Responsible gun owner protects personal property

[Dugout DickStone]

His fat finger got stuck in the trigger guard is my bet

[Mrs. Gooch]

I mean, obviously your hit rate is going to be lower when you are aiming for a small quickly moving target area (leg) than if you had aimed for a larger more stable area (torso).

sorry, mrs. gooch.  i didn't get this far before i entered my post.

That may have been his intention, at least he didn't get unlucky and shoot him fatally with those leg misses.

If you can point to something to reports where the other 11 shots landed, please do. For all we know they went into the ground right next to his legs.

[Dugout DickStone]

At least now DFS can now get involved about this kid's nutrition

[ednksu]

Are you daft?  like I'm seriously confused what you don't get about those links.

Well the first wasn't really even a commentary of the law, just an anecdote about a dude who didn't get indicted after he shot some guys who were running at him on his property and he may or may not have hit them in the back.

The second specifically says that SCOTUS said way back in 1985 that you cannot use lethal force against fleeing suspects unless they pose an immediate threat of serious bodily harm.

I'm always amazed at how people can get totally different information.  The first link clearly says they were shot in the back, as well at the ME I believe.  Point being, it crystallized Texa's laws about defense of property and the use of deadly force. 

And yes that law is always back from 1985, but is the touchstone for the modern use of force for police (and citizens) in arresting suspects.

[Fedor]

This "precocious" kid is likely protected on account of his age, relative intelligence and experience, but using deadly force against a person who is no longer threatening serious bodily injury or death to you is not justified under the laws of any state. Pretty tough to argue that you intended only a minor wound when your hit rate is 1/12. SYG does not apply to persons attempting to flee.

Tell us how it is, first year law student.

[catastrophe]

Are you daft?  like I'm seriously confused what you don't get about those links.

Well the first wasn't really even a commentary of the law, just an anecdote about a dude who didn't get indicted after he shot some guys who were running at him on his property and he may or may not have hit them in the back.

The second specifically says that SCOTUS said way back in 1985 that you cannot use lethal force against fleeing suspects unless they pose an immediate threat of serious bodily harm.

I'm always amazed at how people can get totally different information. The first link clearly says they were shot in the back, as well at the ME I believe.  Point being, it crystallized Texa's laws about defense of property and the use of deadly force. 

And yes that law is always back from 1985, but is the touchstone for the modern use of force for police (and citizens) in arresting suspects.

Welcome to the law!

The first link said it was inconclusive, though a witness testified the person was turning away (though just prior to that was running toward the guy with the gun).

And my point is there is no blanket law that says you can use lethal force against a fleeing suspect. Just as in almost any self-defense case (regardless of SYG or Castle), you have to believe your life is in danger. Those doctrines just make it easier to prove the subjective aspect of it.  For police it's also acceptable if others' lives are in danger.

[ednksu]

Are you daft?  like I'm seriously confused what you don't get about those links.

Well the first wasn't really even a commentary of the law, just an anecdote about a dude who didn't get indicted after he shot some guys who were running at him on his property and he may or may not have hit them in the back.

The second specifically says that SCOTUS said way back in 1985 that you cannot use lethal force against fleeing suspects unless they pose an immediate threat of serious bodily harm.

I'm always amazed at how people can get totally different information. The first link clearly says they were shot in the back, as well at the ME I believe.  Point being, it crystallized Texa's laws about defense of property and the use of deadly force. 

And yes that law is always back from 1985, but is the touchstone for the modern use of force for police (and citizens) in arresting suspects.

Welcome to the law!

The first link said it was inconclusive, though a witness testified the person was turning away (though just prior to that was running toward the guy with the gun).

And my point is there is no blanket law that says you can use lethal force against a fleeing suspect. Just as in almost any self-defense case (regardless of SYG or Castle), you have to believe your life is in danger. Those doctrines just make it easier to prove the subjective aspect of it.  For police it's also acceptable if others' lives are in danger.

This point isn't worth belaboring.  The shot a suspect in the back while he was fleeing.  Under Texas law (and FL has similar laws) he was no billed.

[The Big Train]

This "precocious" kid is likely protected on account of his age, relative intelligence and experience, but using deadly force against a person who is no longer threatening serious bodily injury or death to you is not justified under the laws of any state. Pretty tough to argue that you intended only a minor wound when your hit rate is 1/12. SYG does not apply to persons attempting to flee.

Do not take legal advice from this guy.

But his super high law school entrance exam scores tho

[The Big Train]

Tell us how it is, first year law student.

Are you a first year law student? Didn't think so

[Spracne]

I will defer to Frodor's extensive knowledge of penal codes

That first one was free, but I do accept donations via venmo @lawhorn69

[star seed 7]

A guy shot himself and and another woman at some hick town graduation this weekend when he adjusted his sock and just happened to have a gun stuffed in that sock

[Mrs. Gooch]

A guy shot himself and and another woman at some hick town graduation this weekend when he adjusted his sock and just happened to have a gun stuffed in that sock

Yeah that was in Augusta (suburb of Wichita)

[Brock Landers]

A nice ankle holster would have been appropriately classy for a HS graduation ceremony.

[Dugout DickStone]

this is why the GOP convention won't allow its delegates to exercise their 2nd amendment right to carry.

[sonofdaxjones]

Chamber round, put in sock.  Makes perfect sense

[CNS]

 If your sock isn't ready to rock, you might as well hand over your gun to Obama.

  An empty chamber is for the unprepared. Could be the diff between protecting your loved one at a high school grad ceremony, and from having a family(fully raped and robbed, at this point) grieving over your dead body.

[mocat]

It would be delightfully ironic to hear renocat offer a defense of this gun-toting sock guy

[Dugout DickStone]

If your sock isn't ready to rock, you might as well hand over your gun to Obama.

  An empty chamber is for the unprepared. Could be the diff between protecting your loved one at a high school grad ceremony, and from having a family(fully raped and robbed, at this point) grieving over your dead body.

You know ISIS has been spoiling for a shot at a HS graduation.

[ednksu]

Odd thing is that you can reasonable carry a weapon with one in the chamber if you aren't a total idiot about it.  I wonder if this is what Brownback mean when he said Kansans were acting responsibly. 

[CNS]

There is no reason to have one in the chamber unless you are a law officer.  I mean, if you need that immediate access to death, you should just carry it around in hand all day.

[Emo EMAW]

I'm team #noroundinchamber, esp if we're talking modern handguns that don't have traditional safety's.  Like a 1911, ok round in chamber is okay.

[Rage Against the McKee]

http://www.kwch.com/content/news/One-seriously-hurt-at-possible-shooting-at-Augusta-high-school-379583611.html

Doesn't seem like much of a penalty.

[star seed 7]

Modern hand guns don't have traditional safeties? Do you mean like a grip squeeze thing instead of a switch?

[Emo EMAW]

Modern hand guns don't have traditional safeties? Do you mean like a grip squeeze thing instead of a switch?

Yes.  Combo of the grip thing plus the two tier trigger thing.  Maybe mechanically they are superior to the old style but I'm just saying what I would do if it were me.  Those things give me the heebie jeebies.

[CNS]

A gun compromise should make it illegal to have a bullet in the chamber of a carried fire arm.  If one goes off like that, fine time.