This is what the Asswipes of Santilla Shores, GA should have kept in mind:
When you pull and use a gun, you are gambling literally everything you have on getting it right during the event and being legally justified afterward. You are gambling your physical life. You are betting your job, your home, and every penny you have in the bank. At risk is your marriage, your ability to share a bed with the person you love, and your ability to watch your children grow up in person instead of from jail. You place on the table every friendship you’ve ever made, every dollar you’ve ever earned or will earn, and your family’s future happiness. You are risking sleep disturbances, flashbacks, nightmares, impotence, anorexia, alcoholism, drug reliance, and a long and bitter lifetime of regret if you get it wrong. That is the gamble you take when you use a firearm against another human being.
To take a gamble that big, it’s a good idea to be overwhelmingly certain there’s no other way out.
Keep that in mind if you have a gun. Keep in mind, before you stick your nib into someone else's affair, that you may be mistaken as to what you believe is going on. You won't have the public interest or public service deference that the courts give the cops. You'd be intervening in a private matter and you best be sure that you are on the side that is legally right.
If you seek to make a citizen's arrest, you had best be sure that a) your state allows you to do that, and b) the underlying circumstances justify it. If you are wrong about any of that, well, trying to detain someone that you have no right to hold is attempted kidnapping. You may be found to be committing a crime. Criminals in the act of doing crime don't get to claim self-defense.
If you are not legally right, you can be faced with a lifetime behind bars, as Travis McMichael, his father and his neighbor are finding out. So did Michael Drejka.
If you're legally right, but the circumstances around it are sketchy, even if you are acquitted, what you did will follow you for the rest of your life like a stink that you can never wash away. It won't matter if you cure cancer or do anything else, you will be forever known for that one act. Even if it isn't a high-profile case, anyone doing research on you will find out about the shooting.[1]
Beyond that, being acquitted for a crime doesn't cut much ice when it comes to civil liability.[2] As any lawyer who wasn't doing cocaine for three years during law school can tell you, the real meaning behind being found "not guilty" can be better understand as a verdict of "not proven" -- the prosecution didn't prove that a crime had been committed beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil court, the burden of proof is much lower. Did you negligently/recklessly (whatever) shoot the other guy? There, the standard of proof is "more likely than not," or 50.1% likely. A jury can find that you didn't act properly, that the other guy was largely responsible for what happened and you can still be dinged with a six-figure judgment. If the judgment creditors want, they can hound you for a very long time.
Calling the police isn’t “doing nothing.” Writing down license plate numbers isn’t “doing nothing.” Shepherding others to a safe haven is not “doing nothing.” Watchfully being prepared to act if the situation escalates is not “doing nothing.” Testifying in court and identifying the criminal to the authorities is not “doing nothing.” There are many actions a good and honorable person might take that do not require the use of a firearm, and those actions are not “doing nothing.” Only doing nothing is doing nothing.
Remember that if you shoot someone, what you did, the decisions that you made in a fraction of a second, will be parsed by lawyers and decided on by a jury that is drinking coffee in an air-conditioned conference room. You will be held accountable for every round you fire.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't carry a concealed weapon. But you should make yourself aware of the legal jeopardy you face if you touch off a round.[3],[4] If you are entertaining any of that "armed sheepdog" nonsense, disabuse yourself of that shit right the fuck now.
________________
[1] Unless your name is something very common, like John Smith.
[2] There are some states that, if you are found not guilty because you acted in self-defense, that you are immune from a civil lawsuit in state court.
[3] God help you if you accidentally shoot a bystander. The courts won't. You won't get to claim "collateral damage."
[4] See the opening paragraph.
I'll keep the comment section open until people start acting ignorant. Stupid screeds will be slagged.
Don’t start no shit, won’t be no shit.
ReplyDeleteThat’s an adage an old plumber told me long ago that I learned way back then. My Dad always warned me not to put myself in situations that didn’t seem safe or I wasn’t ready to handle. But me being a teenager, sometimes I didn’t always heed the advice. After a couple of beat downs (on the receiving end) I figured they just may be onto something.
Your post reminded me of lessons I’ve learned so far.
Dale
Louis L'Amour wrote something to the effect "it's requires responsibility"
ReplyDeleteSomething "Americans" sorely lack ...
This is maybe the sanest thing I've ever read about using a firearm. It all flows from "be absolutely certain of your target before squeezing the trigger" as when people are involved, there is a lot more to be certain of.
ReplyDelete-Doug in Sugar Pine
You mean owning and carrying a fun bang tool isn’t a catholicon? News to me.
ReplyDeleteExcellent. Bravo!
ReplyDeleteA split second away from yet one more tragic death in the Gabby Giffords shooting:
"Recalling the 2011 shooting on Thursday, Zamudio said when he reached the scene, he saw a man holding a handgun up in the air.
The man shouted, according to Zamudio: “I’ll kill you.” He then shouted an expletive.
“I think: 'plug him,'” Zamudio said.
But Zamudio quickly noticed an important detail:
The slide on the gun was locked back. That automatically happens when a gun has fired its last bullet.
“It was empty,” Zamudio said, “You could see that.”
So instead of drawing his weapon, Zamudio grabbed the man’s arm and slammed against the wall, disarming him.
Others shouted at him that the man wasn’t the gunman.
Zamudio then helped hold down the gunman, later identified as Jared Loughner"
-- https://tinyurl.com/bdybsrmm
The gun the man had been holding was the shooter, Jared Loughner's gun.
"Only when you ain't got no other choice".
ReplyDeleteThat's what people older and smarter than me taught me.
I've used that metric a time or two, and haven't shot anyone yet.
Another rule is "To protect your life or safety or the life or safety of another".
If they are robbing the bank and are not threatening anyone (with or without a weapon) then let 'em take it.
As you point out, it isn't worth it. Unless someone is threatened with death or damage, then let it go.
Everyone here has recognized there is a lot of water needed
ReplyDeleteto form that cloud of truth. Each has added his bucket.
There is a lot to be said for responsibility as it is a
two way street.
Going one way the moral imperative is to be responsible, that
is about acting correctly at every decision and action.
The other way is that if one fails, a holding of responsibility
may lead to judgement by others that you were not.
With that said it is more than just being sure of your target as
well as what lies beyond. That's ends up focusing on why that
person is a target.
Sometimes not going there or remaining there is better than
a firearm. In the real world one has to be aware trouble
may very well find you. That trouble is something to actively
avoid. He/They started it is not a defense, the defense is
I did everything to avoid it by acts and efforts.
In the end not pulling ones shooter is best. All other
choices require proof of responsible thought, action,
and efforts to avoid.
The other is the price paid is one of 20/20 hindsight,
that being was it the absolute, undoubtable, and right
thing to do. That will visit in the night when it quiet.
The one case not mentioned directly and has not played out
beyond an acquittal. There is still the public assignment
of responsibility judged by the lowest standard, personal
opinion. That may end up as enforced by small acts like
denied employment, schooling, housing or things not thought
of here. The potential of many and all civil actions exist.
Examples abound. Memories are often longer than one might
expect or guess. There is death by a thousand small cuts.
So like many are aware, simply being right is often not enough
and the standard is a very high bar to reach. Its review is
often historically tested.
Eck!
But. Dear Comrade.
ReplyDeleteAll you said assumes reason and a modicum of intelligence.
Maybe 50% of America is immediately disqualified...and maybe 35% more is questionable based on their willingness to use what they have.
There used to be those studies that supposedly showed that violent video games didn't beget violence. Whatever, for sure the drumbeats of the Right do.
The functional and abstract reasoning are delicious Comrade. Did gun safety in Boy Scouts.
ReplyDeleteMy brother, the lawyer, still hunts birds. Good at abstract reasoning too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP7nW_hKB7I
"...Keep in mind, before you stick your nib into someone else's affair, that you may be mistaken as to what you believe is going on...."
ReplyDelete1) The people you're talking about can't do that. I mean, really, positively, absolutely can't.
2) Given 1), pretty much all of the harm that your quote enumerates can be brought to pass with nothing more lethal than a tongue.
3) Collateral damage is implicit. It should be explicit.
So, uhm, where does that stack up against testing positive for a deadly, airborne communicable virus and then knowingly placing one's self in a position of moderate statistical probability of infecting others, or a specific other?
ReplyDeleteI grew up reading Ayoob, and others in the gun magazines. It gave me a sobering assessment of carrying a gun. I choose not to carry, but then I live in a "peaceful" area. My home is not like that. We have big dogs first off, and guns in most rooms secondly. The law still applies but on our side of our glass door, I think we'd have pretty good cause.
ReplyDeletew3ki
As a member of the persecuted Anglican Catholic Church, let me say that regardless of one’s theology, confession is good for the soul.
ReplyDeleteThe first video released of an FBI interrogation of a Capitol riot defendant shows the man crying, wondering if he’s just stupid, and describing his use of a Taser-like weapon on a Capitol Police officer.
“Are we all that stupid that we thought we were going to go do this and save the country and it was all going to be fine after?” a tearful Daniel Rodriguez asked the two FBI agents interrogating him toward the end of a multi-hour interview.
“We really thought that. That’s so stupid, huh?”
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/video-shows-alleged-insurrectionist-wondering-if-capitol-rioters-were-actually-just-stupid
w3ski, Ayoob is really solid on the legal ramifications of using weapons.
ReplyDeleteDA, yes, they were that stupid.
Ten Bears, if my memory is correct, there were a few times where there were attempts to make criminal cases against those who had sex when they knew they were HIV+. So if someone refuses to be vaccinated and spreads COVID, there may be grounds to bring a case.
ReplyDeleteNot that it'll ever happen.
Speaking of responsibility, the parents of the school shooter are now being charged with involuntary manslaughter. Apparently they took little action in securing the weapon and allowing the kid to access the gun. Makes you wonder what happened to some skills called parenting.
ReplyDeleteDale