How much truth is there to this gun story? - Page 2 - Snowboarding Forum

Frozen · 01-01-2013, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TorpedoVegas

yeah that one sounds awesome... a guy shoots an adult and 2 teens (one of them in the face) instead of just giving up his wallet.... what a hero

This is retarded.

Edit: I mean that in the meanest sense possible. Yeah just hand our wallets over. Jesus christ are you fucking stupid??

**Donutz** · 01-01-2013, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chomps1211

I suspect many will chime in with the ever popular,.. "Liberal Media," but what about "Fair & Balanced" Fox News?? Hell, the NRA even,!! Seems they'd want to be all over something like that!!

This is an excellent point and one that most people don't seem to grok. You can often get as much information from what some group doesn't say as from what they do say. Even if the "liberal media" didn't want to report something like that, there are ample opportunities and means for the right wing to "make the facts known". They have the motivation, they have the money, and they have access to their own news outlets. Yet, nada. Why? Are they stupid? Did it not occur to them? Or do they simply not have an example to trot out that would stand up to any kind of scrutiny?

Frozen · 01-02-2013, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowolf

Do you wish to remain a member of the forum?

Yes, we allow more leeway for people getting hot under the collar and loosing their temper than most forums and we are very lenient when it comes to the politics section. That doesn't mean it's a free for all in here and people are free to be abusive and make personal attacks just for the fuck of it. There was absolutely no call for that and I expect a higher level of maturity and civility. In the future, state your disagreement and your reasons why without the vitriol, venom and personal attack because you disagree with a very personal chice the guy has made for himself.

By the way, even though I have CCW and pack a handgun frequently, I too am far more likely to hand over a wallet if in my judgement that will end the confrontation without violence. Unless there is a clear and present threat to my life or the lives of others, I am not going to risk elevating an incident by needlessly adding a gun to an already tense situation. I am not going to risk human life (innocent bystanders, myself, family or even the perp) over a material possesion that is easily replaced with a few phone calls to the bank and a trip to DMV.

Not only that, I simply would rather not go through years of criminal and civil court battles because I shot the perp. Sure I may be in the right but at what cost? I realy don't think most people understand the ramifications of making that decision to pull the trigger or how drastically it is going to alter the course of their lives, even though they are 100% justified in the eyes of the law. Don't get me wrong here, I am not some pacifist who will never fight. If my life or that of another is clearly in danger, I will kill without hesitation, but I am not going to make that decision lightly or over something as trivial as giving my wallet to a mugger.

Yeah you're right, there was no call to get belligerent with the guy so I apologize. Sorry TorpedoVegas.

I think what pissed me off so bad was torpedo's sarcastic, dismissive tone regarding a person that defended themselves from 3 people who were robbing him. Then he went on to sympathize with the robbers.

What I was trying to say before I lost my temper is that I think that is a poor attitude to have. I've never been robbed at gunpoint before but I imagine that it's a pretty terrible fear to be put through. Not to mention the hassle of having your wallet stolen. I don't carry a gun around and if I thought for a second that someone was gonna shoot me I'd hand my wallet over too. But to fault someone for not doing that, instead shooting the people that are robbing them seems wrong to me, personally.

StreetDoc · 01-02-2013, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowolf

America is not England. It is a red herring that the NRA nuts use to scare gun owners with. Anytime REASONABLE gun regulation such as instant background checks or closing the "gun show loophole" is proposed, they tout it as the "slippery slope". They are nut jobs as much as the advocates of total gun bans are. Self defense is a legitimate reason for bearing arms and almost every state has written into their state constitutions laws protecting citizens from prosecution when using lethal force.

This case in England would also be problematic here in America based upon excessive force laws. In no state are you allowed to kill an intruder simply because they are in the home or to protect property. You better damn well be able to prove that your life was in danger or you are going to jail. A big problem with most gun owners in this country is that they are totally ignorant of the laws pertaining to the use of deadly force. Plenty of Americans are also serving long prison sentences for killing an intruder but could not prove that their life was in danger. Too many people with a CCW think its a license to kill any criminal and their possession of a gun is actually a major liability. Protecting your property is not a justification of the use of deadly force in the eyes of the American courts either.

I've never read of an instance where someone was charged for killing someone who broke into their home. Hell, even when I was living in Chicago and guns were ILLEGAL there were multiple cases where people illegally owning guns shot intruders and weren't charged. Now quick run to google and prove me wrong! I think you're full of shit here and this is your opinion, not fact.

Dead men tell no tales, if someone breaks into your house you shoot them dead. If it's 3am and I hear someone in my house I'm certainly not going to call out to them and ask them if they plan on doing me or mine any harm, or are they simply here to steal all of my shit. That's fucking ridiculous bro... It's well within your right to kill someone in your home if they are there unwelcomed, especially if you are in your bedroom with no means of egress. There is no time to see what there intention is. If you don't agree with this you're a damn fool. Think about it. You have a couple of kids who are in a room down the hall and you hear people walking around. I'm going to acknowledge my prescence after my shotgun is pointed at there chest with one in the pipe. If there reaction is ANYTHING except for not moving a muscle they're getting blown away. I'd also be willing to bet everything I'm not having any charges pressed against me either. Guns are not evil.

StreetDoc · 01-02-2013, 10:04 AM

Matter of fact there were just two people in Georgia (one an 18 year old and one a PHD in her 50s) that both killed home invaders and no charges were pressed.

StreetDoc · 01-02-2013, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowolf

Do you wish to remain a member of the forum?

Yes, we allow more leeway for people getting hot under the collar and loosing their temper than most forums and we are very lenient when it comes to the politics section. That doesn't mean it's a free for all in here and people are free to be abusive and make personal attacks just for the fuck of it. There was absolutely no call for that and I expect a higher level of maturity and civility. In the future, state your disagreement and your reasons why without the vitriol, venom and personal attack because you disagree with a very personal chice the guy has made for himself.

By the way, even though I have CCW and pack a handgun frequently, I too am far more likely to hand over a wallet if in my judgement that will end the confrontation without violence. Unless there is a clear and present threat to my life or the lives of others, I am not going to risk elevating an incident by needlessly adding a gun to an already tense situation. I am not going to risk human life (innocent bystanders, myself, family or even the perp) over a material possesion that is easily replaced with a few phone calls to the bank and a trip to DMV.

Not only that, I simply would rather not go through years of criminal and civil court battles because I shot the perp. Sure I may be in the right but at what cost? I realy don't think most people understand the ramifications of making that decision to pull the trigger or how drastically it is going to alter the course of their lives, even though they are 100% justified in the eyes of the law. Don't get me wrong here, I am not some pacifist who will never fight. If my life or that of another is clearly in danger, I will kill without hesitation, but I am not going to make that decision lightly or over something as trivial as giving my wallet to a mugger.

Just because you brandish a weapon out of self defense does not mean you have to shoot them. If someone were to rob me by knife point (which I've been a victim of twice in Chicago) I would draw on them in a heartbeat. I've never been robbed by someone without a weapon. Whether or not they get shot is up to the assailant.

StreetDoc · 01-02-2013, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by killclimbz

I just like how the gun advocates are making what ever regulation being talked about as a ban on all guns. As far as I can tell, nothing of that sort has happened.

As far as this story goes. If someone breaks into your house in Colorado while you are there, you can pretty much shoot them dead. All you have to say is you were afraid for your life. Unless that person is a toddler or some elderly unarmed person you are probably not going to get charged.

There are some supposed stories about gun defense "saving" lives. The funny part is someone innocent had to lose their life first. Lots of things need to be addressed, not just guns, but I am tired of gun nuts not even willing to come to the table and discuss how to better manage this. By doing that, they are enabling exactly what they fear to happen.

I don't agree with the NRA's stance on background checks and the gun show loop hole, but the bill they are talking about inacting will outlaw pretty much EVERYTHING except for bolt action rifles and single action revolvers. That includes pump shotguns. Google Feinstein, it's all over the web. They're attempting to pass it in Illinois now which will most likely be an attempt to set the stage for the rest of the country.

StreetDoc · 01-02-2013, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowolf

Absolutely it's the DA's job to do that and all he or she has to do is convince a jury of 12 that a crowbar is not a match for a shotgun to get a conviction. In most cases invoking the use of a firearm, if the perp is not also armed with a gun, juries tend to convict. May not be right but its reality and it happens right here in gun loving America all of the time.

Don't get me wrong, I am a proponent of law abiding citizens possessing reasonable arms for self defense (nobody needs an AR15 and a box of 50 round clips) and I myself own several handguns and have a CCW permit. My only point here is that the story itself is being used as fear propaganda against rational, reasonable and sane gun regulation. Also, many gun owners have no clue what the laws in their states actually say about use of deadly force.

WRONG. LOL where do you get this shit from?

StreetDoc · 01-02-2013, 10:15 AM

Snowolf, please read the following and stop spouting off about shit you have no idea about. You're no better then the gun nuts.

Colorado Statutes Regarding Deadly Physical Force and Carrying
Concealed Weapons

4 Use Of Physical Force In Defense Of A Person
1. Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified
in using physical force
upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person in order to defend
himself or a third person
from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical
force by that other
person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be
necessary for that purpose.
2. Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser
degree of force is
inadequate and:
(a.) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he
or another person is in
imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or
(b.) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical
force against an
occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or
attempting to commit
burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or
(c.) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit
kidnapping as defined
in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or
18-4-302, sexual
assault as set forth in section 18-3-402 or 18-3-403 as it existed prior to
July 1, 2000, or assault as
defined in sections 18-3-202 or 18-3-203.
3. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not
justified in using
physical force if:
(a.) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he
provokes the use of unlawful
physical force by that other person; or
(b.) He is the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon
another person under the
circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and
effectively communicates to
the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or
threatens the use of
unlawful physical force; or
(c.) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement
not specifically
authorized by law.
18-1-704.5 Use Of Deadly Physical Force Against An Intruder ("Make My Day Law")
1. The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a
right to expect absolute
safety within their own homes.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is
justified in using any
degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person
when that other person has
made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable
belief that such other
person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is
committing or intends
to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry,
and when the occupant
reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter
how slight, against any
occupant.
3. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical

http://www.moffatcountysheriff.com/CoStatutes.pdf

Like I said, please stop the BS that you know nothing about. People here look to you as a source of information. You're a snowboard instructor, not a lawyer.

StreetDoc · 01-02-2013, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowolf

You do realize that every state has different laws right? Oh wait, I forgot you are from Colorado, the center of the universe, nevermind . My bad.

If that's your way of apologizing for over stepping what you know nothing about apology accepted. Not once did you ever say, "in my state..." You posted your OPINION as if it was gospel and law nationwide.

FYI Washington has a "stand your ground law" and so does oregon. Wherever the fuck you're from... you're attempt to save face is pretty sad.

http://www.pdxcriminallawyers.com/ar...round-statute/

Also, I've lived in Colorado for a little over a year so fuck off with your personal attack. The rest of my life (27 years) I lived in the great state of Chicago... and not the suburbs.

01-02-2013, 10:15 AM	#19 (permalink)
StreetDoc Banned Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Front range, CO Posts: 278	Snowolf, please read the following and stop spouting off about shit you have no idea about. You're no better then the gun nuts. Colorado Statutes Regarding Deadly Physical Force and Carrying Concealed Weapons 4 Use Of Physical Force In Defense Of A Person 1. Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose. 2. Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and: (a.) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or (b.) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or (c.) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402 or 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 or 18-3-203. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if: (a.) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or (b.) He is the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or (c.) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law. 18-1-704.5 Use Of Deadly Physical Force Against An Intruder ("Make My Day Law") 1. The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant. 3. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical http://www.moffatcountysheriff.com/CoStatutes.pdf Like I said, please stop the BS that you know nothing about. People here look to you as a source of information. You're a snowboard instructor, not a lawyer. Last edited by StreetDoc; 01-02-2013 at 10:17 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-02-2013, 10:04 AM	#15 (permalink)
StreetDoc Banned Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Front range, CO Posts: 278	Matter of fact there were just two people in Georgia (one an 18 year old and one a PHD in her 50s) that both killed home invaders and no charges were pressed.