LordJiro: The guy was in a large vehicle. All he had to do was lock the doors to prevent any threat from an unarmed pedestrian. Instead, he reached for his gun and killed a man.

A man who reaches for his gun in a situation like that is not a man who should own a gun.

I'll bet it was more difficult to get the driver's license than the CCW permit.

Crunch61: I'll bet it was more difficult to get the driver's license than the CCW permit.

Well you see we can't just have anyone driving big honking pieces of metal around and accidentally kill someone but that random person over there can carry a weapon that shoots pieces of metal into someone at a very high speed and use it anytime they're basically provoked because fark yeah America or some bullshiat.

Crunch61: LordJiro: The guy was in a large vehicle. All he had to do was lock the doors to prevent any threat from an unarmed pedestrian. Instead, he reached for his gun and killed a man.

A man who reaches for his gun in a situation like that is not a man who should own a gun.

I'll bet it was more difficult to get the driver's license than the CCW permit.

If you want make it even slightly difficult for someone to own a gun, you're a commie who hates the second amendment.

/"Well-regulated militia"? What kind of bullshiat pinko-speak is that?

Of course gun nuts and NRA fetishists dismiss this as a one off random occurrence.

Just another death in a long list of "We told you so's" as far as I can see.

HotWingConspiracy: Of course gun nuts and NRA fetishists dismiss this as a one off random occurrence.

Just another death in a long list of "We told you so's" as far as I can see.

Judging by this thread, no they don't. They judge it as completely justified and the law being used as intended, because an unarmed pedestrian was CLEARLY a threat to an armed man in an SUV.

LordJiro: A man who reaches for his gun in a situation like that is not a man who should own a gun.

That is based on the accuracy of hindsight.
Normal car windows aren't armor. They can be easily broken by any hard object. Being in a large vehicle does not necessarily change the proximity between an attackers fist and your face. People in SUV's get car jacked the same as everyone else.

You've been given far more time and perspective to think about the situation than the driver had.
His choice to shoot was regrettable, but we can't Monday morning quarterback and say it was entirely unjustified.

LordJiro: Crunch61: LordJiro: The guy was in a large vehicle. All he had to do was lock the doors to prevent any threat from an unarmed pedestrian. Instead, he reached for his gun and killed a man.

A man who reaches for his gun in a situation like that is not a man who should own a gun.

I'll bet it was more difficult to get the driver's license than the CCW permit.

If you want make it even slightly difficult for someone to own a gun, you're a commie who hates the second amendment.

/"Well-regulated militia"? What kind of bullshiat pinko-speak is that?

It's a left over phrase that gets the Camo Cumstains all worked up. It empowers them to believe they'd actually have a chance overthrowing the government with their deer rifles and pistols.

So far, the only thing I've seen this law do is allow some idiots who watched too many action flicks a chance to live out their Dirty Harry fantasies.

way south: LordJiro: A man who reaches for his gun in a situation like that is not a man who should own a gun.

That is based on the accuracy of hindsight.
Normal car windows aren't armor. They can be easily broken by any hard object. Being in a large vehicle does not necessarily change the proximity between an attackers fist and your face. People in SUV's get car jacked the same as everyone else.

You've been given far more time and perspective to think about the situation than the driver had.
His choice to shoot was regrettable, but we can't Monday morning quarterback and say it was entirely unjustified.

You're disgusting and should be ashamed of yourself.

way south: LordJiro: A man who reaches for his gun in a situation like that is not a man who should own a gun.

That is based on the accuracy of hindsight.
Normal car windows aren't armor. They can be easily broken by any hard object. Being in a large vehicle does not necessarily change the proximity between an attackers fist and your face. People in SUV's get car jacked the same as everyone else.

You've been given far more time and perspective to think about the situation than the driver had.
His choice to shoot was regrettable, but we can't Monday morning quarterback and say it was entirely unjustified.

It isn't Monday morning quarterbacking. Normal people would drive away, it is done everyday. The only people that would shoot somebody for yelling at them and pounding on their car with their hand is somebody that wanted to kill somebody anyway.

way south: LordJiro: A man who reaches for his gun in a situation like that is not a man who should own a gun.

That is based on the accuracy of hindsight.
Normal car windows aren't armor. They can be easily broken by any hard object. Being in a large vehicle does not necessarily change the proximity between an attackers fist and your face. People in SUV's get car jacked the same as everyone else.

You've been given far more time and perspective to think about the situation than the driver had.
His choice to shoot was regrettable, but we can't Monday morning quarterback and say it was entirely unjustified.

Yes, actually. We CAN say it was entirely unjustified, and we can, in fact, say that someone as panicky as that should not be a gun owner.

So, where'd the pipe go? And, if you're scared for your life, why get out of the car and argue with the person?

I do like how he says he didn't he was going to be killed....but, golly, the guy walking a dog yelling after I nearly hit him was crazy.

*eyeroll*

bulldg4life: So, where'd the pipe go? And, if you're scared for your life, why get out of the car and argue with the person?

I do like how he says he didn't he was going to be killed....but, golly, the guy walking a dog yelling after I nearly hit him was crazy.

*eyeroll*

Let this be a lesson, in stand your ground states make sure you kill the other person. That way only your story can be told to the cops and since that is the case they won't bother to question it.

Obnoxious levels of ignorant DERP in this thread.

Stand Your Ground and/or Castle Doctrine does NOT protect murderers. Period.

LETHAL FORCE IS ONLY ACCEPTABLE AGAINST LETHAL THREAT

This guy will likely get charged just like Zimmerman. Just because he wasn't lynched at the scene doesn't mean he won't be brought to justice.

You misled-misinformed pussies need to lay the f*ck off Stand Your Ground laws.
The knee-jerk media needs to STFU too.

If by this time next year....neither this dude or Zimmerman have NOT been punished...then you wuss type can start boo hooing.

I personally believe both will face justice.

*Robocop office scene.jpg*

The ED209 was just standing its ground.

/You have 30 seconds to comply

craigdamage:

You misled-misinformed pussies need to lay the f*ck off Stand Your Ground laws.
The knee-jerk media needs to STFU too.
.

Why is it wrong to criticize these laws? We've seen well documented cases now of people shooting unarmed people and trying to say "I shot him cause I was scared" to justify it.

We already had self defense laws on the books that clearly defined when it is and is not appropriate. These additions have seemingly done nothing more than empower scared reactionaries who haven't shown the mental stability to responsibly own a firearm.

You may now resume your Internet Tough Guy act.

I'm waiting for the "that guy was looking at me funny" law.

craigdamage: Obnoxious levels of ignorant DERP in this thread.

Stand Your Ground and/or Castle Doctrine does NOT protect murderers. Period.

LETHAL FORCE IS ONLY ACCEPTABLE AGAINST LETHAL THREAT

This guy will likely get charged just like Zimmerman. Just because he wasn't lynched at the scene doesn't mean he won't be brought to justice.

You misled-misinformed pussies need to lay the f*ck off Stand Your Ground laws.
The knee-jerk media needs to STFU too.

If by this time next year....neither this dude or Zimmerman have NOT been punished...then you wuss type can start boo hooing.

I personally believe both will face justice.

You DO realize it took the mass of public outrage to even get Zimmerman CHARGED, right? The cops (well, more accurately the chief of police and head prosecutor) just dropped it like a molten spud.

"Your Honor, the defendant and several witnesses concur that he was looked at cross-eyed and had no choice but to open fire"

"Case dismissed, state drops all charges"

I think we're all missing the real issue here: A Taco Bell in Arizona?

Did the state send all its taquerias back to Mexico or something?

Lenny_da_Hog: Both cases say the gunners claimed the SYG as the reason they felt justified in shooting. If the laws give the perception that an illegal activity is in fact legal, the legislators have failed.It's bad law.

That too.

These guys may CLAIM stand your ground. They will NOT be protected by it.


You DO realize it took the mass of public outrage to even get Zimmerman CHARGED, right?

What...you mean like the "occupy movement" ?


Zimmerman lost any protection from SYG laws when he stalked an un-armed kid.

from wiki:
The lead homicide investigator on the case, Chris Serino, recommended charging Zimmerman with manslaughter. Serino filed an affidavit the night of the incident, saying he was unconvinced by Zimmerman's account, but was informed by State Attorney Wolfinger's office that there was not enough evidence to obtain a conviction

Again. You children are jumping to conclusions.

As I said above.
Bothe will likely face justice.SYG and Castle Doctrine have NOTHING to do with protecting murderers.

bugontherug: it is totally unreasonable to shoot the aggressor in the leg

This phrase is correct, but not how you appeared to mean it from context. If you need to use a firearm to defend your life (or anyone's life), you must always aim for the center of mass. On a human, this is the center of the torso. Not only does this have the highest probability of stopping the threat, but has the lowest probability of a miss.

"Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to destroy". If the situation is dire enough that you must resort to using lethal force (and I do not believe the situation as reported in TFA meets this standard), it is also too dangerous for anything less than center-mass shots. Shooting at much smaller moving targets such as legs or arms makes the situation more dangerous for both the shooter and anyone else in the general area.

Is this the gun nut thread?
Anyone got any pop corn?
Oh, that's right no popcorn, no sudden noises.
*Backs slowly away. *

kmmontandon: How the hell else are they supposed to get off to their Rambo fantasies their tiny peckers hard?

LordJiro: HotWingConspiracy: Of course gun nuts and NRA fetishists dismiss this as a one off random occurrence.

Just another death in a long list of "We told you so's" as far as I can see.

Judging by this thread, no they don't. They judge it as completely justified and the law being used as intended, because an unarmed pedestrian was CLEARLY a threat to an armed man in an SUV.

Well, it's important to mention that the vehicle was disabled. Without having a working "reverse" gear in the vehicle which would have been the rational first step towards moving from the conflict and...

....the reverse gear worked? Rather than back up a few feet to avoid a conflict he chose to open fire?

Christ...I wonder what this guys driveway looks like.

vudukungfu: Is this the gun nut thread?
Anyone got any pop corn?
Oh, that's right no popcorn, no sudden noises.
*Backs slowly away. *

Backing away is so last week....just open fire!

Mikey1969: skepticultist: This story kind of freaks me out because I've slapped a few car hoods and told the driver to watch where he's farking going in my time. Almost getting run over pisses me off, but not so much that I'd kill someone, or -- I would think -- not so much that I should be killed.

Man, last fall I was leaving work for lunch, and I almost hit a dude on a motorcycle, there was a line of trees at the corner that blocked my view, and I just missed seeing the guy. No big deal. I ended up behind him at the next stoplight, unrolled my window and apologized. The guy of course handled it well, telling me to fark off, pull my head out of my ass, and all kinds of stuff. He also waved his hand in the air. Just to think, I could have killed him right there, and it would have all been good.

Instead, I went on with my day and just lived with the fact that some people can't accept a 'My bad' without still insisting on biatching you out...

DAMMM! You really should be carrying a gun for situations like that. I mean clearly the only good motor cycle rider is a dead motor cycle rider.

way south: we can't Monday morning quarterback

I find you telling me what to do threatening. When can I schedule your shooting?

Jake Havechek: I'm waiting for the "that guy was looking at me funny" law.

You laugh about that, but I have seen a few times when in broad daylight women turn around and mace people who are jogging because they heard somebody running behind them and got scared. Just imagine if they were carrying guns, there would probably be a few dead joggers.

They need to change the name of this law to the "I'm a scardy cat and I'm going to shoot what ever scares me" law.

HotWingConspiracy: You're disgusting and should be ashamed of yourself.

You are a simpleton.
Now lets just call each other names for a dozen posts, I'm sure that will accomplish something... maybe.

LordJiro: Yes, actually. We CAN say it was entirely unjustified, and we can, in fact, say that someone as panicky as that should not be a gun owner.

No, we can't. Not with the evidence provided being only for the victim and no rebuttal from the shooter.
Taking away someones constitutional right requires more than supposition.

ongbok: It isn't Monday morning quarterbacking. Normal people would drive away, it is done everyday. The only people that would shoot somebody for yelling at them and pounding on their car with their hand is somebody that wanted to kill somebody anyway.

Normal drivers are sometimes attacked and killed under unusual circumstances. We were not in that car or confronted the way this guy was. What we need is more detail that the author failed to provide, probably on purpose.

The DA would know if they found the pipe, if there was a witness, or if some other factor would complicate the prosecution (Drugs, history, etc...). I don't think the situation is cut and dry for the fact that the they didn't reach for it on the first pass like the low hanging fruit it appears to be.

If the DA didn't do it because hes a chicken shiat, then think of all the other cases he's letting slip by just because they just aren't good for his career. What you'd have is a seriously corrupt motherfarker in office and not an SYG precedent setting case.

I agree that most people wouldn't and shouldn't use their 2nd amendment rights or a self defense law to gun down panhandlers in a drive through parking lot... But this wouldn't be the first time someone who was troubled turned into a God fearing Choir boy the day after his funereal.

This article was written to convict a man in the public eye and then use that as leverage for the anti-gun movement ahead of elections.
How about we tackle one issue at a time and get an answer for why charges haven't already been filed?

/And the answer shouldn't be "we'll since you asked, lets file charges!".

way south: LordJiro: Yes, actually. We CAN say it was entirely unjustified, and we can, in fact, say that someone as panicky as that should not be a gun owner.

No, we can't. Not with the evidence provided being only for the victim and no rebuttal from the shooter.
Taking away someones constitutional right requires more than supposition.

Protip: Talking on a messageboard rarely, if ever, takes away someone's Constitutional rights.

thurstonxhowell: way south: we can't Monday morning quarterback

I find you telling me what to do threatening. When can I schedule your shooting?

When you fear your life is in imminent danger. Having read the article, the Taco Bell shooting seems like it should be reviewed absolutely.

The other cases, some man rushing into the old guys house at 2am, 4 kids breaking into somebody's house at midnight, somebody chasing down the man who just robbed their car. These all seem pretty self explanatory; cut and dry. These people all were committing crimes against the person who killed them. Granted you gotta feel bad for the guy with the skull fracture, but there is no way the 77 year old guy who shot him could have reasonably known the person who rushed into his home with his elderly wife was injured.

I live in a country with pretty strict gun laws. Here's how this would play out up here:


Fiancée: "Oh my God, that guy is waving his arms at us and shouting obscenities"

Shooter: "Just a second honey..." (rolls down window)

"Hey, I'm sorry about that. I didn't see you there. It's my fault, I shouldn't be driving so quickly in an area where there may be pedestrians. I'll be more careful."

(Rolls up window, drives away)

Angry Pedestrian: (waves, makes frowny face)


I guess we're doing it wrong?

EWreckedSean: thurstonxhowell: way south: we can't Monday morning quarterback

I find you telling me what to do threatening. When can I schedule your shooting?

When you fear your life is in imminent danger. Having read the article, the Taco Bell shooting seems like it should be reviewed absolutely.

Good that you agree, because that's what I was talking about.

EWreckedSean: The other cases,

I wasn't talking about.