View Full Version : Staying safe on the trail - from a different perspective...
paradoxb3
01-16-2008, 18:33
I was going back reading some old threads today, and a couple years ago SGT Rock had started a discussion about being mistakenly perceived as being dangerous because of his appearance.
With all the bad press the AT has got recently over Hilton, and recent talk about carrying defensive weapons this year, how many of you are worried about all the other first-timer AT hikers out there packing heat, and staring you down from up the trail as you approach them with full beard and long nasty hair? And could you imagine two inexperienced hikers getting paranoid over each other and pulling out weapons?
Its definately gonna feel alot stranger on trails down here in GA this year.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esl2NNOtHQE
shelterbuilder
01-16-2008, 18:46
I was going back reading some old threads today, and a couple years ago SGT Rock had started a discussion about being mistakenly perceived as being dangerous because of his appearance.
With all the bad press the AT has got recently over Hilton, and recent talk about carrying defensive weapons this year, how many of you are worried about all the other first-timer AT hikers out there packing heat, and staring you down from up the trail as you approach them with full beard and long nasty hair? And could you imagine two inexperienced hikers getting paranoid over each other and pulling out weapons?
Its definately gonna feel alot stranger on trails down here in GA this year.
Hopefully, all of the paranoid people will load their weapons, lock their doors, and stay home!:D
I honestly can't picture a legal firearm carrier just whipping it out at the slightest provocation.
I anticipate feeling SAFER this year on the trail.
I think everyone is going to be looking out for each other even more than before and I anticipate that there will a lot of love and caring for other hikers sharing the trail.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it until proven differently.
Happy hiking all!
1Pint/Laura
The trail is a great place and while hearts are certainly heavier for Meredith, it will ultimately have relatively little effect on the thru-hiker community. People will head out, some will falter, others will press on, and nearly all will develop positive bonds as a tribe forms and heads north.
I doubt there will be any more hikers carrying weapons than have done so in the past, and highly doubt one would be used (or even seen) in any thing shy of a true life and death situation.
shelterbuilder
01-16-2008, 19:15
I anticipate feeling SAFER this year on the trail.
I think everyone is going to be looking out for each other even more than before and I anticipate that there will a lot of love and caring for other hikers sharing the trail.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it until proven differently.
Happy hiking all!
1Pint/Laura
I think you've hit the nail on the head, 1Pint. The hiking community DOES know how to "close ranks" and look out for its own. I've seen this reaction after several crimes took place, but I've never seen an increase in the number of folks brandishing firearms.
Just use common sense (good trail sense), and listen to your gut feelings about others.
SGT Rock
01-16-2008, 19:23
Don't wear flowerdy Hawaiian shirts.
Not too worried. But if I do any LD hiking at all this year, it's going to be on the PCT, and many months from now. I suspect the "trail community" will take this tragedy in stride, as it were.
Lion King
01-16-2008, 19:45
I hear the Rangers at Amicalola Falls will be handing out Nunchucks and giving a three day seminar in the art of AssKickADo.
So, for the sake of being safe, all new hikers make sure you do the Approach Trail this year.:D
SGT Rock
01-16-2008, 19:47
Chink Chink Pow works good.
Don't wear flowerdy Hawaiian shirts.
Rats. I guess I am doomed because this is my trail shirt:
http://www.railriders.com/eco-mesh-shirt-p-835.html?cPath=104_111
It is the Aloha Print design of the Eco-mesh RailRider shirt and I am used to it & kind of fond of it. The blue & green pattern even matches my olive green trail shorts:D.
i love hawaiian shirts! they are very "stealth"!!!:sun
SGT Rock
01-16-2008, 20:28
It was Hawaiian shirts what got me into that fix.
take-a-knee
01-16-2008, 20:37
The trail is a great place and while hearts are certainly heavier for Meredith, it will ultimately have relatively little effect on the thru-hiker community. People will head out, some will falter, others will press on, and nearly all will develop positive bonds as a tribe forms and heads north.
I doubt there will be any more hikers carrying weapons than have done so in the past, and highly doubt one would be used (or even seen) in any thing shy of a true life and death situation.
A voice of reason.
SunnyWalker
01-16-2008, 20:38
While I think that the AT is relatively safe I think we need to not allow ourselves to grow complacent. The attitude, "it will never happen to me" is part of this. I think it is healthy to be careful, sort of check out other hikers, make friends of other hikers, communicate. But to numbly go on hiking, not being alert, not aware of our enviroment is asking for a repeat. -SunnyWalker
SGT Rock
01-16-2008, 20:52
It's still safe, maybe safer. I got stopped on the 14th by a Polk County Sherriff Deputy for looking like a crazy person.
dessertrat
01-16-2008, 20:58
I honestly can't picture a legal firearm carrier just whipping it out at the slightest provocation.
Ditto. Now we are in the strange state of things where people are afraid of afraid people afraid of the afraid. . . etc. . . .
The real deal is that people who carry guns are no more fearful than those who don't. It's just a matter of how much preparedness people think they need, and the comfort level with guns already existent, and the laws, etc.
Strange that some people will be more afraid of law abiding folks carrying guns than they will be of a Gary Hilton type.
It's still safe, maybe safer. I got stopped on the 14th by a Polk County Sherriff Deputy for looking like a crazy person.
How is it safer? He let you go. :banana
[quote=dessertrat;503621Strange that some people will be more afraid of law abiding folks carrying guns than they will be of a Gary Hilton type.[/quote]
Or you could turn that around and say... it's not the guns that amaze us, so much as the fear that compels folks to desire them.
SGT Rock
01-16-2008, 21:47
How is it safer? He let you go. :banana
I told him I was leaving.
Miss Janet
01-16-2008, 21:50
I honestly can't picture a legal firearm carrier just whipping it out at the slightest provocation.
This statement sounds like you assume that "legal" = trained and competent. I wish that were true but just because someone pays 50 bucks for a carry permit doesn't mean they know how to use the gun and are trained to know when.
I told him I was leaving.
Cool... as long as you didn't mention where you are going next... the SoRuck folks might not be happy if LEO shows up, members excluded. :)
Enjoy!
SGT Rock
01-16-2008, 22:14
Actually he was a fellow Appalachian American. So we talked home boy talk and he said I was down, then I split for the north sideeeed.
I was going back reading some old threads today, and a couple years ago SGT Rock had started a discussion about being mistakenly perceived as being dangerous because of his appearance.
With all the bad press the AT has got recently over Hilton, and recent talk about carrying defensive weapons this year, how many of you are worried about all the other first-timer AT hikers out there packing heat, and staring you down from up the trail as you approach them with full beard and long nasty hair? And could you imagine two inexperienced hikers getting paranoid over each other and pulling out weapons?
Its definately gonna feel alot stranger on trails down here in GA this year.
Those of you that hate or dislike guns have very little respect or even understanding of those that do have guns. You post statements that to imply that a person that has a gun wants it just to whip it out and shoot people. Or that they are stupid and would pull it out when they see someone that has a beard and not taken a shower in a few days. Hiking is not the first place where people have decided to carry to protect themselves, many places (and many that you interact with but are not aware of because people keep them in their pockets) in life people are carrying guns. There is no big rash of people pulling out guns and blasting away with them. I have a friend that owns a gun shop, I work there part time. I know hundreds of people that always have a gun on them. I see them shopping at stores, eating at restaurants, buying gasoline, at the bank on Friday. And no one knows they have a gun on them because they instinctively have something you don’t seem to understand or don’t have. It’s the understanding when to and not to pull the gun out. You don’t understand this ability (otherwise you would not keep bringing it up) so it would be best if you never get a gun. But just because your fear & hate of guns makes this ability elude you, don’t push your lacking on others that do have the ability to know when to use or not use one.
If you can’t handle a gun (and reading your posts its clear you have no understanding of them) don’t take one. But for once let go with your hate & fear and allow others to decide if they want to have one just like you have decided not to have one.
Strange that some people will be more afraid of law abiding folks carrying guns than they will be of a Gary Hilton type.
No kidding. It’s the hate and fear talking. You can explain it all day long, and it will never get through. Because you are dealing with emotions and they can’t be reasoned with.
:confused:
You can explain it all day long, and it will never get through.
I notice that hasn't stopped you from trying... again and again and again... ;)
I notice that hasn't stopped you from trying... again and again and again... ;)
Not only anti-gun people are reading these post, they will look at it with an open mind and understand that one size does not fit all. They may see what anti-gun people may not see. They may not let fear and hate of guns control and grip them.
Its also because it’s fun to push your buttons. I do it with the truth, but it’s still fun.
envirodiver
01-17-2008, 00:02
Those of you that hate or dislike guns have very little respect or even understanding of those that do have guns. You post statements that to imply that a person that has a gun wants it just to whip it out and shoot people. Or that they are stupid and would pull it out when they see someone that has a beard and not taken a shower in a few days. Hiking is not the first place where people have decided to carry to protect themselves, many places (and many that you interact with but are not aware of because people keep them in their pockets) in life people are carrying guns. There is no big rash of people pulling out guns and blasting away with them. I have a friend that owns a gun shop, I work there part time. I know hundreds of people that always have a gun on them. I see them shopping at stores, eating at restaurants, buying gasoline, at the bank on Friday. And no one knows they have a gun on them because they instinctively have something you don’t seem to understand or don’t have. It’s the understanding when to and not to pull the gun out. You don’t understand this ability (otherwise you would not keep bringing it up) so it would be best if you never get a gun. But just because your fear & hate of guns makes this ability elude you, don’t push your lacking on others that do have the ability to know when to use or not use one.
If you can’t handle a gun (and reading your posts its clear you have no understanding of them) don’t take one. But for once let go with your hate & fear and allow others to decide if they want to have one just like you have decided not to have one.
Strange that some people will be more afraid of law abiding folks carrying guns than they will be of a Gary Hilton type.
No kidding. It’s the hate and fear talking. You can explain it all day long, and it will never get through. Because you are dealing with emotions and they can’t be reasoned with.
:confused:
Are you saying that those people in the grocery store that are carrying guns know how and when to use them because they are carrying them? I'm not sure what your point is here.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
01-17-2008, 00:04
Don't wear flowerdy Hawaiian shirts.::: Dino seen with big tears and a quivering lip ::: (http://whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=15560)
Jaybird62
01-17-2008, 00:17
Let's just clarify things here- just because one does not believe you should carry on the trail, does not make you an anti-gun person. Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying, Bob S.
Not only anti-gun people are reading these post, they will look at it with an open mind and understand that one size does not fit all. They may see what anti-gun people may not see. They may not let fear and hate of guns control and grip them.
Keeping an open mind, I recall reading about local business owners in CT often holding carry permits because they need to protect their business and frequently transport cash to and from the bank. This sounds reasonable and appropriate, so I searched my local newspaper archives to see if there were any stories about a business person defending himself. I only found an article where someone shot his wife and then himself because he suspected her of adultery. :(
Of course this is just one example, but keeping an open mind I can see why some get concerned about gun ownership.
Let's just clarify things here- just because one does not believe you should carry on the trail, does not make you an anti-gun person. Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying, Bob S.
Indeed and while my previous post is an off-trail situation, I think it illustrates the conflict that often occurs between gun owners and anti-gun folks.
4eyedbuzzard
01-17-2008, 00:40
Keeping an open mind, I recall reading about local business owners in CT often holding carry permits because they need to protect their business and frequently transport cash to and from the bank. This sounds reasonable and appropriate, so I searched my local newspaper archives to see if there were any stories about a business person defending himself. I only found an article where someone shot his wife and then himself because he suspected her of adultery. :(
Of course this is just one example, but keeping an open mind I can see why some get concerned about gun ownership.
http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx
Search keyword "store" and state CT and you'll get 30 incidents. That's just for those incidents with "store" in the report. You can verify via archives at the listed newspaper if necessary.
Are you saying that those people in the grocery store that are carrying guns know how and when to use them because they are carrying them? I'm not sure what your point is here.
What I’m saying is that a lot more people are carrying guns around this nation then you would believe. And while there may be an occasional misuse (as there is with autos, baseball bats, kitchen knives and thousands of other things in life) of guns, it’s not the epidemic that the anti-gun people here have been posting their fears about. And the fact that there is not an epidemic of this would support the fact that people are acting responsible with them and that this responsible action would be carried over to the trail.
Do you (any anti gun person) know of a single case of a person that was carrying a gun on the trail to protect themselves pulled it out and started blasting away and killed innocent hikers? If so post it. It seems to be an unfounded fear about guns. But on the other side of the argument people have been attacked and killed on the trail and this (at least in my mind) would be a reason for a person to consider having a gun with them.
Lone Wolf
01-17-2008, 00:42
Or you could turn that around and say... it's not the guns that amaze us, so much as the fear that compels folks to desire them.
it amazes me the fear that compels most of you to filter water, carry bear spray, sleep in shelters, carry cell phones, etc
Jaybird62
01-17-2008, 00:45
If that guy did not have a gun, he would have probably just used a knife or something else. Responsibility goes a long way.
http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx
Search keyword "store" and state CT and you'll get 30 incidents. That's just for those incidents with "store" in the report. You can verify via archives at the listed newspaper if necessary.
Interesting. Thank you.
it amazes me the fear that compels most of you to filter water, carry bear spray, sleep in shelters, carry cell phones, etc
Let's see:
shelters - no, too many pests and cooties
bear spray - no, the black bear is nothing to be afraid of
cell phones - yes, by design to call the shuttle only, can't find no pay phone no mo',
water filter - yes, rids potential pests, which is the same reason I don't sleep in shelters,
guns - no, but then neither do most on the trail,
brains - yes, think for self, make choice, move forward with confidence not fear
So, do I pass? :)
4eyedbuzzard
01-17-2008, 01:11
it amazes me the fear that compels most of you to filter water, carry bear spray, sleep in shelters, carry cell phones, etc
What amazes me more is that because of a fear of guns and ownership of lethal weapons by their fellow citizens, some would prohibit law abiding citizens from excercising not only their 2nd amendment right, but ultimately and more importantly, severely diminish their unwritten natural right to defend themselves, a right retained and guaranteed by the 9th amendment - a right upheld by common law throughout history.
I have the natural right to defend myself, up to and including killing someone who causes me to believe that I or others are in danger of, or threatened with, grave physical harm.
Jaybird62
01-17-2008, 01:15
10-4 4 eyed buzzard.... you are coming through loud and clear good buddy.....
Do you know of a single case of a person that was carrying a gun on the trail to protect themselves pulled it out and started blasting away and killed innocent hikers?
http://www.paysonroundup.com/section/frontpage_lead/story/15128
I am not anti-gun nor pro-gun, but I dont think guns belong on the trail. :rolleyes:
it amazes me the fear that compels most of you to filter water, carry bear spray, sleep in shelters, carry cell phones, etc
Fear drives people to shelters? That's a non-sequitur. As for filters and cell phones... I've walked many a mile without them. At this point... I think of them as the prerogatives of middle age. ;)
http://www.paysonroundup.com/section/frontpage_lead/story/15128
I am not anti-gun nor pro-gun, but I dont think guns belong on the trail. :rolleyes:
Lets see the next story about a hiker going crazy with a gun as this doesn’t seem to be one.
It seems this was self defense. I would call this a legitimate use of a gun. Not a case of a person just whipping the gun out and blasting away. It seems the cop in this story agree as the cop said it looks to be self defense.
This from that story you linked to.
"It appears that a hiker and an individual came across each other," Feagan said. "The accusation by the hiker is that he was attacked by the individual and his two dogs."
The hiker shot and killed the alleged attacker.
"It appears, at this time, that it was self-defense," Feagan said. "But it will be under review by the Coconino County Attorney's Office. They make the final determination about whether charges will be filed."
Feagan said that at this point in the investigation, indications are that the hiker was attacked in the remote area, but could not elaborate.
The hiker is a law abiding citizen with a concealed weapons permit," Feagan said.
After the shooting, the hiker flagged down an off-duty forest service employee who contacted law enforcement.
"It's still very early in the investigation," Feagan said. "but indications point to this as being an act of self-defense."
Lets see the next story about a hiker going crazy with a gun as this doesn’t seem to be one.
It seems this was self defense. I would call this a legitimate use of a gun. Not a case of a person just whipping the gun out and blasting away. It seems the cop in this story agree as the cop said it looks to be self defense.
it also says the guy who shot the hiker said the dogs were aggressive, yet neither of the dogs did anything aggressive towards anyone on the scene. But it was self defense, so lets believe the guy with the gun. :rolleyes:
Groves said the dogs did not appear vicious to him and never growled or barked at rescue crews.
it also says the guy who shot the hiker said the dogs were aggressive, yet neither of the dogs did anything aggressive towards anyone on the scene. But it was self defense, so lets believe the guy with the gun. :rolleyes:
I will bet the guy that killed Meredith seemed not so vicious when he was last seen at a McDonalds or Burger King. But it’s clear he was pretty vicious when he killed her. Are you saying that just because one moment in time the dogs are calm they will be that way for every moment in their whole life???
The cop in this story says it’s self defense, I can only go by what he says. Do you know more then he does, enough to counter his statements. If so lets see your proof.
mobileman
01-17-2008, 03:12
Those of you that hate or dislike guns have very little respect or even understanding of those that do have guns. You post statements that to imply that a person that has a gun wants it just to whip it out and shoot people. Or that they are stupid and would pull it out when they see someone that has a beard and not taken a shower in a few days. Hiking is not the first place where people have decided to carry to protect themselves, many places (and many that you interact with but are not aware of because people keep them in their pockets) in life people are carrying guns. There is no big rash of people pulling out guns and blasting away with them. I have a friend that owns a gun shop, I work there part time. I know hundreds of people that always have a gun on them. I see them shopping at stores, eating at restaurants, buying gasoline, at the bank on Friday. And no one knows they have a gun on them because they instinctively have something you don’t seem to understand or don’t have. It’s the understanding when to and not to pull the gun out. You don’t understand this ability (otherwise you would not keep bringing it up) so it would be best if you never get a gun. But just because your fear & hate of guns makes this ability elude you, don’t push your lacking on others that do have the ability to know when to use or not use one.
If you can’t handle a gun (and reading your posts its clear you have no understanding of them) don’t take one. But for once let go with your hate & fear and allow others to decide if they want to have one just like you have decided not to have one.
Strange that some people will be more afraid of law abiding folks carrying guns than they will be of a Gary Hilton type.
No kidding. It’s the hate and fear talking. You can explain it all day long, and it will never get through. Because you are dealing with emotions and they can’t be reasoned with.
:confused:
Bob S: I own guns, have owned guns for most of my life. I have friends who carry guns, friends who don't carry guns. I have friends who like people who carry guns, don't like people who carry guns and friends who don't care either way. Most people in this country own or dont care who owns guns. Thats the way it is. The folks I know don't get bent out of shape over it. The law enforcement, mental health care, etc. folks usually are not concerned about any of these people. They are more concerned about people who own guns or other lethal items and show hostility or little flexability toward other people who have a different opinion than theirs. Also,they do worry about people "dealing with emotions and they can't be reasoned with", "Gary Hilton type" with or without guns. (Know those words Bob S). Unfortunatly, (some will say fortunatly) there will someday be an electronicly monitered emotional test given before an individual can own a weapon. You can't stop others from having a different opinion than yours Bob S. You can, however, present a rational opinion to non believers on why it is ok to have both gun owners and non owners. The attitude of gun owners can influence how soon or far away that 'someday' comes.
Or you could turn that around and say... it's not the guns that amaze us, so much as the fear that compels folks to desire them.
I don't believe it is often fear that compels one to desire a firearm. Oftentimes it is only simple desire alone that compels the purchase.
http://www.paysonroundup.com/section/frontpage_lead/story/15128
I am not anti-gun nor pro-gun, but I dont think guns belong on the trail. :rolleyes:
I guess it would depend on which 'trail' you would be referring too. To be fair, on some trails, a 'gun' is required. I recall it so once in the Canadian NWT.
But if you refer to the AT, I tend to feel that they are not 'needed' there but I cannot propose to say they don't 'belong' there as that would be forcing what I felt upon others who might feel otherwise. As for carrying them, I have often wondered if more folks who could, would, then those who wouldn't, shouldn't have to:-?
NICKTHEGREEK
01-17-2008, 08:06
I honestly can't picture a legal firearm carrier just whipping it out at the slightest provocation.
His Gun?;)
canerunner
01-17-2008, 08:08
Don't wear flowerdy Hawaiian shirts.
Dang! There goes my whole wardrobe! :D
I guess I'll have to rethink that and get me some camo so I can stealth my way around and practice LNT on people's eyes.
:banana
canerunner
01-17-2008, 08:20
http://www.paysonroundup.com/section/frontpage_lead/story/15128
I am not anti-gun nor pro-gun, but I dont think guns belong on the trail. :rolleyes:
Keyword in the OP was innocent. Apparently, this was not an incident where someone innocent was killed. The hiker was apparently attacked by the deceased and his dogs. At least that's what the article indicates.
4eyedbuzzard
01-17-2008, 08:28
Keyword in the OP was innocent. Apparently, this was not an incident where someone innocent was killed. The hiker was apparently attacked by the deceased and his dogs. At least that's what the article indicates.
Harold Fish, the shooter, was wrongly convicted by a politically motivated law enforcement system and court.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4181/is_20060619/ai_n16488917
and
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/
Harold Fish, the shooter, was wrongly convicted by a politically motivated law enforcement system and court.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4181/is_20060619/ai_n16488917
and
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/
Man that s*cks.
Man that s*cks.
Yeah, for the dead guy.
Are you saying that those people in the grocery store that are carrying guns know how and when to use them because they are carrying them? I'm not sure what your point is here.
I think the point there is that MOST liscened hand gun carriers have knowledge of and are expected to abide by the application of "DEADLY FORCE".
Deadly Force A force in which a person knows or should know could create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm. Its use is justified under extreme necessity and as a last resort when all lesser means have failed or cannot be reasonably be employed.
In the US a civillian may legally use deadly force when it is considered justifiable homicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide). However, self-defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense) resulting in usage of deadly force by a civilian or civilians against an individual or individuals is often subject to examination by a court if it is unclear whether it was necessary at the point of the offense, and whether any further action on the part of the law needs to be taken.
Lone Wolf
01-17-2008, 10:03
Yeah, for the dead guy.
no. he got what was comin'. simple
no. he got what was comin'. simple
And you know that... how?
no. he got what was comin'. simple
I don't know a couple to the leg would have served the purpose. Why shoot to kill an unarmed man?
Lone Wolf
01-17-2008, 10:21
I don't know a couple to the leg would have served the purpose. Why shoot to kill an unarmed man?
the unarmed man was coming at him in an angry way. no time to figure out his intentions. oh well
I don't know a couple to the leg would have served the purpose. Why shoot to kill an unarmed man?
Sounds like he was well trained, shoot for the body mass.
Lone Wolf
01-17-2008, 10:22
Sounds like he was well trained, shoot for the body mass.
yup. there is no shoot to maim.
the unarmed man was coming at him in an angry way. no time to figure out his intentions. oh well
So says the shooter. The fellow taking the bullet doesn't get to tell his side of the story.
History is told by the winners. Cowboys in white hats and nasty, scheming, hatchet-wielding Indians. That's how it went, right?
Sounds like he was well trained, shoot for the body mass.
That doesn't answer my question. Why shoot to kill an unarmed man? If he was "well trained" he could shot him in the leg.
Lone Wolf
01-17-2008, 10:29
That doesn't answer my question. Why shoot to kill an unarmed man? If he was "well trained" he could shot him in the leg.
why? the scumbag lives, costs tax payers lots of $$$, he goes back out and maybe kills someone the next time. he has a history of violence. no such thing as shooting to wound
briarpatch
01-17-2008, 10:30
Dang! There goes my whole wardrobe! :D
I guess I'll have to rethink that and get me some camo so I can stealth my way around and practice LNT on people's eyes.
:banana
The best of both worlds?
http://www.alohaland.com/11_novelty_print/shirt_220.htm
http://www.alohaland.com/4_floral/shirt_66.htm
why? the scumbag lives, costs tax payers lots of $$$, he goes back out and maybe kills someone the next time. he has a history of violence. no such thing as shooting to wound
What? One guy is dead (why is he a scumbag?), the guy that shot him in prison (costing taxpayers money). Seems like a lose, lose to me.
That doesn't answer my question. Why shoot to kill an unarmed man? If he was "well trained" he could shot him in the leg.
No trainers teach to shoot in the leg. It is too easy to miss and doesn't necessarily stop the assailaint. It sounds like this unarmed guy did not stop when the weapon was displayed, the next step is to pull the trigger, not sit around thinking about what to do. That is where training takes over, shoot at the body mass so you can stop the guy.
Lone Wolf
01-17-2008, 10:33
he should not be in prison. end of story. i'm right as usual.
No trainers teach to shoot in the leg. It is too easy to miss and doesn't necessarily stop the assailaint. It sounds like this unarmed guy did not stop when the weapon was displayed, the next step is to pull the trigger, not sit around thinking about what to do. That is where training takes over, shoot at the body mass so you can stop the guy.
Well, first of all you don't know the dead guy was an assailant, he's dead and it's only the word of the guy that shot him. For all we know it could have been in cold blood.
So says the shooter. The fellow taking the bullet doesn't get to tell his side of the story.
His side? Let's see, the guy has known anger management issues. The guy protecting his life is a model citizen who never harmed anyone before, why would he shoot unless he felt it was his only choice?
History is told by the winners. Cowboys in white hats and nasty, scheming, hatchet-wielding Indians. That's how it went, right?
Whoa cowboy, watch the history channel if you want to see how that went. :D
why? the scumbag lives, costs tax payers lots of $$$, he goes back out and maybe kills someone the next time. he has a history of violence. no such thing as shooting to wound
Can't change your mind or recall a bullet once the trigger is pulled. There's no way to alter the outcome. I'd say the shooter is a nice normal guy who wishes he had left his gun home (like you do). No way to change that bad desicion now.
oldfivetango
01-17-2008, 10:42
And you know that... how?
Well,for one thing I read BOTH articles.The MSN article conveniently
left out the little part about the deceased had attempted to STRANGLE
a man who had visited a woman that the deceased was currently
STALKING at the time.Could it be that MSN has an anti gun agenda
and slanted the story to their own liking?Would they do such a thing?
Too bad the New York Times wasn't quoted.
The lady who got rid of her dog said the dog could act aggressively at
times.Why else do you think she gave it to the animal shelter?Could it
be that the animal was an aggressive nuisance?
The animal shelter advised the deceased to keep the animals leashed.
The deceased failed to do that.
The hiker fired a warning shot at the two snarling charging dogs.They
were large fierce dogs- a German Shepherd and a Chow-two breeds known
for being vicious.At they were coming after him at full bore.
The seedy homeless man,who is indeed armed with a deadly weapon,ie
a LARGE screwdriver,chages the hiker after the warning shot was fired and
refused to listen to reason and then made death threats against the hiker.
The hiker at that point is totally out of options because he knows that if
he does not act IMMEDIATELY then the crazed homeless man(who had a
history of attempted murder) would then take the hiker's weapon and turn
it against him.
Because the irrational acts of the homeless aggressor were unfolding so
rapidly the hiker pumps three rounds in him without asking the old guy to
"stand still so I can just shoot your leg and further piss you off".(like they
do it in the movies sometimes)
Incidentally,running away was not an option either as that would have
triggered an attack by the dogs and would have given the homeless pos
the upper hand.
I just hope the hiker can get a change of venue and beat the rap.
He did make one mistake though,if he had had a nonlethal weapon like
bearspray to use on the dogs then maybe it could have given him an option.
Chances are the homeless guy would have still nutted up and come after
him but it would have at least strenghthened the hikers case to the extent
that he did attempt non-lethal force first.
Justice was not served in this case.
Oldfivetango
Well, first of all you don't know the dead guy was an assailant, he's dead and it's only the word of the guy that shot him. For all we know it could have been in cold blood.
Yup, this retired school teacher with no priors, father of 7, scout leader and hiker was bored one day and started blasting away at a local for fun and sport then stuck around to tell everyone about it. :rolleyes:
FWIW, I'm talking about this incident, cited by Rouen in Msg. 41:
http://www.paysonroundup.com/section/frontpage_lead/story/15128
... I don't see anything in that article about the victim having a history of violence.
oldfivetango
01-17-2008, 10:45
Can't change your mind or recall a bullet once the trigger is pulled. There's no way to alter the outcome. I'd say the shooter is a nice normal guy who wishes he had left his gun home (like you do). No way to change that bad desicion now.
So do we conclude that you would have allowed the dogs to
chew you to bits,Steve?
Oldfivetango
The best of both worlds?
http://www.alohaland.com/11_novelty_print/shirt_220.htm
http://www.alohaland.com/4_floral/shirt_66.htm
FWIW, I'm talking about this incident, cited by Rouen in Msg. 41:
http://www.paysonroundup.com/section/frontpage_lead/story/15128
... I don't see anything in that article about the victim having a history of violence.
Read briarpatch's links, then come back and share your thoughts. And try to put yourself in the shoes of the guy defending himself.
So do we conclude that you would have allowed the dogs to
chew you to bits,Steve?
Oldfivetango
More hikers than not hike trails without guns. You don't need a gun to scare off a dog. I've done it with a hiking pole and a stern voice on more than one occasion.
When I was stationed at Groton CT in 81, they were doing a security inspection of the entire installation. It wasnt on my boat, but a topside watch shot (not killed) a drill team diver trying to board the submarine from the river.
The drill was unannounced and thankfully there were witnesses that said there was never any notification to the commanding officer that it was to happen therefore no-one knew the diver was on the security testing drill team.
The diver was already at the entrance to the missle hatch and didnt heed to the hail of the watchstander! The way the stort went I think the watchstander couldnt identify what the diver was carrying on the other side of his body (turned out to be his fins) the watch thought it was a weapon.
The watch stander, after several months was found to have rightfully applied deadly force by the associated protection of nuclear weapons directive. He was (I think) discharged with a medical discharge a couple years later apparently messed up.
dessertrat
01-17-2008, 11:01
Can't change your mind or recall a bullet once the trigger is pulled. There's no way to alter the outcome. I'd say the shooter is a nice normal guy who wishes he had left his gun home (like you do). No way to change that bad desicion now.
The shooter is a guy who may have been dead if he had left his gun home. He will also probably get a new trial, based upon what I've read, since I think it is an error for the judge to not allow reputation evidence. (They should have been able to call witnesses to say that so and so had a reputation for violence in the community). In cases such as this one, that is often the only thing you have to go on. There are certain things you don't always allow the jury to hear (which I often disagree with, but that's the law). However, if the prosecution was allowed, through the judge's pretrial motions, to paint the psycho homeless guy as "pleasant Mr. Milquetoast out walking his two dogs, who would have no reason at all to attack the loony with a gun, and therefore could not possibly have done it" then that is an abuse of the judge's discretion.
Imagine if someone had been assaulted by Gary Hilton, and had shot him dead, and then went up for murder, because a judge wouldn't allow anyone to hear anything bad about the deceased, and after all, a guy walking his dog can't be all that bad-- how would that grab you?
So do we conclude that you would have allowed the dogs to
chew you to bits,Steve?
Oldfivetango
I'd take my chances with the dogs over the mess this poor guy has to deal with.
Live by faith, not in fear.
I will not carry a weapon other than bear spray...and I don't want to walk the trail with people carrying guns...no need. Use your God given intuition and wit to discern the bad from the good.
I'd take my chances with the dogs over the mess this poor guy has to deal with.
Dogs came before he had any idea there was going to be a mess. Sitting behind a keyboard with plenty of time to pass judgement is easy. Having real life suddenly thrust in your face in a split second is a different matter. But, you know that.
The shooter is a guy who may have been dead if he had left his gun home.
That's a stretch. :rolleyes:
What ya'll saying is a guy with a gun can go out on the trail and kill just about anyone they please, as long as they make up a story and say someone was attacking them.
dessertrat
01-17-2008, 11:21
What ya'll saying is a guy with a gun can go out on the trail and kill just about anyone they please, as long as they make up a story and say someone was attacking them.
A guy without a gun could do the same thing, couldn't he?
The world isn't neat and clean. Sometimes we have to make character judgments. If the man who had been shot had no history of aberrant behavior, I would be more sceptical of the claims of the defendant. Although "prior bad acts" are often kept out of criminal trials, I think that is a flaw in our legal system. Usually the best way to judge people's credibility and motives are the way they have acted in the past.
On the flipside, you seem to be saying that crazy bums can assault people all they want, and nobody should do anything to defend themselves. This is the primary reason crazy bums feel comfortable assaulting people.
dessertrat
01-17-2008, 11:28
More hikers than not hike trails without guns. You don't need a gun to scare off a dog. I've done it with a hiking pole and a stern voice on more than one occasion.
Have you done it to a Chow? In my experience, this is a breed of dog that should never have been bred.
What ya'll saying is a guy with a gun can go out on the trail and kill just about anyone they please, as long as they make up a story and say someone was attacking them.
Not at all. I don't own or carry, but I think from reading the background on both these guys, the shooter was in the right.
4eyedbuzzard
01-17-2008, 11:33
FWIW, I'm talking about this incident, cited by Rouen in Msg. 41:
http://www.paysonroundup.com/section/frontpage_lead/story/15128
... I don't see anything in that article about the victim having a history of violence.
Maybe if you bothered to read the other articles linked to n previous posts about the incident you would be better informed.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...9/ai_n16488917 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4181/is_20060619/ai_n16488917)
and
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/
But feel free to argue without researching the issue further if it supports your political end.
Have you done it to a Chow? In my experience, this is a breed of dog that should never have been bred.\
The one chow I met scared the crap out of me. I thought it was just him, or me. :D Most agressive dogs don't frighten me and I have scared off many. When I have encountered big mean agressive breeds, I was very happy when the owner was around to call them off.
On the flipside, you seem to be saying that crazy bums can assault people all they want, and nobody should do anything to defend themselves. This is the primary reason crazy bums feel comfortable assaulting people.
Not at all. I've already said I think the guy should have been shot in the leg. Since the shooter got off three shots, he had time to fire one this way rather then all the the chest.
dessertrat
01-17-2008, 11:43
\
The one chow I met scared the crap out of me. I thought it was just him, or me. :D Most agressive dogs don't frighten me and I have scared off many. When I have encountered big mean agressive breeds, I was very happy when the owner was around to call them off.
It wasn't just you. Chows are an extremely territorial "one person" dog. It doesn't surprise me that the dogs in question in this case did not appear to be aggressive when the officers found them-- the alpha dog (the homeless guy) had been killed, and they were not therefore in attack or hunting mode.
There are certain dogs that make me nervous, and Chows are at the top of the list, above even pit bulls. (Pit Bulls, on any given occasion, are not likely to attack unless trained to do so. They sometimes go crazy, and woe betide you if you are around when they go crazy, but Chows, as a breed, are simply wired to attack strangers who invade their space, unless called off. They are a very difficult breed to own, and those who own the breed are either sick people who like the notion of their dog attacking people, or people in denial of their dog's nature, or people who did not know what they were in for when they bought the dog. All bad types of people to own a very difficult breed).
dessertrat
01-17-2008, 11:45
Not at all. I've already said I think the guy should have been shot in the leg. Since the shooter got off three shots, he had time to fire one this way rather then all the the chest.
Do you have any experience shooting handguns? It's very difficult to shoot someone in the leg, especially when they are moving. It's not at all like T.J. Hooker.
4eyedbuzzard
01-17-2008, 11:46
Not at all. I've already said I think the guy should have been shot in the leg. Since the shooter got off three shots, he had time to fire one this way rather then all the the chest.
No one, including LEO, is taught to shoot for the leg, or the brachial nerve in the shoulder. That's TV BS. It is extremely difficult and unreliable to shoot for a moving limb with any wepon, especially a handgun. You shoot for center of mass as it gives the both the greatest margin for error and the greatest probability of stopping the attacker. You're shooting because you fear "grave bodily harm" - the legal litmus test as to when one is allowed to use deadly force in response. Therefore, the survival of the attacker is simply not at issue.
Do you have any experience shooting handguns? It's very difficult to shoot someone in the leg, especially when they are moving. It's not at all like T.J. Hooker.
Yeah, I do and can hit less than the width of a leg from 20 paces. Bring a hand gun to the SoRuck and I'll show you. If one shot at or towards the leg didn't stop the guy from advancing, I'll accept that he should have been shot in the chest.
Dogs came before he had any idea there was going to be a mess. Sitting behind a keyboard with plenty of time to pass judgement is easy. Having real life suddenly thrust in your face in a split second is a different matter. But, you know that.
What I know is that the second the guy pulled the trigger he could no longer change his mind or the outcome of that decision. Even if he ultimately wins this case, His life savings will be gone.
We'll never know if there was another option. I suspect that the shooter knows.
The risk of an accident, misunderstanding, or mistake with a firearm is far greater than the chance of encountering a situation where a gun is the only viable option.
You're shooting because you fear "grave bodily harm" - the legal litmus test as to when one is allowed to use deadly force in response. Therefore, the survival of the attacker is simply not at issue.
Well that didn't work for the shooter in this case did it? :rolleyes:
dessertrat
01-17-2008, 11:55
We'll never know if there was another option. I suspect that the shooter knows.
In other words, you think you do know, or you wouldn't challenge the shooter's statement that he didn't have any other reasonable option.
Did you miss this from the article?
"Prompted by media coverage, witnesses - including former roommates, four security guards, a justice of the peace and a fire marshal - came forward and described Kuenzli to investigators as a volatile character, but the information was kept from the jury by Coconino County Superior Court Judge Mark Moran, according to court documents filed with the Arizona Court of Appeals.
McDonald also said the jury was prevented from hearing evidence and expert testimony about Kuenzli's psychiatric condition and history of violent behavior, including two suicide attempts and an alleged strangling attempt of a man visiting a woman Kuenzli had been stalking. "
Attempted to strangle a man who visited a woman he had been stalking? Any you want to lock up a retired schoolteacher with no history of violence for life?
THIS IS INSANE.
No one, including LEO, is taught to shoot for the leg, or the brachial nerve in the shoulder. That's TV BS. It is extremely difficult and unreliable to shoot for a moving limb with any wepon, especially a handgun. You shoot for center of mass as it gives the both the greatest margin for error and the greatest probability of stopping the attacker. You're shooting because you fear "grave bodily harm" - the legal litmus test as to when one is allowed to use deadly force in response. Therefore, the survival of the attacker is simply not at issue.
Well, said. The issue of being able to hit a moving limb is not an issue. (The instruction doesnt care if you can or cant).
4eyedbuzzard
01-17-2008, 12:08
Well that didn't work for the shooter in this case did it? :rolleyes:
No, it did not. The justice system failed this man.
dessertrat
01-17-2008, 12:19
It seems to me that the Governor (Napolitano?) should pardon this man.
I think everyone who sat on the jury should be mailed a copy of all of the things they were not allowed to hear, along with a request that they petition the Governor for a pardon on this man's behalf.
The conviction should convince wise people that all this loose talk about being able to kill people with impunity is foolish advice. Even if the guy hadn't been convicted the guy would have faced investigations, trial, the expense of lawyers....
And remember an earlier story from the guy who returned fire when he thought himself endangered. His two reactions after the event ended. He vomited and was glad he hadn't killed anyone.
Killing is not fun. It's easy to chuckle about putting bad guys away. But most of those who are inspired by the easy chatter and pull the trigger don't chuckle. They puke and spend the rest of their lives reliving the event and wondering if they did the right thing.
Weary
No one, including LEO, is taught to shoot for the leg, or the brachial nerve in the shoulder. That's TV BS. It is extremely difficult and unreliable to shoot for a moving limb with any wepon, especially a handgun.
Hitting a target moving directly towards you isn't the same as something that's moving laterally. LEO's shoot at armed assailants, slightly different.
spend the rest of their lives reliving the event and wondering if they did the right thing.
Weary
U are so right on this
4eyedbuzzard
01-17-2008, 12:58
The conviction should convince wise people that all this loose talk about being able to kill people with impunity is foolish advice. Even if the guy hadn't been convicted the guy would have faced investigations, trial, the expense of lawyers....
And remember an earlier story from the guy who returned fire when he thought himself endangered. His two reactions after the event ended. He vomited and was glad he hadn't killed anyone.
Killing is not fun. It's easy to chuckle about putting bad guys away. But most of those who are inspired by the easy chatter and pull the trigger don't chuckle. They puke and spend the rest of their lives reliving the event and wondering if they did the right thing.
Weary
Though you and some others may be surprised, I agree 100% with your thoughts on this.
The conviction should convince wise people that all this loose talk about being able to kill people with impunity is foolish advice. Even if the guy hadn't been convicted the guy would have faced investigations, trial, the expense of lawyers....
And remember an earlier story from the guy who returned fire when he thought himself endangered. His two reactions after the event ended. He vomited and was glad he hadn't killed anyone.
Killing is not fun. It's easy to chuckle about putting bad guys away. But most of those who are inspired by the easy chatter and pull the trigger don't chuckle. They puke and spend the rest of their lives reliving the event and wondering if they did the right thing.
Weary
I, for one, do not consider this a light topic. We can speculate all we want and I don't want to imagine what would have happened if he didn't have a gun. If this was a woman, say Meredith, I wonder how people would feel.
Though you and some others may be surprised, I agree 100% with your thoughts on this.
I am not surprised. Weilding a deadly weapon should never be taken lightly and those who own a gun know this best, from my experience.
dessertrat
01-17-2008, 13:13
The conviction should convince wise people that all this loose talk about being able to kill people with impunity is foolish advice. Killing is not fun.
Weary
Weary, I don't think anyone would say it is a small matter to shoot someone, or that one may kill with impunity.
It does appear that in this case, the rigid rules of character evidence created a travesty of justice. Having spoken with jurors after trials, I have often heard them express shock at the things the judge did not allow them to hear. I will be you that at least 10 out of 12, if not all, of the jurors in this case would be outraged if they heard the truth about the deceased.
Usually, if a juror hears nothing about a criminal background or psychiatric background, they assume what most reasonable non-lawyers would assume-- he must not have had one. They do not assume what lawyers already know-- the jury is not allowed to hear about it, because they are not allowed to consider prior bad acts as evidence of action in conformity therewith in a particular case.
I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that this jury went into that jury room, and came out of it, thinking that the deceased was a man with no prior history of violence or psychiatric disorder, who was out walking his dog and got blown away by a man with a gun. Why would they assume otherwise, if not told otherwise?
Is that often total BS? Yes it is. Does it lead to travesties such as this? Yes it does. That is why governors have the power to pardon people. We hope they use it wisely.
SGT Rock
01-17-2008, 13:18
The conviction should convince wise people that all this loose talk about being able to kill people with impunity is foolish advice. Even if the guy hadn't been convicted the guy would have faced investigations, trial, the expense of lawyers....
And remember an earlier story from the guy who returned fire when he thought himself endangered. His two reactions after the event ended. He vomited and was glad he hadn't killed anyone.
Killing is not fun. It's easy to chuckle about putting bad guys away. But most of those who are inspired by the easy chatter and pull the trigger don't chuckle. They puke and spend the rest of their lives reliving the event and wondering if they did the right thing.
Weary
Well said.
4eyedbuzzard
01-17-2008, 13:20
Hitting a target moving directly towards you isn't the same as something that's moving laterally. LEO's shoot at armed assailants, slightly different.
I would invite you to go to a pistol range and see for yourself how easy it is to:
1) actually shoot a life size target in the leg with a handgun.
2) hit an area of the leg(bone, knee joint, sciatic nerve, or femoral artery) that would likely stop an attack quickly - about 1/4 or less of the actual cross section of the leg.
3) then try it on a moving target - even coming directly at you
Not easy is an understatement. Add the physiological reactions that occur during a real life incident with a charging attacker closing the distance, and shooting for the leg is likely to wind up with you missing every shot.
Not easy is an understatement. Add the physiological reactions that occur during a real life incident with a charging attacker closing the distance, and shooting for the leg is likely to wind up with you missing every shot.
So what if you miss the 1st shot. The guy still had time to shoot two more times. The dogs stopped charging with one shot in the ground. Most people would too. If they don't then you shoot to kill.
So what if you miss the 1st shot. The guy still had time to shoot two more times. The dogs stopped charging with one shot in the ground. Most people would too. If they don't then you shoot to kill.
You act like this guy was a cold calculating sort. He was probably scared witless and acted on instinct.
4eyedbuzzard
01-17-2008, 13:58
So what if you miss the 1st shot. The guy still had time to shoot two more times. The dogs stopped charging with one shot in the ground. Most people would too. If they don't then you shoot to kill.
He had already fired a warning shot. The assailant charged him knowing he had a gun and was ready to fire. As you noted, most people wouldn't attack a person who had a gun drawn and had already fired a shot. Obviously I can't change your mind about your notion of shooting for the leg, so I personally won't try further. If you get a chance, ask a few policemen about your "shoot for the leg" theory. Any guesses as to what their answer if going to be?
He had already fired a warning shot. The assailant charged him knowing he had a gun and was ready to fire. As you noted, most people wouldn't attack a person who had a gun drawn and had already fired a shot. Obviously I can't change your mind about your notion of shooting for the leg, so I personally won't try further. If you get a chance, ask a few policemen about your "shoot for the leg" theory. Any guesses as to what their answer if going to be?
Police shoot to kill as a last resort mostly with armed assailants. Now that they have tasers, it's not likely they'll shoot an unarmed person.
If it ever comes up, I'll go for the leg, or shoulder 1st. You're welcome to do as you please.
oldfivetango
01-17-2008, 14:23
Police shoot to kill as a last resort mostly with armed assailants. Now that they have tasers, it's not likely they'll shoot an unarmed person.
If it ever comes up, I'll go for the leg, or shoulder 1st. You're welcome to do as you please.
Sly,please tell me you aint packin'!
Oldfivetango
oldfivetango
01-17-2008, 14:31
FWIW, I'm talking about this incident, cited by Rouen in Msg. 41:
http://www.paysonroundup.com/section/frontpage_lead/story/15128
... I don't see anything in that article about the victim having a history of violence.
Terrapin,
If you will go read BOTH the links in post #52 by 4EyedBuzzard
you will note that one gives all the details about the scumbag deceased
person's attempt to strangle a man who had visited a lady that the
deceased scumbag was currently stalking.
There was no way for the hiker/shooter to have known all this
at the time.All he knew was that was one bad crazy guy without a gun
trying to attack a guy that was wielding a gun and had just fired a warning
shot at the two vicious dogs.
Note-Mr Nice Guy hiker did not harm the mans doggie and would
not have harmed the deceased had the deceased not made threats against the hikers life and moved toward him with evil intent.
Too bad an event like this didn't happen to Mack Hilton prior
to New Year's Day 2008.
Oldfivetango
Sly,please tell me you aint packin'!
Oldfivetango
I'm not telling you or anyone else.
4eyedbuzzard
01-17-2008, 15:05
Terrapin,
If you will go read BOTH the links in post #52 by 4EyedBuzzard
you will note that one gives all the details about the scumbag deceased
person's attempt to strangle a man who had visited a lady that the
deceased scumbag was currently stalking.
There was no way for the hiker/shooter to have known all this
at the time.All he knew was that was one bad crazy guy without a gun
trying to attack a guy that was wielding a gun and had just fired a warning
shot at the two vicious dogs...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...9/ai_n16488917 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4181/is_20060619/ai_n16488917)
and
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/
take-a-knee
01-17-2008, 15:27
Police shoot to kill as a last resort mostly with armed assailants. Now that they have tasers, it's not likely they'll shoot an unarmed person.
If it ever comes up, I'll go for the leg, or shoulder 1st. You're welcome to do as you please.
Sly, you may be a really cool guy, and you've walked a LOT of AT miles, but you don't know very much about the use of lethal force. If you have a reason to pull and point a handgun at someone in the first place, and your adversary attacks you, you have every reason to expect your assailant intends to injure ,maim or kill you. If you remain ignorant on this subject and the evil day comes your way, it'll most likely end badly for you. I reccomend a three day defensive handgun course. Maybe you are Rob Leatham's equal, able to hit moving four inch targets at 25 ft under time and pressure, but I doubt it. As Officer Callahan said, "A man has got to know his limitations". When it comes to handguns, I doubt you really know yours.
As for the mess that will inevitably ensue after a deadly force confrontation, the best read on that subject is, IN THE GRAVEST EXTREME, The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection, by Massad Ayoob. This guy is an author, shooting instructor, champion pistol competitor, martial arts expert, and lifelong LEO. He has testified as a subject matter expert on this topic and has eaten more than one DA for lunch under oath.
oldfivetango
01-17-2008, 16:26
Sly, you may be a really cool guy, and you've walked a LOT of AT miles, but you don't know very much about the use of lethal force. If you have a reason to pull and point a handgun at someone in the first place, and your adversary attacks you, you have every reason to expect your assailant intends to injure ,maim or kill you. If you remain ignorant on this subject and the evil day comes your way, it'll most likely end badly for you. I reccomend a three day defensive handgun course. Maybe you are Rob Leatham's equal, able to hit moving four inch targets at 25 ft under time and pressure, but I doubt it. As Officer Callahan said, "A man has got to know his limitations". When it comes to handguns, I doubt you really know yours.
As for the mess that will inevitably ensue after a deadly force confrontation, the best read on that subject is, IN THE GRAVEST EXTREME, The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection, by Massad Ayoob. This guy is an author, shooting instructor, champion pistol competitor, martial arts expert, and lifelong LEO. He has testified as a subject matter expert on this topic and has eaten more than one DA for lunch under oath.
I have read the book in question by Mr Ayoob but it was at least 10 years
or more ago.As I recall he advises the reader to shoot as assailant until
your gun is empty once you have to start the process.
I do not recall but do suspect that the reason was/is to keep the attacker
from taking it away from the defender and killing him/her with the defender's
own weapon.
None of us were there when Mr Fish had to shoot that guy but I am
willing to bet that he had to fire the three rounds because the guy
ignored the warning shot,charged Mr Fish after verbally threatening his
life,and the results of the first shot were not evident to Mr Fish until
AFTER the third round was fired which is most likely why Mr Fish stopped
shooting at that point.
I was be acutely interested to know how many rounds were left in
the gun after the event was over.I am betting it was a 10 shot semi-
auto pistol and had either 6 or 10 rounds remaining depending on whether
the magazine was produced before or after we went to politically correct
10 round limits.
I hope Mr Fish will be released and exonerated because he did the only
thing he could do under the circumstances and I am really glad that he
didn't have to succomb to the indignity of becoming a dog treat in the
process.
Oldfivetango
Thanks for the advice take-a-knee. Done here, but I'll check into the book.
Well, first of all you don't know the dead guy was an assailant, he's dead and it's only the word of the guy that shot him. For all we know it could have been in cold blood.
Let me make sure I got this: so, now, we are guilty until proven innocent? I'm sure it says that SOMEWHERE in the constitution, I just can't recall the exact location. I guess any shooting without witnesses could be in cold blood. That, to me, seems a bit of a stretch.
4eyedbuzzard
01-17-2008, 23:45
Let me make sure I got this: so, now, we are guilty until proven innocent? I'm sure it says that SOMEWHERE in the constitution, I just can't recall the exact location. I guess any shooting without witnesses could be in cold blood. That, to me, seems a bit of a stretch.
EXCERPTS FROM: http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/
The entire motion is a must read for those who think DA's/prosecutors and courts will always honor their rights.
[Motion for new trial or JNOV]
During the course of the trial, the Arizona State Legislature changed Arizona law (http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/47leg/2r/summary/h.sb1145_03-11-06_jud.doc.htm) relating to the burden of proof in self-defense cases. The law was changed effective April 24, 2006 when Governor Napolitano signed the new legislation. The self-defense burden was restored to 1997 standards and self defense no longer became an affirmative defense (http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=2165).
The defendant requested that the Court instruct the jury pursuant to the law that took effect on April 24, 2006. The Court denied that request. A petition for special action was taken to the Court of Appeals. Jurisdiction was rejected by a two to one vote, with the dissenting judge voting that jurisdiction should be accepted and that the burden of proof in State v. Fish should be shifted to the state. The defendant immediately filed a Petition for Review to the Arizona Supreme Court. It is the defendant's understanding that even though Justice Michael Ryan refused to extend the "stay," that the Supreme Court of Arizona will soon be considering issues raised with the Court of Appeals in State v. Fish since the issue is one of state-wide importance.
The defendant maintains it was error for this Court to give instructions which shifted the burden of proof to the defendant once the new law took effect on April 24, 2006. That "old law" jury instruction needlessly confused the jury, who were unable to know what burdens to attach to individual factual issues (i.e., was the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on the state or the preponderance of the evidence on the defendant when weighing the testimony of the four campers? Was the burden of proof on the state to show decedent was not running towards Fish or was it on the defendant to show that he was?) In addition, the jury foreman indicated to counsel that had the new law been applied, defendant would have been found not guilty. Failure to instruct according to the new law was fundamental error and a new trial should be granted.
Read the full motion if you want to see the extent of injustice regarding the exclusion of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, etc.
EXCERPTS FROM: http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/
The entire motion is a must read for those who think DA's/prosecutors and courts will always honor their rights.
[Motion for new trial or JNOV]
During the course of the trial, the Arizona State Legislature changed Arizona law (http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/47leg/2r/summary/h.sb1145_03-11-06_jud.doc.htm) relating to the burden of proof in self-defense cases. The law was changed effective April 24, 2006 when Governor Napolitano signed the new legislation. The self-defense burden was restored to 1997 standards and self defense no longer became an affirmative defense (http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=2165).
The defendant requested that the Court instruct the jury pursuant to the law that took effect on April 24, 2006. The Court denied that request. A petition for special action was taken to the Court of Appeals. Jurisdiction was rejected by a two to one vote, with the dissenting judge voting that jurisdiction should be accepted and that the burden of proof in State v. Fish should be shifted to the state. The defendant immediately filed a Petition for Review to the Arizona Supreme Court. It is the defendant's understanding that even though Justice Michael Ryan refused to extend the "stay," that the Supreme Court of Arizona will soon be considering issues raised with the Court of Appeals in State v. Fish since the issue is one of state-wide importance.
The defendant maintains it was error for this Court to give instructions which shifted the burden of proof to the defendant once the new law took effect on April 24, 2006. That "old law" jury instruction needlessly confused the jury, who were unable to know what burdens to attach to individual factual issues (i.e., was the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on the state or the preponderance of the evidence on the defendant when weighing the testimony of the four campers? Was the burden of proof on the state to show decedent was not running towards Fish or was it on the defendant to show that he was?) In addition, the jury foreman indicated to counsel that had the new law been applied, defendant would have been found not guilty. Failure to instruct according to the new law was fundamental error and a new trial should be granted.
Read the full motion if you want to see the extent of injustice regarding the exclusion of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, etc.
Yeh, I pulled the trigger too early (pun intended) on this post. I had NOT read your links at the time. As soon as I started to read them, I saw how hairy things had been and how naive I had been. Thanks.
I must say that Arizona is not the first state I would have expected to behave this way. Reading the links you posted will scare the Hell out of you. I really cannot figure out the agenda. What is your theory?
BTW, I think anyone in their right mind, pro-gun, anti-gun or anything else, would have to agree with Weary's post. I know nobody who is just itching to blow some bad guy away. There are just times when it is the lesser of 2 evils.
4eyedbuzzard
01-18-2008, 01:09
...I must say that Arizona is not the first state I would have expected to behave this way. Reading the links you posted will scare the Hell out of you. I really cannot figure out the agenda. What is your theory?
Gut reaction: Politics, egos, and judicial incompetence. In Arizona, judges are elected in counties with populations under 150,000, which includes Coconino County where Fish was tried.
BTW, I think anyone in their right mind, pro-gun, anti-gun or anything else, would have to agree with Weary's post. I know nobody who is just itching to blow some bad guy away. There are just times when it is the lesser of 2 evils.
Yep. I agree.
DogMother
01-18-2008, 14:47
It wasn't just you. Chows are an extremely territorial "one person" dog. It doesn't surprise me that the dogs in question in this case did not appear to be aggressive when the officers found them-- the alpha dog (the homeless guy) had been killed, and they were not therefore in attack or hunting mode.
There are certain dogs that make me nervous, and Chows are at the top of the list, above even pit bulls. (Pit Bulls, on any given occasion, are not likely to attack unless trained to do so. They sometimes go crazy, and woe betide you if you are around when they go crazy, but Chows, as a breed, are simply wired to attack strangers who invade their space, unless called off. They are a very difficult breed to own, and those who own the breed are either sick people who like the notion of their dog attacking people, or people in denial of their dog's nature, or people who did not know what they were in for when they bought the dog. All bad types of people to own a very difficult breed).
You are right that Chows can be aggressive. But not all are. And the people who own them are not either "sick people who like the notion of their dog attacking people" or "people in denial of their dog's nature". Although yes there are some who did not do their research when it came time to pick a breed of dog to own.
And any dog can be aggressive not just chows, pits and german shepherds.
dessertrat
01-18-2008, 14:56
You are right that Chows can be aggressive. But not all are. And the people who own them are not either "sick people who like the notion of their dog attacking people" or "people in denial of their dog's nature". Although yes there are some who did not do their research when it came time to pick a breed of dog to own.
And any dog can be aggressive not just chows, pits and german shepherds.
Yes, any dog can be. But some dogs have very strong genetic traits one way or the other, and a person would be foolish not to take heed. A golden retriever is a much safer bet than a chow when it comes to picking a house pet.
SunnyWalker
05-20-2008, 18:58
Well, I have only read up thru page 3 of this thread. But here is one observation. And I will say that in the past I was a CHL holder. Here is the question: If he walked up towrds the trailhead and saw something suspicious by his car, why did he continue to go and then engage this threat? Was it because, "by God, he had a gun/chl and no one is going to mess with me"?? kind of attitude? I think he should have avoided this confrontation.
SunnyWalker
05-20-2008, 19:26
OK, I have read the entire thread and still think my opinion is valid and true. Of course, we cannot "run away" from all threats or whatever. But If I read this right, this is one where the shooter could have avoided the confronation and resolve the issue by getting a hold of the police. He would have been inconvenienced and etc., but I think it would have been better. This to me is like the house invasion. If I am in my house, and someone breaks in and I can get out and away to call the police and instead stay and shoot-I think I stepped over the line. In court if I was on the jury I would be thinking "well do you have insurance to cover stolen property? Could you have gotten out the back door or a window?" Texas now has a new law where you can shoot a home invader type of situation, but I think it is immoral if you can get out and away. I think it is also the smarter thing to do. If I shoot someone as a CHL holder, and it is a perfet situation, I am still going to be no billed and that is going to cost me some money. So, for me I am going to try to go out the back window, call the cops. My gun and use of CHL is for when I can't get away. OK, this ought to stir the pot up.
4eyedbuzzard
05-20-2008, 20:06
I disagree. The dogs attacked before he got across the parking lot to his car. I believe Fish's story and think it was a clean shoot. He was threatened and attacked and fired to stop the attack. The man charged at him after he fired a warning shot at the charging dogs. Both the dogs and the man had a history of violent behavior, which leads me to believe their actions probably did make Fish fear for "grave bodily harm".
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/
As far as sneaking out the back door of my own home at night - what about my wife and my children in other rooms? Do I just let them fend for themselves? What if someone breaks into my home at night and I reasonably believe that unlawful force may be used against me or them? If I'm put in that position the intruder/attacker is getting shot. Period.
oldfivetango
05-20-2008, 21:37
Or you could turn that around and say... it's not the guns that amaze us, so much as the fear that compels folks to desire them.
When you are minding your own business and eating dinner in
a popular restaurant and get robbed at gunpoint along with
all the other patrons in the place you might realize how pointless
your statement above really is.
Oldfivetango
Let's put it this way: if it was irrelevant that the shootee had a history of aggressive behavior, it was also irrelevant what kind of bullets the shooter had in his gun.
SunnyWalker
05-21-2008, 22:08
4eyedbuzzard: Perhaps you are right. As far as wife and kids in house, I was basing this on being home alone. Of course one would do all he/she could to defend their family. I am sure discussions like this are healthy. However it is better to stay with actual situations then far-fetched "what ifs". If and when i am on a trail and come across something like this I hope I have friends that will come to my aid and I them. Thanks.