Posted on 10/26/2003 4:41:29 AM PST by lifacs
but the concealed permit allows a lot of unbalanced people to act in ways that they would not if they didn't have the gun in their hand...
people used to fight fist fights or turn the hose on someone or just lock the door and call the police...
now, we have people, first thing they do is shoot.....
we had the very same type of thing here...a bunch of rough acting threatening teenagers engaged in hostilities going down a very busy street....the guy with the permit was being hassled and he hasseled back, except he also turned into a empty parking lot ( this was in the middle of the day with hundreds of cars going by) and got out of his car and naturally, the young punks stopped also....the young punk got out of his car and was shot dead nearly immediately by the older gun carrying guy...no charges of course because it was in "self defense".
he could have stopped and went into a shop...or a gas station or a fire station .....he didn't have to confront the punk but he did...because he knew he could shot him then and there...
if he didn't have his gun on him, he would have done the sane and reasonable thing that most of us would do.... maybe call the cops from a car phone, or stop and go into a busy store and call for help...
when you have unstable people that are so intimidated by life that they reach for their gun first off, then we will see lots of unnecessary killings....
And there’s the predicament. The tables are turned, and the shooter’s the only one who has no responsibility to consider the presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence fundamental to our judicial system, but in this case the judge, jury and executioner’s are exempt. His actions are apparently overlooked unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he had no “reasonable belief that the shooter is acting to avoid serious bodily injury or death”.
That bar’s incredibly low. I’ve had that reasonable belief a dozen times, in fights or near fights as a young man or even on the highway with road raged drivers. I knew better than to kill because of it, but apparently the law in NC would have supported my ability to do so, presuming I did not provoke it.
Not enough time to evaluate before pulling the trigger? I’d rather that just be the risk one takes when arming themselves. Perhaps the added gravity of that self danger would promote the kind of forethought and risk avoidance that would minimize these incidents.
Please read your husband's magazines, if you do not already. This is the picture the press is trying to paint all CCW permit holders with, that of unbalanced gunslinger wannabes spoiling for the chance to shoot someone.
Sadly, of millions, there will be a few irresponsible folks who get permits.
This guy didn't need a permit to have a pistol in his home. So the message becomes two-pronged. Evil pistol, Evil Permit.
How many people seek law enforcement jobs to grow a couple of inches strapping on a Sam Browne and a Badge? Such a profession would attract the power-hungry 'I wanna bash heads crowd'. Yet most police officers are not this way and do not want this type in the ranks.
Most concealed weapon permit holders are not unbalanced Wyatt Earp wannabes either.
YOU LIE.
Your post no. 437 was a reply to post 436 --- which had been pulled by the time I saw your post.
What a lovely world you bunker monkeys live in.
Note I didn't say not enough time to evaluate whether a threat exists, just not enough time to come up with unusual reasons to deny it.
Acting on behalf of a third party gives more time to sort things out, because you retain the ability to use force with little risk to self.
I'm one of those people for whom life-threatening situations happen in slow-motion, so as I said, there is time to quit right up to when the hammer falls. An incident years ago ended in an apology, rather than a tragedy because I made sure of what was going on. A friend got a good view of the muzzle end of my .44, cocked and ready, walking in and waking me from a dead sleep by opening the door. (Threats had been made to my life). I rolled the hammer down (off target) and asked him to please knock next time. We still joke about it.
So never get the idea that the shot is on auto pilot from the time the pistol clears the holster. Would the shot have been legally justifiable? perhaps, but then I'd have had to deal with killing a good friend.
The court can take months of motions and affidavits and testimony to sort out what happens in a few seconds at most. When confronted by a potential threat, you simply don't have that luxury.
As for risk, shooting someone who didn't pose a threat leaves one open to losing everything they have in the Civil Suit, as well as living with the knowledge that they have killed an innocent. Not exactly an absence of consequenes.
I hope I can get through this life without having to kill another human being, but if the necessity arises, I hope I neither hesitate nor miss.
Then post it. Put up warnings. And don't fire beyond the LD.
You have to act affirmatively to prohibit that act. First of all, build a fence. Secondly, put in a locking gate. Thirdly, post your property to warn them away.
BTW, none of that applies if it's a minor who ends up in your yard.
What I fail to understand in all this is why the guy didn't arm himself with something really good like a Streetsweeper. You pop a round into the chamber on that sucker and they'll stand up at attention and await your next command.
With a Streetsweeper there is absolutely no reason to ever have to fire on them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.