Shooting incidents in Detroit - Page 2
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Shooting incidents in Detroit

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-11-2010, 12:25 AM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JoeB1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 73
Thumbs down

Both are idiots...

Neither cases are justified, and both should be held completely responsible for their actions.

__________________
JoeB1987 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2010, 12:34 AM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

I think that when you go out and violate another persons rights,you forfeit your own rights and if that person guns you down like the scumbag you are-then you got what was coming to you.I dont much like back-shooting however,unless your in combat.Even then I dont think I'd shoot at people with their back turned from me as their running away.Its just distasteful.

Maybe if these muggers,rapists,murderers,'gangstas' and carjackers knew they were subject to their prospective victims wrath as much if not more so then their victim is subject to their criminal assault-some things would really CHANGE in this nation.

As for the poor lady that was shot in her home-the guy who started the criminal incident should be charged with murder.Not the guy defending himself and his right to be left alone by welfare-fed nanny state coddled predators.

__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%

Last edited by KalashnikovJosh; 06-11-2010 at 12:47 AM.
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2010, 12:49 AM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KalashnikovJosh View Post
I think that when you go out and violate another persons rights,you forfeit your own rights and if that person guns you down like the scumbag you are-then you got what was coming to you.

Maybe if these muggers,rapists,murderers,'gangstas' and carjackers knew they were subject to their prospective victims wrath as much if not more so then their victim is subject to their criminal assault-some things would really CHANGE in this nation.

As for the poor lady that was shot in her home-the guy who started the criminal incident should be charged with murder.Not the guy defending himself and his right to be left alone by welfare-fed nanny state coddled predators.
They did charge the robber with felony murder. They are considering in charging the man.
__________________
clip11 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2010, 12:53 AM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

Yeah.Thats good.

But I still dont really like that the guy with the gun was shooting at a man's back as he was running from him.

__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2010, 04:54 AM   #15
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
pandamonium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,601
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dillinger View Post
First off, how are there two people involved in shootings IN DETROIT who have carry licenses?!?!

I thought that was a VERY tough city to get a permit in.

If the information given is correct, both men should be charged as neither of them took the responsibility for what the CCW License is really for.

This Permit/License is not for "Street Justice". Once you start chasing someone, especially a person that is no longer on your property, you pretty much lose any right to claim "Life Endangerment" and thus you will be promptly screwed in the eyes of the law.

There is no doubt that emotions carry sway and none of us can say what we would or would not be able to do - but facts are facts.

If you carry a weapon, you have a responsibility to carry it for the right reasons and to exercise restraint.

In these examples, it would appear that was not the case.

JD
I agree with JD on this one. The threat was ended the VICTIMS legally had no right to fire their guns, however, once the encounter begins, I could see it being very difficult to "turn off".
How about something like this, if a woman, who has a CPL, and has a firearm in her purse, gets overpowered and raped. And after the guy is done, she gets to her firearm and shoots him dead. Technically the threat is over,Should she be charged?
__________________
GUN CONTROL, I GOT THAT

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. Thomas Jefferson
pandamonium is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2010, 06:02 PM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandamonium View Post
I agree with JD on this one. The threat was ended the VICTIMS legally had no right to fire their guns, however, once the encounter begins, I could see it being very difficult to "turn off".
How about something like this, if a woman, who has a CPL, and has a firearm in her purse, gets overpowered and raped. And after the guy is done, she gets to her firearm and shoots him dead. Technically the threat is over,Should she be charged?
Thats a good point, but the difficult thing is that the law is based on self defense not retaliation. And rape, in and of itself, is alot of times hard to prove. A rape story is easy to make up, and when its one persons word against another it makes it hard. Even if you have DNA evidence, it may prove sex occured but not rape.
__________________
clip11 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2010, 06:08 PM   #17
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: I see you, and you will not know when I will strike
Posts: 24,301
Liked 3479 Times on 1609 Posts
Likes Given: 3590

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandamonium View Post
How about something like this, if a woman, who has a CPL, and has a firearm in her purse, gets overpowered and raped. And after the guy is done, she gets to her firearm and shoots him dead. Technically the threat is over,Should she be charged?
A difficult question to answer, because I think some of the hypothetical is still missing from the question.

IF the woman still feared for her life, in the case of the attacker might still have control of her, might kill her for seeing his face, or something of the case, then I would say she is still in the "fear for my life" self defense phase.

If the rape happened while she was running through the park, the attacker finished and took off running to get away from the seen, I would have to say I totally understand her shooting the hell out of the guy, but it would not be "self defense" as described.

These questions make me glad I don't have to answer them with someone's life and liberty in the balance. How can you selflessly charge a woman when what you prescribe for your own family would be different for another because of the name on your office door?

JD
__________________
Dillinger is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2010, 06:21 PM   #18
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
pandamonium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,601
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts

Default

I chose this type of scenario because, IMO a rape doesn't really end, so to the woman, the threat could last indefinitly. It is a tough one to call, that's why I put it the way I did. If I was on the jury I could not ,in good concience, find the woman guilty of a crime. Now I don't mean she tracked him down a couple of days later but the shooting was as the perp was leaving.

__________________
GUN CONTROL, I GOT THAT

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. Thomas Jefferson
pandamonium is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2010, 06:46 PM   #19
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Normal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 58
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spittinfire View Post
I agree in protecting yourself, others and your property but with the limited information you've given here neither of these men were in danger and should not have fired their weapons.
I agree. Your weapon does not justify you to carry out an execution of a criminal. It is only there to assist you in getting you out of a life threatening situation.

IMO- The guy that shot at the street mugger and ended up killing the woman should be charged with murder.
__________________
Normal is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes