Armed citizen kills would be murderer.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by tshrimp, May 24, 2018.

  1. tshrimp macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #1
  2. bopajuice Suspended

    bopajuice

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    Location:
    Dark side of the moon
  3. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #3
    The "armed citizen" confronted the shooter outside the restaurant after he fired his weapon shooting two people. A third person was also injured though police didn't know how.

    This confounds that narrative a bit. The "armed citizen" engaged the shooter after he left the restaurant and was conceivably finished.
     
  4. flyinmac macrumors 68040

    flyinmac

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Location:
    United States
    #4
    From that perspective, it’s possible to see that as a retaliatory shooting instead of self defense.

    Regardless of opinions. The law typically sides with you can shoot if your life is in immediate danger.

    That can be extended in circumstances that perhaps he actively had a gun drawn and is ready to fire on someone else.

    The law doesn’t permit shooting someone as they flee a scene because they are not in attack mode.

    So while what the actions of the man are horrible and unjustified... the person who confronted him and killed him will likely be facing murder charges.

    None of the above reflects my personal feelings. But is more meant as an objective thought of what will probably end up happening and the possible legal charges.

    If the man had living relatives, there will probably also be a wrongful death suite.
     
  5. hulugu, May 24, 2018
    Last edited: May 24, 2018

    hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #5
    In Oklahoma, the law is firmly in favor of the civilian who fired his weapon and killed the other man.

    From 21 O.S. § 733:

    What I was suggesting is that this case follows several others, in which a person armed with a weapon confronts a mass shooter after the shooting has taken place, and even conceivably ended. (One obvious point to make is that no one knew if the gunman was moving to a second location, but we can infer that this was his target without other information.)

    This confounds the narrative of a good guy with a gun who stops a shooting. It just doesn't happen that often, and what we see is unarmed people often being just as important, followed by police. In some cases, a confrontation with police means that a mass shooter takes his own life, and thus, it's a rare case where police actively engage, shoot, and kill a mass shooter. Even rarer is a civilian shooter who stops a mass shooting in progress.

    There are good reasons for this—as others have noted, despite the huge number of guns, they're mostly concentrated in a few hands—but it also illustrates that in many incidents, it's not a "good guy with a gun" that ends it. Instead, it's gun jams, unarmed people who grab a weapon or tackle the shooter, police, or simply the shooter decides he's done and kills himself.
     
  6. 0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #6
    Does section 3 pretty much allow anyone to be a vigilante or does it only apply to police? If it only applies to police I'm not sure that it is so clear that the bystander is legally in the clear if the shooting was already over and the shooter had left the building.
     
  7. MacAndMic macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    #7
    The police have labeled the “Armed Citizen” a hero. ie, liberals will tear every fragment of the situation to shreds until they can finally define the “Armed Citizen” a villain and the actual criminal a victim.
     
  8. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #8
    This is just my opinion, not referring to law.

    If you have a someone that just finished shooting people down, you should be able to shoot the shooter even if they are fleeing without a weapon drawn. This prevents the shooter from possibly continuing their act in another location. You just can't let someone that dangerous get away.

    Now if the shooter is not fleeing and doesn't have a weapon in hand anymore, then you can't shoot, just draw your weapon and hold the shooter there until police arrive.
     
  9. Apple OC macrumors 68040

    Apple OC

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Location:
    Hogtown
  10. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #10
    Citing anecdotes like this, presumably to point out the value of an armed citizenry, is incredibly misleading, when I can cite considerably more examples of people getting shot and killed as a result of gun accidents.
     
  11. The-Real-Deal82 macrumors 604

    The-Real-Deal82

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2013
    Location:
    Wales, United Kingdom
    #11
    I can’t help but think it would be better if there wasn’t a trend for people to walk into public spaces and start shooting people though. The fact armed citizens have to be celebrated for shooting those who start the shooting is a sad indictment of a culture that is both too aggressive and failing in certain areas.
     
  12. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #12
    One less scumbag.

    I would call the man a hero for shooting him, I'd call him a citizen.;)
     
  13. Snoopy4 macrumors 6502a

    Snoopy4

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    #13
    Give it a couple of days.
    --- Post Merged, May 25, 2018 ---
    Nah. Shoot ‘em. Especially if they just killed someone.
     
  14. BeeGood macrumors 68000

    BeeGood

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Location:
    Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
    #14
    This is an interesting point. I’m actually not sure what I think about this.

    On one hand, I’m generally against killing people who are unarmed, but you really can’t know the intentions of someone who is capable of firing on innocent people in public.

    I think I could probably go either way on this.
     
  15. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #15
    One dead (even if it was a scumbag shooter), 2 shot, and others put at grave risk: Hardly a convincing advertisement about the benefits that guns bring to US society.
     
  16. CaptMurdock Suspended

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #16
    IANAL, but depending upon state laws, a civilian can make a citizen's arrest if A) catch someone in the perpetration of B) a legitimate offense of the law. If Armed Citizen saw what the shooter had already done, you could argue that he had witnessed a crime and was attempted to apprehend a fleeing suspect. That said, I would hope that Armed Citizen had shouted "Drop the gun! Hands on your head!" and at least tried to make the shooter stand down before shooting him.

    While the above may (or may not) get him out of dutch on the criminal side, Armed Citizen may still face wrongful-death civil action from the shooter's family.
     
  17. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #17
    Well, the fact is violent crime in the US has been going down for decades. Despite what you may see in the media that can sell a lot of ads and airtime by sensationalizing what are in fact rare and isolated instances of gun violence.

    I'm not saying more can't be done, and clearly more needs to be done, I'm just not in favor of unnecessarily abridging the rights of tens of millions of law abiding gun owners based on the actions of a few, clearly mentally unstable people.

    Doesn't mean I'm not in favor of more restrictions in the laws, it's just I don't want to see undue burdens placed on law abiding people.

    Clearly more burden is due.
     
  18. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #18
    Woot that's one for the good guys!!!1!!11!!.... and lets see here it says 22,870 so far in 2018... oh! less the home invasion shootings and self-defense too (lets assume the shooters in those categories were all good guys, ) so that math leaves us at 21,409 for the bad guys. :oops:

    Doesn't include firearm related suicides either :oops: ... let's hear it for casual access to firearms!!!!! :rolleyes:
     
  19. kapolani macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2011
    Location:
    USA
    #19
    One could argue that he wasn't finished and moving on to his next targets.

    See what I did there?
     
  20. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #20
  21. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #21
    I agree with this, since the main argument of anti-regulation advocates seems to be prevention. The guy is a hero, but he didn't prevent the actual incident, he just prevent things from getting worst. So will the NRA and anti-regulation advocates claim that's good enough? For me it's not good enough.
     
  22. kapolani macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2011
    Location:
    USA
    #22
    You need more people dead?
     
  23. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #23
    You need more shooting incidents?

    The focus should be to prevent the incidents themselves, instead of gloating how an armed person put an end to a tragic incident.

    The ratio of an armed person stopping an incident is extremely low VS a shooter carrying out their plans to the full extent.
     
  24. CPTmom2wp macrumors 6502

    CPTmom2wp

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2014
    Location:
    Ohio
    #24
    How do you know he didn't "prevent" another 1,2.......10 people being killed by this deranged shooter? There will almost never be an incident where a law abiding, armed citizen could prevent a murderer from killing his first victim or two under the best of circumstances. No one is prescient enough to "know" when someone is planning to kill innocent people. So it remains logical that the murderer will do the least damage to the fewest people if an armed, law-abiding citizen is prepared to stop him as quickly as possible. It could be 5 minutes or more before law enforcement arrives.
     
  25. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #25
    I agree with this, but that's not my argument.

    This has nothing to do with gun regulations. But of course the most of the NRA and anti-regulation advocates will use this for propaganda and scare tactics, but do absolutely nothing to prevent the actual incidents. Even a good portion of the Right is starting to clearly see that.
     

Share This Page