The Sanford Florida incident....

[Tamara]

Different situation.

I am well aware of that. You are well aware of that. Cops, lawyers, judges, jurors, and everybody reading this forum is well aware of that.

The editorial staff at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Al Sharpton, and/or the good folks at the SPLC might not be so clued in on these nuances, however.

I wasn't trying to draw a perfect parallel between the situations; I was merely suggesting that sometimes we might not be aware of the way things may get spun in the court of public opinion afterwards. (My suggestion to my friend was that, if he was going to load anything, let it be his dad's duck gun. Probably a better choice than 7.62x39 ball for cutting loose in a frame house in the middle of a subdivision, anyway.)

[JodyH]

Now Obama is involved.

I think that Zimmerman is up shits creek.

I saw this coming from newsday 1.
Perfect opportunity to secure the base and sway the ignorant.
Plus there's a Bush to blame for the stand your ground law.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

[joshs]

I saw this coming from newsday 1.
Perfect opportunity to secure the base and sway the ignorant.
Plus there's a Bush to blame for the stand your ground law.

He actually avoided commenting on the law. I think he is (intelligently) avoiding coming down on either side until more facts are available. Hence, the use of vague comments about justice being done.

[Ed L]

I am well aware of that. You are well aware of that. Cops, lawyers, judges, jurors, and everybody reading this forum is well aware of that.

The editorial staff at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Al Sharpton, and/or the good folks at the SPLC might not be so clued in on these nuances, however.

I wasn't trying to draw a perfect parallel between the situations; I was merely suggesting that sometimes we might not be aware of the way things may get spun in the court of public opinion afterwards. (My suggestion to my friend was that, if he was going to load anything, let it be his dad's duck gun. Probably a better choice than 7.62x39 ball for cutting loose in a frame house in the middle of a subdivision, anyway.)

I understand what you are saying, but I've seen people use the same train of logic to argue against using hollowpoint ammo, AR-15s, high capacity autos, riot guns, and buckshot, as these firearms and ammo and accessories that can allow you to defend yourself more effectively might be painted by some on a negative light. If you want to follow that path of thought you should probably not have more than 3-4 guns, lest you be accused of building an arsenal and looking for an excuse to use it, or having lots of gun magazines and books that might suggest that you were obsessed with guns, as would doing something like spending a lot of time on online gun forums.

[TGS]

He actually avoided commenting on the law. I think he is (intelligently) avoiding coming down on either side until more facts are available. Hence, the use of vague comments about justice being done.

I see what you're saying, he did pretty much proclaim neutrality and fairness. But the way I look at it is:

If he wasn't interested in using this to his advantage or to push political goals, then he wouldn't have commented at all. Pretty rare for the POTUS to give a crap about a murder case. He chose to comment on this, and at least put his foot in the door for a reason.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

I understand what you are saying, but I've seen people use the same train of logic to argue against using hollowpoint ammo, AR-15s, high capacity autos, riot guns, and buckshot, as these firearms and ammo and accessories that can allow you to defend yourself more effectively might be painted by some on a negative light. If you want to follow that path of thought you should probably not have more than 3-4 guns, lest you be accused of building an arsenal and looking for an excuse to use it, or having lots of gun magazines and books that might suggest that you were obsessed with guns, as would doing something like spending a lot of time on online gun forums.

All that stuff only comes into play if you leave an opening.

I call it the WTF Factor. Stuff that really doesn't matter if the events are clear, but start to matter the more ambigious things are.

When everyone stamps their feet about "A good shoot is a good shoot! None of that stuff matters!!" they aren't accounting for the human factor in that the people making the determination if the shoot is clean look at the people who did the shooting.

If you like to have highly inflamatory stuff on hand, do not be shocked when people look at that and assume bad things about they way you make decissions.

It may be legal to have, but people will make judgements based on what they see.

Even more reason to avoid conflict if at all possible.

[Ed L]

All that stuff only comes into play if you leave an opening.

I call it the WTF Factor. Stuff that really doesn't matter if the events are clear, but start to matter the more ambigious things are.

When everyone stamps their feet about "A good shoot is a good shoot! None of that stuff matters!!" they aren't accounting for the human factor in that the people making the determination if the shoot is clean look at the people who did the shooting.

If you like to have highly inflamatory stuff on hand, do not be shocked when people look at that and assume bad things about they way you make decissions.

It may be legal to have, but people will make judgements based on what they see.

This may be off topic, but can you show me a case where someone was prosecuted for a using an AR-15 or AK or high capacity handgun or hollowpoints for home defense where they did not do something wrong that made the shooting unjustiifed under the laws where it took place, or where the firearm they used was legal to own and was legally owned by the shooter?

Even more reason to avoid conflict if at all possible.

And that, as I have written before, is the big issue at hand here--something that I strongly agree with: avoiding unecessary conflicts where no one's safety is at stake that can be avoided by staying inside your house or your car or safely leaving.

[joshs]

This may be off topic, but can you show me a case where someone was prosecuted for a using an AR-15 or AK or high capacity handgun or hollowpoints for home defense where they did not do something wrong that made the shooting unjustiifed under the laws where it took place, or where the firearm they used was legal to own and was legally owned by the shooter?

Unless you have some level of involvement in the trial, it is generally very difficult to get this information because there is no easily searchable database of trial transcripts and there is no way to know what the jurors took into account in making their judgment. In Hickey I, the prosecution made a big deal out of the fact that Larry used a gun that didn't have a safety (Glock). You should expect that the prosecution will attempt to use any information available.

[Ed L]

In Hickey I, the prosecution made a big deal out of the fact that Larry used a gun that didn't have a safety (Glock).

Do you think he would not have been prosecuted if he had used a .38 revolver with lead roundnosed ammo?

It was the circumstances of the shooting among other things that led to the prosecution, not his firearm choice.

Trying to make a big deal over the fact that he used a Glock that lacked a manual safety is an incredibly weak argument because the Glock is the most popular handgun in use in LE in the US, and it is far from the only one that lacks a manual safety. Arguments like that betray the prosecution's ignorance of firearms and make them appear foolish if the defense attorney has any accumen.

The Hickey shooting was not a home defense shooting or shooting of an unknown criminal attacker, but the shooting of two unarmed neighbors (one of whom was female) who his family was involved in an ongoing dispute with in the street outside of his house. I am not saying that it was in anyway unjustified, but the defendent had a prior negative relationship with the people who he shot which complicates things, and given the totality of the circumstances it turned into a legal clusterfuck.

[David Armstrong]

"You're just anti-second amendment and think people should just submit to criminals!!" - that's what you got on a lot of other forums, isn't it?

That and the obligatory "no REAL MAN would say something like that" or some similar sentiment. Stuff about being a sheepdog instead of a sheep also seems popular.