For the purposes if discussion, I think two issues are the most interesting:
-
would he have stopped if he didn’t have a gun?
-
should he be charged with anything, and if not, is it because of stand your ground?
For me, saying “he panicked” understated the impact of the gun on his actions. Without the gun, panic surely wouldn’t have manifested in him stepping out of the car.
I still think that presumes that he had a choice in stopping the car, rather than being in a position where he couldn’t continue to flee. In fact he wasn’t panicked when he chose to get out of the car, but when he fell and the guy with the bat was still coming, then he panicked and fired. Of course that’s also guesswork on my part, but it fits the article’s information better. The big question, and one we cannot answer based on the available information, is did he leave the car intending to try to defuse the situation, or with attack on his mind?
I think where it gets ugly is when the argument goes long enough that people become entrenched in their own version of what happens, even in the face of contradictory information arising at a later date. I’m content to let the local law enforcement, the shooter, and the witnesses work this one out for me. I fully support shooting at someone that is chasing you with a baseball bat, but the real question is how he arrived at that situation. If he couldn’t flee in the car, did trip getting out, and was helpless on the ground while bat boy was winding up, then fire away. If he could flee or didn’t trip on the way out, but instead got out with a gun in hand, then he’s at fault. Body damage on a car isn’t worth someone’s life, though if the bat guy takes out a window and then starts trying to get a shot inside, I’d be fine with shooting in that situation as well. Too many variables to know.
You and I are on the essentially the same page as to what is right and wrong. The facts are unknowable and frankly can’t be discussed on a board-- they are what they are. For me, the more relevant issue for discussion are the thoughts of posters on the various hypotheticals. Some appear to disagree with your thoughts (which are also mine). That is, some seem to think that it wouldn’t be wrong for him to get out of the car voluntarily to confront the guy with the bat. For me, whether he did so with the intention to diffuse (vs. kill) is not the only relevant issue. If he takes an action that he wouldn’t have, but for the gun, that reasonable could lead him needing to shoot that’s a problem when the law shelters him from such a decision (i.e., stand your ground laws). If he would have driven away had he been unarmed, but got out because he was armed, tripping or not tripping isn’t relevant.
Certainly, and I’m no fan of SYG. Particularly in a car with no one else in danger from the attacker, the moral imperative is easily to retreat. As we’ve established, though, the big question is whether he could retreat. I think that assuming a mindset of “hey, I can get out and confront this guy, and if it goes bad I can always shoot him!” is an example of thinking zebras instead of horses. That’s a sociopath/psychopath situation, and as such is very rare. If I had to bet on it, I would go with the guy’s story as roughly accurate. Bad situation, bad escalation, and he gets panicky.
I don’t think it’s as rare as you think-- it certainly doesn’t need him to have a well-thought out plan culminating in a willingness to kill. It’s called bravado and anger. Adrenaline-- flight or fight. Surely for some, having the upper-hand (the gun), tilts it to fight when it should have been flight. For some, the gun surely changes the emotional calculus tilting in favor of anger when acting on fear/self-preservation is the more typical action.
So as to the guys story, I think there’s a good chance he was pissed. Pissed enough that, with gun in hand, he felt he was in control of the situation. A feeling that he may not have had if he didn’t have the gun at hand.
RichVR
3432
And alcohol. That’s specifically discussed in carry classes. There are a bunch of rules about which establishments you are allowed to carry in and which you are not. The bottom line is to leave your unloaded weapon in your trunk if you’re going to a bar to drink. I’m guessing the rule, while it is reasonable and responsible, is not followed every time. But I’d like to see a detailed report of CCW holders that get drunk and shoot people.
Outside of CCW the rough number is that 2/3 of murders are alcohol-involved, last I checked.
RichVR
3434
Yeah, that’s pretty much par for the course. But I would like to think (notice I said like to think) that people with carry permits are less likely to be drunk and stupid with a deadly weapon.
Then I’ve read and understood some of those articles that talk about levels of awareness, I understand the concept. But not everyone can internalize personal responsibility.
Gun discharges after being dropped/falling out of holster in a Walmart-- hits a woman after barely missing her baby. No charges against the guy.
I’m thinking this should at least be investigated for some sort of misdemeanor, but apparently not. Seems strange to just shrug when nobody get’s killed (I’m assuming some charges would have been pressed if someone was killed).
There might be other charges later. But I’m often surprised how lenient the system is with negligence. I read a story about a kid distracted by texting who killed two people fishing on the side of the road. All they could do was fine him.
I don’t encourage jail time as the response to everything, but it’d be nice to tick a checkbox that this person can’t own firearms for X number of years. (Presumably he’d learn how to use a holster during that time.) The justice system is too much of a blunt force instrument for any kind of nuanced solution.
Surprised this has not been brought up here:
Looks like another case where someone was allowed to purchase firearms despite mental health issues.
Stepsongrapes - At the very very least, he should be liable for every last medical bill involved!
(It’s not surprising when a pretty high % of people in America “decline to be taken to the hospital”, really :/)
Not much to say, sadly. A depressed white or Asian young male with relationship and/or mental issues takes revenge, usually at a school, sometimes after writing a manifesto. Check the appropriate boxes.
Interesting notes from this one:
[ul]
[li]The first three victims were stabbed to death. I never would have known this based on the headlines I’d read.[/li][li]Unlike the usual process, the killer didn’t immediately commit suicide when confronted by any armed individual. This guy fled from police until he was finally cornered.[/li][li]He had 41 ten-round magazines. As we discussed in this thread, bans on high capacity magazines are mostly useless feel-good measures, other than a little extra time to reload.[/li][/ul]
Restitution is always good, though for most Walmart shoppers, that’s like getting blood from a stone.
Well - I don’t see it as “Restitution”, since I’d apply it in any wounding from an accidental discharge, even when no crime’s been committed.
It’s more to do with basic fairness in the American healthcare system. (Other countries with other healthcare systems, it could be different, but…)
Back to the last shooting: what scares me more than firearms is how the hell I’m going to raise my two sons in this day and age. If they don’t have autism or Aspergers or need to see a therapist at age 8 like this guy (my goodness) then I hope they figure out women at an early age, because I’ve got nothing for them.
Every time a depressed young man goes on a murder spree, I get a little more anxious about school bullying and mental health and playing videogames too much. People say girls are more challenging but at least they’re less likely to end up in the evening news.
Here? Really?
See: Grand Theft Childhood
Eh. The guy was breaking no law, so he can’t be punished through the criminal justice system. However, our robust civil justice system offers plenty of avenues for this woman and/or her insurance to go after this guy. He’s not off the hook.
How do you know he was not/may not have been breaking any law? I’m not up-to-speed on the local laws of that jurisdiction and the failure to charge (yet?) does not mean there isn’t a potentially applicable law. Moreover, if he was not breaking any laws, it’s disappointing that there are not laws on the books (likely misdemeanors) to cover gross negligence (especially when it involves a firearm) leading to the bodily harm of another, particularly when they’re was a risk of death had things gone otherwise.
As to being off the hook, civil remedies are between the parties. Criminal laws reflect our response, as a society, to undesireable actions.
ShivaX
3446
There is no way a gun should discharge from being dropped if it is properly stowed.
He must’ve had a bullet in the chamber and the safety disengaged, which is generally regarded as stupid as fuck. You either have a clear chamber or you have one in the chamber and the safety engaged (locked and cocked). It seems more dangerous to do the latter to some people because you have the hammer cocked and ready to fire, but the trigger safety will prevent the gun going off. If you just have a round in the tube, dropping the weapon on the hammer can cause it to discharge the round.
Also, what the hell kind of holster is he using that his gun could even fall out? You could throw me down a flight of stairs and my gun would still be stuck to my side. Was he doing cartwheels in the aisles?
