a last line of defense, and used when there are no other options.

But if you're gonna wait for them to get the first shot off...

It isn't right to generalize this to all self defense situations. Why do people keep trying to do that?

 

[actaeon277]

It isn't right to generalize this to all self defense situations. Why do people keep trying to do that?

And you're not?
Aren't most "what if's" generalization?

Although, I guess in this case, it's about a specific shooting, not a generalization.

 

[bwframe]

Plus I don't want to be the guy that shot the stupid guy with the phony or unloaded rifle.
It doesn't matter if I am technically right to do so.
It doesn't matter what the prosecutor says or what the law says - I don't want to be that guy.

You are digging yourself into a hole my friend. You might want to just stop and study up on the subject a bit.

It's one thing to err on the side of caution for yourself, another to pass along bad information to others.