Geeesammy Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 Ohio law states - "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. If he used the gun when the person was no longer a threat, and the person was no longer committing a crime, then he is a murderer, and wasn't defending SHIT. IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE LOL And yes, if the person committed a crime then that cost to house them needs to be added to whatever budget that comes out of, since those criminals are also guaranteed the right to trial by due process. Everyone here who values their rights should understand why we have them, and not be happy when someone abuses the law using the rights we hold dear (which should be ALL of them). Edit:If the guy is still alive, then remove 'murder' and what not and replace it with whatever applies. Regardless, if the news is reporting that the robber turned around and pointed his gun, in my eyes that's deadly intent, and the man was correct in shooting him lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 I agree that the correct use of CCW to save lives is a good thing, but I am also empathetic and don't want any crime committed in the first place. I will (almost) never refer to someone being shot as 'great' or 'excellent' news. It isn't, for either party. It is a tragedy, the only positive being this man will most likely not try and rob anyone else, if indeed he did in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 I still have yet to read a response as to why the alleged gunman should be deprived of his right to a trial by jury of his peers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 I still have yet to read a response as to why the alleged gunman should be deprived of his right to a trial by jury of his peers. If you are indeed robbing someone and are shot during the robbery, fuck you if you die (this guy didn't), deprived of trial, no fucks given. If you survive your wound, than you have your rights like anyone else. The law says you can't shoot someone attempting to escape , since they would no longer pose an immediate threat to you, near regardless of what they did to you in the moments prior. That doesn't mean a case won't get thrown out, your peers won't nullify, or that you would even be charged at all depending on the circumstances. In this case a man claims he was getting out of his car, was robbed at gunpoint, and at some point the victim of the robbery shot the robber, then the robber ran away. Later in the evening someone turned up at the hospital with a gunshot wound. If these people are one in the same (all signs point to yes), he did in fact attempt to rob the victim (had no business on the residence, was not family, friend, or foe), and is not shot in the back, then we as a society should give the benefit of the doubt to the victim, barring any real evidence proving otherwise. Even if he was shot in the back I personally wouldn't care, but I could see one getting in legal trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sledhead36 Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 I agree that the correct use of CCW to save lives is a good thing, but I am also empathetic and don't want any crime committed in the first place. I will (almost) never refer to someone being shot as 'great' or 'excellent' news. It isn't, for either party. It is a tragedy, the only positive being this man will most likely not try and rob anyone else, if indeed he did in the first place. Just for the record, "excellent news" was that the guy defended himself and was a legal ccw. The statement was not to emphasize that he was shot, the judge and jury will sort that out. It is excellent to see news supporting both sides of the clearly controversial issue of guns instead of one sided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 Just an FYI, but just because someone is shot in the back, doesn't mean they still weren't a threat. The police often shoot people in the back because the perp tends to shoot blindly over their shoulder as they are running away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zx2guy19 Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 Good stuff, one of the supervisors at work is best friends with this guys Dad and he was telling me about it this morning. Shows this dude right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 The police often shoot people in the back because the perp tends to shoot blindly over their shoulder as they are running away. See, this is the problem with this story. The victim failed to kill, or even incapacitate, the robber. He's lucky as fuck that the robber ran away without firing a shot, instead of A) shooting back and killing him or his infant, or B) running away firing blindly over his shoulder, "accidentally" killing him or his infant. Dude chose to escalate an armed confrontation into a shootout and then failed to finish the job. That's absolutely reckless considering there was a 2-month old child right there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 I've been a victim of an armed robbery in my residence. Guys followed me up the stairs, pushed me into my apartment with guns to my head, took as much cash and electronics as they could get in the minute they were there, and then booked it. When the door closed, my roommate and I each grabbed our guns (which we were lucky they didn't find) and waited. We no longer had phones with which to call police. We sat and waited in case we had to DEFEND ourselves until we were reasonably certain they had left and weren't returning. We didn't chase them down, and we sure as fuck didn't even open the door to see where they were in case they were waiting for us. IMO the act of discharging a firearm is by definition, an offensive action. In any case other than someone currently putting your life in danger via offensive action (holding a gun to your head, brandishing a knife, driving a car at you), I don't think discharging a firearm can be classified as "self defense". I think, as well, that the law sees it this way in most cases. What Austin said above me is absolutely correct, but those are LEOs who vigorously train in the use of deadly force, and who we pay to have a different set of standards and expectations in the use of such force. Joe Citizen doesn't have the same rights in using deadly force as a LEO. Even disregarding that, any LEO worthy of his badge will tell you that discharging a firearm is an absolute last resort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey2721 Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 nevermind re-read... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 Just an FYI, but just because someone is shot in the back, doesn't mean they still weren't a threat. The police often shoot people in the back because the perp tends to shoot blindly over their shoulder as they are running away. Good point, noted, but in that situation you'd think empty shell casings would help you prove you were being shot at, if you could find them. Let's pass a law that says all criminals must use revolvers so there's no chance of losing evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KillJoy Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 I will (almost) never refer to someone being shot as 'great' or 'excellent' news. It isn't, for either party. It is a tragedy... Osama Bin Laden :fuuuu: KillJoy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Just for the record, "excellent news" was that the guy defended himself and was a legal ccw. The statement was not to emphasize that he was shot, the judge and jury will sort that out. It is excellent to see news supporting both sides of the clearly controversial issue of guns instead of one sided. I knew that too I have very rarely taken issue with anything you've posted. Osama Bin Laden :fuuuu: KillJoy (almost) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImUrOBGYN Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Just for the record, "excellent news" was that the guy defended himself and was a legal ccw. The statement was not to emphasize that he was shot, the judge and jury will sort that out. It is excellent to see news supporting both sides of the clearly controversial issue of guns instead of one sided. Perhaps that's your definition of it and therefore, he's not referring to you. However, let's not pretend that's the way everyone in here defines "excellent news". I think those are those ones he's really addressing. Excellent news for me is: "A suspcious man was seen leaving the residence of Christian Rodriguez today after having left various delicious pies by his front door." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sledhead36 Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Perhaps that's your definition of it and therefore, he's not referring to you. However, let's not pretend that's the way everyone in here defines "excellent news". I think those are those ones he's really addressing. Excellent news for me is: "A suspcious man was seen leaving the residence of Christian Rodriguez today after having left various delicious pies by his front door." lol, excellent! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.