And may not tomorrow, and very limitedly, possibly, for a long time. What would be the point? That crap show down south made it's point of carrying. Not saying the perp deserved to die, but I think the shooter got rail-roaded.
-
Please read the new forum rules! REQUIRED!
Click Here: https://www.gulfcoastgunforum.com/threads/general-forum-rules-code-of-conduct.70770/
-
New Reloading Sticky Thread for Trading, Swapping Gear, etc.
https://www.gulfcoastgunforum.com/threads/reloading-components-for-trade-item-value-and-photo.104847/
Didn't carry today...
- Thread starter junker46
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Gulf Coast States
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
SAWMAN
Master
I believe that you are referring to the shooting in the parking garage,over a handicapped parking place.
IMO the video evidence was pretty damning. And the verdict did come down from a jury of his peers.
Many people that I have talked to feel this was the wrong verdict and many feel (sadly) that this decision was the only one that the jury could come back with.
Hopefully . . . no racial issues were considered as were no issues of possible civil unrest. Other than that . . . it is what it is.
I do feel however that no matter how you feel about this incident,one of your decisions should not be to not carry a legal firearm with state permit. Ultimately,your life and the lives of your family could be defended by you. The decision is ultimately yours. --- SAWMAN
IMO the video evidence was pretty damning. And the verdict did come down from a jury of his peers.
Many people that I have talked to feel this was the wrong verdict and many feel (sadly) that this decision was the only one that the jury could come back with.
Hopefully . . . no racial issues were considered as were no issues of possible civil unrest. Other than that . . . it is what it is.
I do feel however that no matter how you feel about this incident,one of your decisions should not be to not carry a legal firearm with state permit. Ultimately,your life and the lives of your family could be defended by you. The decision is ultimately yours. --- SAWMAN
FrankT
6.8 SPCII Hog Slayer
I will continue to carry because of the issue down south as I will not be the victim. Just because you are armed does not mean you pull it out at every chance but use it only when necessary to protect life and limb. The parking spot shooting was not necessary and should not have even escalated that far between responsible people. you can show your displeasure and disgust without pulling a weapon...then drop it and walk away a free man
I've never understood the thinking of the self-appointed handicap parking police. Unless you yourself are handicapped and have been denied a parking spot by the violator, why would you feel the need to confront them? That was one incident that should never have happened. I myself am a bit of a hothead, and I constantly remind myself that I need to avoid unnecessary confrontation because I'm carrying and don't need the risk of escalation over something frivolous.
Snake-Eyes
Master
Perhaps the guy shouldn't have pulled the trigger, but in my opinion his DRAW was justifiable. He was blindsided, knocked quite a ways across the pavement, with multiple people closing in on him. It's OBVIOUS that the aggressors only backed off when they saw a gun. Up to that moment, carrying a gun saved him from further injury. He did not start a fight. He started a conversation.
As for what started it... well, you can resign yourself to become a quiet, uninvolved member of society who "won't say anything" because we live in a litigious world of thin-skinned butthurt cry-babies who are apparently unable to have an adult conversation without resorting to violence.
OR, you can stay involved, be the elder as part of the "it takes a village" mentality of the days of the past.
50-years ago, same scenario, an older person sees a younger person park in a handicapped spot without any tags: older person would mention it. Younger person might be annoyed, or might be embarrassed. Either way, highly doubtful there'd be a shouting match. Even more doubtful an UNinvolved boyfriend would shove the older person to the ground.
What's changed? That's the personal answer you have to come up with... that will affect how you choose to interact with your fellow man.
As for what started it... well, you can resign yourself to become a quiet, uninvolved member of society who "won't say anything" because we live in a litigious world of thin-skinned butthurt cry-babies who are apparently unable to have an adult conversation without resorting to violence.
OR, you can stay involved, be the elder as part of the "it takes a village" mentality of the days of the past.
50-years ago, same scenario, an older person sees a younger person park in a handicapped spot without any tags: older person would mention it. Younger person might be annoyed, or might be embarrassed. Either way, highly doubtful there'd be a shouting match. Even more doubtful an UNinvolved boyfriend would shove the older person to the ground.
What's changed? That's the personal answer you have to come up with... that will affect how you choose to interact with your fellow man.
FrankT
6.8 SPCII Hog Slayer
No, you cannot trust the right thing will happen, so the best course of action when you are carrying especially is to stay out of confrontation in the first place. We should not carry to protect all the Countries ills and issues, it is to protect ourselves and family...I am not at Walmart to protect the store or profits, come in and rob the place, I really do not care. Start shooting then we may have a problem if I can safely take you down without getting myself or others killed.
Think about it: in today's political climate, unless you are direct physical attack, you are screwed. I mean, under fire or the knife going in or a dent in your skull from a bat. Looking at comments from other sites, some have postulated that he (the aggressor) was preparing for another assault. Anyway, it was clear from the onset that they were after this guy for political posturing.
So, what does all this mean? A cop from Alabama thinks it is going to set a precedence that pretty much screws any self defense shooting. That it shifts the burden (of intention?) from the state to the defense. And good luck with that.
John B.
Master
Not to get off topic... but the moral of the shooting story, **don't be a little bitch and start an argument with a woman over a parking spot... one way or another, you'll end up in jail.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
wildrider666
Master
FLs Stand Your Gound Law is not a universal use of deadly force "Get out of Jail free Card". It is merely a Standard of Parameters, in which your actions may be justified. I say "may" because like all Laws it is subject to interpretation by Law Enforcement, Citizens and the Judicial System. That said, It is much more supportive than a "Duty to Retreat Law" when faced with a Lethal or Great Bodily Harm Threat.
The convicted parking space shooter will probably Appeal, maybe more than once. His conviction is based on the totality of the Event (including similar prior instigation of hostilities over Handicap parking spaces) and not just the timing of the shot verses status of Threat (+-).
Unless a CCer believes he/she would conduct themselves in an identical manner (history and event), there is no need for concern.
Hear is a Point that many people miss. Does this Event/conviction make FLs Stand Your Ground Law weaker or stronger? I say it made it Stronger because the shooters actions were not within the stipulations of the Law and he was convicted for it. It also fell outside the Laws of basic self defense. As such, the Law can't be accused of being a free pass to the wild wild west, a hunting license or any other nonsense the Anti Gun idiots labeled it when it was debated then passed into Law or when there was Zimmerman media fallout, even thought there was no claim to Stand Your Ground in that Case, it was pure self defense.
The convicted parking space shooter will probably Appeal, maybe more than once. His conviction is based on the totality of the Event (including similar prior instigation of hostilities over Handicap parking spaces) and not just the timing of the shot verses status of Threat (+-).
Unless a CCer believes he/she would conduct themselves in an identical manner (history and event), there is no need for concern.
Hear is a Point that many people miss. Does this Event/conviction make FLs Stand Your Ground Law weaker or stronger? I say it made it Stronger because the shooters actions were not within the stipulations of the Law and he was convicted for it. It also fell outside the Laws of basic self defense. As such, the Law can't be accused of being a free pass to the wild wild west, a hunting license or any other nonsense the Anti Gun idiots labeled it when it was debated then passed into Law or when there was Zimmerman media fallout, even thought there was no claim to Stand Your Ground in that Case, it was pure self defense.
I disagree with the 'making it stronger' opinion. Your statement more-or-less shows that. How does it fall outside the parameters? He was knocked violently to the ground, blindsided. And the two events, arguing with the woman and the attack are, in reality, two separate events. Neither having anything to do with each other. Ever see a bar fight? Two people in a confrontation will incite or provoke action from outside parties. So how did this shooter know that the attacker was connected to the woman? How did he know that this wasn't some angry bystander just jumping in? And what difference would it have made?
He was justified in drawing his handgun. That very likely saved him from a beating.
The problem was that the guy was turning away when he was shot. I’m sure the only reason he was turning away was because the guy pulled a gun.
The thing is adrenaline is pumping. The shooter just got knocked down and was about to take a beating.
It’s easy to sit in a jury room, look at a film and say “he should have stopped at THIS point.”
I wouldn’t have convicted him.
The problem was that the guy was turning away when he was shot. I’m sure the only reason he was turning away was because the guy pulled a gun.
The thing is adrenaline is pumping. The shooter just got knocked down and was about to take a beating.
It’s easy to sit in a jury room, look at a film and say “he should have stopped at THIS point.”
I wouldn’t have convicted him.
John B.
Master
He never would have had to draw his handgun had he minded his own business.
You can't only look at the moment of the shooting. Events leading up to it can possibly effect the outcome.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
- Status
