Scruit

Give me a second to think about that... Before I say something insulting about your intelligence, let me clarify... If an item can cause death, and is used as a weapon, then it is a deadly weapon.

Note to self - lock the generator to something big! I don't lock the generator outside my house. May have to change that. I may just wind up making a concrete pad for my generator, only I'll make sure it's made up of 200lbs of concrete and I'll cast chain anchor points right into it. Wanna take the generator? Bring a backhoe.

Possibilities: - Not loaded - Not real - Chamber empty - Safety catch on - Didn't know how - The guy was quicker on the draw and they stopped any attempt at using the shotgun, but being inside a car they could not retreat.

We're not talking about a protracted gun battle here. If I see a shotgun barrel facing me then I'll evaluate the effectiveness of my first shots when I have to stop to change the mag. I ain't pausing until the threat stops, or the mag runs out. It IS possible that there WAS a shotgun - and that it was disposed of after the shooting. It IS possible that there WAS NO shotgun - and that the shooter saw something he through was a shotgun. It IS possible that there WAS NO shotgun - and that the shooter is just a murderer making up a false claim to try to escape justice.

A knife is not a "step between" a punch and a gun. There is force, and there is deadly force. Deadly force is any force likely to cause serious injury or death. A knife and a gun are on the same level.

Totality of circumstances. If you are a frail 97 year old man and get punched by a linebacker-sized person then shooting him may be justified as your only means of defense. If you punch someone and they use deadly force against you then tough. you started it. Run. You cannot win this. If you shoot them and survive you are going to go to jail. Learn to not punch people.

It's very dynamic. There are situations where 8 or 9 is fine and 2 is excessive. You shoot until the threat stops - and handguns usually don't produce immediate incapacitation. If you take 1 or 2 shots then pause to evaluate if his injuries are "going to incapacitate him shortly" then you're likely to get killed. Even a man shot through the heart can still kill you - he has enough time left in the oxygen already in his bloodstream to stab or shoot you. "Excessive" force in a true defense situation (where the first shot was justifiable) would be when any of the subsequent shots were punitive in nature, not preventative. These would be any shots where the person is already incapacitated, or shots where you have had reasonable time to determine that the person has ended their threat against you. Bearing in mind that in real life a gunshot from a handgun is often not even felt at first due to adrenaline... Bearing in mind that the person you are shooting at may show no signs of being hit for seconds, or minutes... Bearing in mind that you don't even know if your rounds are hitting the guy, never mind "are they effective shots"... And then finally considering you can put 8 or 9 rounds downrange in just a few seconds.... With all this considered it is not unusual for 8 or 9 shots can to be fired at a person before they become incapacitated, for that to be totally justifiable. There is a famous video out there of a robbery where the store owner shoots one of two armed robbers. The shot man jumped back over the counter, pulled his shirt up to look at the wound, then ran away. He died hours later. Would it have been unreasonable to shoot him a second time? He was still 100% mobile and deadly until he finally bled out from being gutshot. He could easily have stood and continued shooting.

Why? If I ask a guy in the street what time it is and he starts to attack me, can I not defend myself because I "started the encounter"? We don't know what the demeanor of his request was. Was it; "Any chance you could turn that down a bit, please?? or "Turn that sh*t off or I'll kick your ass!" If the way he spoke to them was illegal in some way (contained a threat or would make a reasonable person fear that an assault was imminent) then sure, he could be argued to have "started it" - but simply starting the conversation is not problematic in proving a self defense situation. Gotta be on your best behavior when armed. That doesn't mean you have to be a pacifist sheep ripe for being trampled on - but it does mean you go into any confrontation (note: not "conversation"!) knowing that it could be fatal for the other person so you have a greater moral duty to not let things get to that point.

I think that him fleeing the scene is going to be a huge weight on every juror's mind. If he thought he was innocent, why did he not contact the police until after the news broke that the guy died, the next day? I predict that is going to be the major factor in the disposition of this case.

Big chain? Trail camera? I am investing in new GPS trackers for my caps after my current vendor announced they were going out of business. Under my new vendor I can track for $12.50/vehicle/month. I'm considering buying a "floating" tracker that I can temporarily put on other things. eg - If I was to put a for-sale trailer or lawn tractor close to the road... Or when I run my generator during power outages. When I'm not using it for any specific reason I could put it in my rolling tool chest.

No. You can walk up to people and talk to them while armed. Nothing against that. What you cannot do is start a PHYSICAL confrontation, shoot the guy when you are losing and then claim self defense. Problem is that you get two type-a personalities who don't know how to back down and eventually any encounter is likely to become a physical encounter. It all goes back to the old saying; "who threw the first punch?" First punch guy cannot shoot.

The police arrested him, and the court is holding him without bail. The police wanting to cover their butts is understandable, but the court won't let the police hold someone without evidence on the off chance he might be guilty - they have shared evidence with the court that convinces the court to order no bail. Evidence that suggests SYG does not count here.

Looks like a G-Wiz

They need certain people, even execs, to complete the shutdown. Those people have to be tempted to stay to the bitter end or they will leave the company unable to close down and getting sued by creditors etc. You have to consider how much each person is paid. If an exec earns $350k a year then what do you pay them to make them stay versus quit for a new 350k/yr job? I dunno. I'm just talking about the transition team and why you need to pay them extra to stay - human nature. I agree that the bonuses they voted themselves before the shutdown was announced are borderline criminal.

"Especially if you are a US Air Force Pilot in a Russian Jet"

When my last employer wound down their Ohio operations I was picked to be part of the team that helped shut the place down. We were all offered bonuses of 50% our annual salary to be paid on the day the office went dark, as long as you still worked there. And this was a team of IT folks with 10+ years experience each, so we where we all hovering right around 6 figure salaries so we're talking $50-55k in bonuses, on top of severance AND unemployment The reason for the large bonuses is that people on the transition team were dropping like flies, getting new jobs. If they didn't offer any bonuses then the office operations/assets/datacenter would never have been successfully transitioned. Nobody wants to be out of a job with no job to go to. It took a year to complete, and those who lasted it out made enough money to not be worried about having to find a new job quickly. I understand bonuses paid to the transition team to keep them in place until they are no longer needed. I also understand that even big bonuses are no guarantee. I gave up my $50k bonus in exchange for leaving early to jump on a job that gave me better long-term career. It paid off, and I'm better off now than I would have been if I'd taken the bonus + any available job. I did the math and figured out that if it took me more than 3mo to find a job at the same salary then I'd be losing money. Most people took 2-4 months to find new jobs. My new job took 2 months from responding to the ad to getting the offer.

I still don't understand how anyone can think an international arms trade treaty would result in a gun ban in the US. Sure, the scaremongers can put forth theories about activist judges, but those activist judges can rule against guns already, so nothing is different.

My kinda cat.

The fact that he has been charged means the investigators didn't buy his SYG defense. He make any defense he wants in court. It's up to the jury to decide if that defense is accepted. Doesn't make his defense a bad law. People claim "self defense" all the time - sometimes that is accepted, sometimes it is not. Just because someone's claims self-defense doesn't jive with your initial reading of the first wave of facts does NOT make self-defense a bad legal concept. Similarly, just because someone claims SYG doesn't make SYG a bad law. I love the line I read in one article "Florida has more a higher rate of exoneration in shooting situations because people claim SYG." Oh really? I read that as; "Other states jailed people who may be morally innocent because SYG was not available to them."

Weird. I heard that exact phrase from a devout Republican.

It's not just you making that comparison - CNN has an article where the defense lawyer aruges; "This is not a Trayvon Martin case"

- Innocent until proven guilty - Shooting at someone then leaving the scene and not reporting it is going to be a huge problem for him to overcome. That is a glimpse into his state of mind at the time. If I was in a self defense shooting I'd want to be the first one to call the cops. - Was there time/opportunity for the "victim" cap occupants to ditch a gun? Does CCTV show anything? Not finding a gun at the scene means nothing if they were able to ditch a gun. On the other hand, how do you wield a shotgun in a full car? Do you ride down the road with it on the laps of all the back seat occupants? - Nothing wrong with Stand Your Ground. If this truly was a crime then SYG won't protect him. Will any death involving a white shooter where the person killed is black forever be referred to as a "Trayvon Martin" case?

At 100 years old? I'd check with a gunsmith before you shoot anything new through it. Not just for this season, but for anything really. Internet people saying "should be fine" will be of little consolation in the unlikely event of a problem and you destroy the gun. Or your head.

Depressing thing is that some sociopathically anti-Obama folks will quote this article as supporting their views.