Domestic Terrorism In Jacksonville

#26
#26
hndog609 said:
I agree with a lot of the general tone but you have a bit of a wall of assumptions that I've been trying to get past.

Bearing in mind I've already stated I think it pretty unlikely a true "accident" would occur in such manner (time wise) to allow for immediate preventative engagement I keep patiently asking the same question without getting an actual answer so let's try again.

A vehicle is charging into a crowd. Against all odds someone actually was in a position to draw and fire a shot incapacitating the driver. The person in question was a crazed militant and it is universally acknowledged the armed citizens saved many people from death or injury.

or

A vehicle is charging into a crowd. Against all odds someone actually was in a position to draw and fire a shot incapacitating the driver. The driver had a stroke and had pressed the pedal as a result. It's actually STILL possible to argue the shot could have saved lives by taking such action (it did stop the driver's continued action, however unintentional) but there's no way of viewing any part of the incident as anything less than tragic.

What I'm trying to get from you (because I'm genuinely curious about how people view such things) is how you expect the firearm carrier to differentiate, in the literally seconds available to them, between the two possible scenarios.

As an aside if a firearm discharge results in harm to others there's going to be an investigation which could result in charges, criminal, civil or both. (hence the old chestnut of "Every bullet you fire in public has a lawyer attached")
Click to expand...

Putting bullets into an unconscious stroke victim is going to change something? WTF?

People have medical issues while driving every day. If it's in an area populated with a lot of pedestrians than the correct response is for untrained civilians to let lose on flying lead? No wonder the liberals are winning over so many hearts and minds to side with them believing that stricter 2A laws are in order.
 
#27
#27
Thunder Good-Oil said:
What if a driver has a medical issue like diabetes? It's not a good idea for lead to be flying around unless the driver is hanging out the window screaming Allahu Akbar.
Click to expand...

Then you have the language barrier problem. Not everyone in the world understands the business end of a barrel when it's pointed at them.
 
#28
#28
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Putting bullets into an unconscious stroke victim is going to change something? WTF?

People have medical issues while driving every day. If it's in an area populated with a lot of pedestrians than the correct response is for untrained civilians to let lose on flying lead? No wonder the liberals are winning over so many hearts and minds to side with them believing that stricter 2A laws are in order.
Click to expand...

Clearly you are unable or unwilling to address the question in the context it's been asked. I'll leave you to your day, hope it's a good one.
 
#29
#29
ETV said:
Then you have the language barrier problem. Not everyone in the world understands the business end of a barrel when it's pointed at them.
Click to expand...

True. Maybe armed pedestrians will misinterpret "my steering is broken and my gas pedal is stuck... get out of the way" when it's not in English.

Pulling out weapons when a car is off the road is an appropriate response. Knowing when it's acceptable to start firing is the issue. There are virtually no scenarios in this country when civilians are capable of making split second decisions on when it's the right choice to shoot at a moving vehicle. The more likely outcome would be that another innocent bystander is shot than a hero stops a threat.
 
#30
#30
hndog609 said:
Clearly you are unable or unwilling to address the question in the context it's been asked. I'll leave you to your day, hope it's a good one.
Click to expand...

It's not clear at all. But Cowboy civilians with CCPs don't need to fire at moving vehicles. Pull them out and have them ready if a driver jumps out and escalates a threat. Shoot if a driver is obviously targeting pedestrians (which 99% of armed citizens would never be able to determine accurately in split seconds during the chaos) and there is no end is in sight. But shooting at out of control vehicles are exactly the kind of situations that would give gun grabbers lots of ammunition.
 
#33
#33
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Putting bullets into an unconscious stroke victim is going to change something? WTF?

People have medical issues while driving every day. If it's in an area populated with a lot of pedestrians than the correct response is for untrained civilians to let lose on flying lead? No wonder the liberals are winning over so many hearts and minds to side with them believing that stricter 2A laws are in order.
Click to expand...

Maybe the masked man who kicked your door in just got the wrong house. WGAF if someone feels their life is in danger they should do whatever they feel they need to do to defend themselves.
 
#34
#34
C-south said:
Maybe the masked man who kicked your door in just got the wrong house. WGAF if someone feels their life is in danger they should do whatever they feel they need to do to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

And if they shoot up a misinterpreted threat then they should be punished severely. A masked intruder kicking in your door is a bit different than a vehicle that's jumped a curb.
 
#35
#35
Thunder Good-Oil said:
It's not clear at all. But Cowboy civilians with CCPs don't need to fire at moving vehicles. Pull them out and have them ready if a driver jumps out and escalates a threat. Shoot if a driver is obviously targeting pedestrians (which 99% of armed citizens would never be able to determine accurately in split seconds during the chaos) and there is no end is in sight. But shooting at out of control vehicles are exactly the kind of situations that would give gun grabbers lots of ammunition.
Click to expand...

Actually no, we're not really addressing the question much at all but maybe that's on me. I'll take one more shot at this.

I think everyone can accept that it's 100% true that vehicles have and will again be used as weapons.
I think everyone can accept that its' 100% true that vehicles can have the driver medically afflicted which could cause loss of vehicle control.

So if both the above scenarios are to be accepted that leaves us with the observation that assuming someone could effectively engage a vehicle ramming into a group of innocent people we have two possibilities.

1. The shooter saved lives from someone intent on inflicting harm by vehicle.
2. The shooter fired upon someone with no intention of harming anyone.

Simple so far? OK, you actually brought the onus of the question on yourself with this:

Thunder Good-Oil said:
What if a driver has a medical issue like diabetes?
Click to expand...

So you clearly invoke a "what if" for #2 above. OK, fine, but "what if" it isn't and is #1? The question that has been repeatedly asked is what criteria would you assign for the carrier that would allow them to discern between the two in a first response scenario?

If you wish to say "If it was a terrorist and dozens die initial inaction would still be the most prudent given the preponderance of possible outcomes" that's fine. (though I think anyone would have a terrible time with the "I could have made a difference" weight afterward, just like those that did act and it was you medical condition scenario) I'm actually not in this for being judgemental. People will fall on both sides of the argument and make reasonable points either way. Hell, even just punting and saying "it depends" on any number of contextual assessments at the time of the incident might be the closest one could come to a best answer. You came across so dismissively based on nothing more than a "what if" I was curious as to why.
 
#36
#36
Thunder Good-Oil said:
And if they shoot up a misinterpreted threat then they should be punished severely. A masked intruder kicking in your door is a bit different than a vehicle that's jumped a curb.
Click to expand...

This is going a bit off the original discussion but "misrepresented threat" is lawfully a lot more ambiguous than presented here. The most common legalese used is if it meets the criteria of "reasonable fear" then that is the pathway to justification. If for instance a jury decided that someone in that place at that time had articulable and reasonable belief they were under threat of serious harm or death then being mistaken after the fact can be set aside.* (this is particularly true with criminal charges where mens rea is heavily weighted)

*An example would be if someone pointed a toy gun at you and you shot them. Given it would be easy to assume you had no real way of knowing the gun wasn't real and posed a deadly threat they would more than likely (barring other incriminating factors) consider you innocent of wrongdoing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#38
#38
I think that in this country drivers with no ill will lose control of their vehicles thousands of times more frequently than terrorists use them in attacks. So if a car plows into a crowd, draw your weapon but keep your finger off of the trigger unless you're 100% certain it is an attack and be prepared for the legal ramifications after you've unloaded toward a moving vehicle. A car striking pedestrians isn't an adequate reason to start firing at it. Most likely the bullets will miss the driver and hit an innocent bystander anyway.
 
#39
#39
utvolpj said:
that's what the law says. Can you provide a link where political affiliation is protected?
Click to expand...

Hate crimes are subjective. They can be interpreted anyway, based on the political leanings of that prosecutor. So it may not be technically based on political affiliation, a cop or prosecutor can still come up with a hate crime
 
#41
#41
I know that there's a much longer 2H thread and this one is about domestic terrorism, but I'm far right on the red flag laws and restricting the fire power of law abiding citizens. However I'm starting to see a good case for making CCPs really restrictive licenses and for communities banning open carry. Unfortunately Liberals want an inch in order to later take a mile.

A world full of Lumpy Lambert types might be more frightening than the occasional domestic terrorist.
 
#46
#46
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Putting bullets into an unconscious stroke victim is going to change something? WTF?

People have medical issues while driving every day. If it's in an area populated with a lot of pedestrians than the correct response is for untrained civilians to let lose on flying lead? No wonder the liberals are winning over so many hearts and minds to side with them believing that stricter 2A laws are in order.
Click to expand...

And in 2016 America elected a President who would enact stricter 2A laws.

Ohh wait no we didn't
 
#49
#49
Thunder Good-Oil said:
What if a driver has a medical issue like diabetes? It's not a good idea for lead to be flying around unless the driver is hanging out the window screaming Allahu Akbar.
Click to expand...

I'd probably let that pass and take the driver yelling "Feel the Bern."
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top