Free Republic

“The Coming of Kamala”

That can get me thrown off FR for what I can say here. Isn’t this how she got into politics?

wy69

“As a blanket statement, that is not correct in any State.

Forty-four states have a provision in their state constitutions similar to the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. The exceptions are California, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York.

However, a citizen in California can get a CCW from the County Sheriff’s department. In Maryland it’s called a wear and carry permit. Minnesota can issue a carry permit and it doesn’t mention concealed at all. New Jersey is now a shall-issue state with concealed weapons permits issued at the local level by municipal police departments or NJ State Police. And New York requires a pistol license to carry is issued to carry concealed. Concealed carry is only legal with a New York Pistol License (NYPL). According to what I can find, every state has a carry license of some type. The ones above info came from their web sites.
“And he punched the driver with weapon in hand.”

You may want to re-examine the film. He never punched the driver. He struck the car door only with his right hand and weapon and the driver’s window was never opened until the driver’s shot went through it.
Andrew Branca is a defense attorney whose job is to defend people for the self defense needs. Four elements are required for self-defense: (1) an unprovoked attack, (2) which threatens imminent injury or death, and (3) an objectively reasonable degree of force, used in response to (4) an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death.

“Neither the facts, nor the law supports a “wrongful death” civil judgement against the driver where this event occurred.”

We differ here. From what I saw the person shot did not point the gun, did not touch the shooter, or unless he scratched the car, didn’t harm that. Having a gun does not determine imminent deadly force. And calling people names doesn’t either. There was no deadly threat there. And if you go by the film. It proves that from what we can see.

Wy69

“The driver couldn’t have seen the swap, so for all he knew, the gun was in the right hand”

That’s a thought but the driver did see the right hand get raised right in front of the driver’s side window to the roof of the car and it did not have the gun in it.

I’m not trying to be a devils advocate here. But that might probably come up in court. And the time to transfer the weapon and raise the hand to the roof of the car is more than enough time for the outside guy to have used the gun if it was intended...and he didn’t. And that’s why my original post brought these things up and mentioned the possible wrongful death suit would be interesting.

wy69

wy69

“You really have no idea the amount of time it takes either raise or point a gun held at the ready do you?”

Carried a side arm with the military, department of the army, and the DOD for many years. I was a much better shot with an M16 as I qualified expert for years. But I could get by with a handgun.

According to Dennis Tuller, a former SWAT officer, in drilling it take the average person with the right equipment around 1.84 seconds to draw and fire.

But let’s re-evaluate the situation. He got out of a car and never holstered it. We don’t know if the gun was loaded and charged. And he actually tapped it on the car door. So if his intent was to shoot the driver, and he had the opportunity as a small amount of talk did happen, then why didn’t he? He had plenty of time, but didn’t. So why wouldn’t there be a question as to whether he was using deadly force or not?

wy69

“Then study up what constitutes a deadly threat.”

Look it up in Black’s Law Dictionary like I did. From the time the shot left his vehicle until the time he was shot, the gun was never pointed at the shooter. And that alone turns the act of deadly threat into assumption. Let alone why he didn’t do it if it was deadly threat. The opportunity was there but he didn’t.

wy69

You interpretated his appearance as deadly threat. Black’s Law Dictionary defines deqaly threat as:

A communicated intent to inflict imminent harm or loss on another or on another’s property.

If he was a deadly threat, then why didn’t it happen? When he raised the gun to tap it on the side of the vehicle, why didn’t he fire? And why did he lower the gun to the left side of his body to talk with the shooter? If it was imminent threat, these things wouldn’t have happened. So there is a question as to his intent. And that’s where the civil suit is going if it does.

wy69

“... are you going to wait to see if they’re going to put a bullet through your head before ya drop them?”

I’ve had people pull guns on me before. I’m not making judgement on what happened. Just the law on how it can be interpreted.

wy69

“Depending upon the skill of the DA and the ignorance of the jury, this guy could go to prison.”

He was released without bail and no court date has been established. And you’re right if the DA wishes to push the issue. Doesn’t look like it.

But what I’m talking about is a civil suit that could cost the shooter millions for wrongful death. Suing is the national sport for many in the US so I wouldn’t put it past them. And OJ really put this into the news and it can be profitable.

wy69

“Ironic that the facility our interceptors flew from has a Russian girl’s name.”

And when I was there there were a lot of Russian Amereican citizens. And they loved Oly beer. Didn’t drink with much.

wy69

“When the Soviet Union fell, that was curtailed for a while.”

The old Soviet Union fell in 1991. And their government and military work was in disarray. But it was only a short time. But prior, The ritual was played out thousands of times between 1961 and 1991 as US and Canadian air defense fighters scrambled to engage long-range Soviet bombers and reconnaissance aircraft on the periphery of North American airspace. I was friends with a couple of pilots from the CAC that rotated out there every couple of months. NWADS still is in operation today and in use. Their building is right across the street from the golf course at what was earlier McChord AFB now part of JBLM.

The Soviet Air Defense Force didn’t turn into a piece of the Russian Military Forces until 1998. But during the years beweeen the fall and the refigeration the what was left flew. The VVS participated in the First Chechen War (1994–1996) and the Second Chechen War (1999–2002). And the flyovers continued over the Bering Sea. And their hellos to us slowed but did not stop. One such incident is his in 2006:

https://www.norad.mil/Newsroom/Article/578117/norad-intercepts-russian-aircraft/

They still play this game of chicken today.

wy69

“...approaches white pickup in threatening manner...”

You were right up to this point. You’re assuming he was thinking of using the gun, which he did not nor the evidence says now made any offer to shoot his gun. He had it, he tapped the truck with it, he changed hands with it, and he lowered it. The weapon was neer discharged nor wa an effort to do so observed. If he had carried a baseball bat or a rock with him, is that a threat? Legally, just as much. Don’t assume by guessing what might have happened. You can only work with what you did observe. So unless you, without seeing or hearing it, get the gun pointed at the driver or the vehicle and/or hear him say he is going to use it, you have only assumption and that’s not fact. And remember, this is not a criminal trial which requiires beyond a shadow of a doubt but requires a preponderence of the evidence with a civil suit. It is not cut and dry. Remember OJ, same type of undertaking.

wy69

“...in a threatening manner no less...”

We never saw the peson outside the car ever point the weapon at the shooter in a theatening manner. If he has a permit and did not brandish the weapon, which we can’t see he did, then he can carry the weapon anywhere he wants to go unless the law over rules him like maybe school property as an example.

I saw no threat from the film. There would have to be more aggressive actiuon with the gun to get the threat existance to go. Civil trial, not criminal.

wy69

“...in a threatening manner no less...”

We never saw the peson outside the car ever point the weapon at the shooter in a theatening manner. If he has a permit and did not brandish the weapon, which we can’t see he did, then he can carry the weapon anywhere he wants to go unless the law over rules him like maybe school property as an example.

I saw no threat from the film. There would have to be more aggressive actiuon with the gun to get the threat existance to go. Civil trial, not criminal.

wy69

“... make that very a difficult argument.”

Agreed. But not establishing if the gun was pointed in his left hand at the truck indicates a lack of force. And like I mentioned in another post, anger is not grounds to irrigate the stand your ground scenario. It requires imminent threat to self or property (in many states on the property) All you can see on the film is a pissed off guy that has confronted a person. The weapon is not part of the equation until it is brandished. Brandishing is defined as to wave or swing (something, such as a weapon) in a threatening or excited manner. Without seeing the position of the gun behind his body, he didn’t fill that block.

wy69

“You can shoot with the left hand just as well as the right hand for close range.”

That is a basis for a criminal trial. Not a wrongful death suit. Different field of play.

“The aggressor was a lethal and immediate threat the instant he stepped out of his vehicle with a gun in hand.”

Not neccessarily. He could have gone the other way. Remember, this is a suit, not a criminal trial. If the plaintiff’s lawyers can prove the shooter was contributory to the death, it is a paid injury and depending on the state, how the reward will be given. In California, for instanse, killing someone who is imminently endangering your life is a key to stand your ground scenerios. Any contributory action by the shooter can be a problem in the suit. And he being the only shooter and the only person to obviously aim a gun are strikes against him.

“It was a good self-defense shoot.”

Not with what I see. We can’t see the angle of the gun in his left hand as it is behind his body. But if the gun was not aimed at the shooter, the guy outside the car is allowed to carry a gun if he has a permit and has no liability to dispose of it. Anger does not fill the descriuption of threat by itself. And this is why I think it may get interesting.
wy69

“You can shoot with the left hand just as well as the right hand for close range.”

That is a basis for a criminal trial. Not a wrongful death suit. Different field of play.

“The aggressor was a lethal and immediate threat the instant he stepped out of his vehicle with a gun in hand.”

Not neccessarily. He could have gone the other way. Remember, this is a suit, not a criminal trial. If the plaintiff’s lawyers can prove the shooter was contributory to the death, it is a paid injury and depending on the state, how the reward will be given. In California, for instanse, killing someone who is imminently endangering your life is a key to stand your ground scenerios. Any contributory action by the shooter can be a problem in the suit. And he being the only shooter and the only person to obviously aim a gun are strikes against him.

“It was a good self-defense shoot.”

Not with what I see. We can’t see the angle of the gun in his left hand as it is behind his body. But if the gun was not aimed at the shooter, the guy outside the car is allowed to carry a gun if he has a permit and has no liability to dispose of it. Anger does not fill the descriuption of threat by itself. And this is why I think it may get interesting.
wy69

“I think a jury would debate for about 15 minutes and giving an innocent verdict.”

That always depends on how it is presented and how the jury is made up. And that’s my point, it could get to a crap shoot. And not being charged with a murder doesn’t make wrongful death charge a non-entity. Look at O.J’s situation. Acquited of murder, fined millions over wrongful death.

wy69

I’ll be surprised if this doesn’t go to court at least as a wrongful death trial. The shot man approached the car, struck it with the right hand holding the gun, which was stupid, then transfered it to the left hand which the court could say was an effort to lowering his defenses. It appeared, fom what we could see, when he lowered it he was not “on the trigger” and the gun was pointed down. This mght get interesting in a stand your ground call.

wy69

I’ll be surprised if this doesn’t go to court at least as a wrongful death trial. The shot man approached the car, struck it with the right hand holding the gun, which was stupid, then transfered it to the left hand which the court could say was an effort to lowering his defenses. It appeared, fom what we could see, when he lowered it he was not “on the trigger” and the gun was pointed down. This mght get interesting in a stand your ground call.

wy69

“We do the same thing.”

And have for many years. While in the Alaskan Air Command, I spent some time at Galena Air Station in central Alaska and it was the home of a combat alert cell, or a CAC, in the mid 1980’s when I was there. It was one of a number of sites covering the Bering Sea air space like King Salmon, Clear, and Shymia based out of Elmendorf AFB. Galena was a small town, still there, along the Yukon and it has an airport that the CAC used. Anytime an aircraft approached or crossed “that line” as per the radar at Galena, or elsewhere, F-16’s, fully armed, would take over the airport for launch and go to intercept.

The sites are no longer there but radar is still on and most of it comes from the western airospace division (WADS) at what is now at Joint Base Lewis McChord (JBLM) in south Tacoma, Washington. So it still goes on, just a little more economic. And other means of patrol are used, also. It was part of a blanket of control that other military forces were part of. For Alaska, one was Adak, navy. Galena Air STation was originally activated in 1951.

wy69