Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 11-10-2017, 05:06 PM
Orwell Orwell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Keystone State
Posts: 1,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikecurtis View Post
I think there is some question about it. Had he not done what he did there might have been one less fatality that day.

mc
You have reason to think the masked madman wearing body armor had his fill of killing people that day?
  #252  
Old 11-10-2017, 05:09 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikecurtis View Post
I think there is some question about it. Had he not done what he did there might have been one less fatality that day.

mc
Yes, or more. We can't know what would have happened if he had not intervened. And you're certainly free to disagree with Sheriff Tackitt's assessment.
  #253  
Old 11-10-2017, 10:04 PM
Spiderman Spiderman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: somewhere East of there
Posts: 8,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Here is Texas'
Quote:
Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual
assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity ...
THere's no state that I know of that doesn't allow one to act in self defense; what this vigilante did was not a defensive act but an offensive pair of acts, 1) engaging him in gunfire & 2) pursuing him after he had left the scene. A LEO would not only be allowed to do this but expected to do this but from what I've heard, our vigilante isn't a LEO. Do you have a cite that states a private citizen can form their own posse to chase a bad guy?
  #254  
Old 11-10-2017, 11:19 PM
eschereal eschereal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 11,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderman View Post
A LEO would not only be allowed to do this but expected to do this
Although, AAUI, many LEAs have policies that discourage, possibly even prohibit, shooting at a moving vehicle.
  #255  
Old 11-11-2017, 12:21 AM
Spiderman Spiderman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: somewhere East of there
Posts: 8,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Although, AAUI, many LEAs have policies that discourage, possibly even prohibit, shooting at a moving vehicle.
AIUI, these guys pursued him, at speeds up to 95mph, they didn't shoot at his moving vehicle. When he crashed, they pulled up & the 'good guy gunman' got out with his gun & ordered the 'bad guy gunman' out at gunpoint. BGG didn't comply but not sure when the fatal, self-inflicted bullet to the head occurred, before or after they pulled up.
  #256  
Old 11-11-2017, 04:49 AM
Idle Thoughts Idle Thoughts is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 12,248
Mod Note

Moving to Great Debates.

To all who reported this thread regarding it turning into yet another gun control debate: It happens...and IMO, it's one of those things that is inevitable whenever there is a mass shooting thread. As a mod, I (and I'm speaking only for myself here) will usually mod any political pot shots and gun control debates for the first day or three after the tragedy happens,..but trying to keep the discussion totally free and clear of guns and gun control is pretty much an impossibility. It's just going to happen eventually. Cutting off discussion, early on, while it's still fresh, is good...but after a few days and--especially when mods aren't on for awhile and the conversation/discussion gets hijacked into gun control talk and the next time any mod is on, it's already got at least 50 new replies dedicated to that topic--it really becomes like trying to stop a speeding freight train with a thin piece of string put across the tracks. And who is to say what is good and what isn't? In a thread about a mass death by someone firing a gun, gun talk is going to come up, there is no way to stop it, there is no way around it. Shutting down clear "There should be strict gun control laws" type of discussion is fine/easy....okay, but then what about those talking about what kind of gun it was? Or questions about the legality of owning a weapon? Or how easy it would be to get one? There's not really anything wrong with asking those types of questions, but they usually lead to talk of gun talk...which leads to debate. To bar one would have to be to bar talk of all guns, period...and in doing that, there would probably be a whole lot more posters upset at that kind of restriction. The object (again, speaking only for myself) of modding is to make the most amount of people happy...and IMO, that means as little censoring of discussion as possible.
And so, while at first I was fine giving notes to cut out debate and to take it out of the thread, to do so now would be to erase about 90 percent of the thread and delete and/or move so many posts that only eight or nine remain and most of them wouldn't make much sense anyway, anymore.

At this point, it's best to move this to Great Debates now, as it's fully evolved into a gun control debate.

If anyone is upset or bothered or annoyed by this, feel free to make a thread about it in ATMB and maybe myself, other mods, and other posters, as a whole, can try to find a solution or to further talk about what could be done regarding it, because trust me, IMO, avoiding gun talk and eventual debates in these kind of threads is nothing short of an outright impossibility.

Last edited by Idle Thoughts; 11-11-2017 at 04:52 AM.
  #257  
Old 11-11-2017, 12:36 PM
Siam Sam Siam Sam is offline
Elephant Whisperer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 38,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ale View Post
One of the things that needs to happen is not giving the perpetrators of these crimes all the coverage they wanted in the first place.
No names, no life history, no nothing, give them nothing and maybe then we'll start seeing less of it.
If that happened, how would you know there's less of it? (Being facetious, because we all know that's not going to happen.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
Just turned off NPR after hearing someone go on about how this was supposedly "worse" because it occurred in a house of worship. Why is that worse than any other conceivable location?
Reminds of when the Vikings would always sack churches. The locals pointed to that as proof positive the Vikings were Satan's spawn, but to the Vikings, who were not Christians, it was just the place where towns stored their wealth back in the day.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeWinder View Post
Had the gun control crowd had their way, the BAD GUY would not have had a gun, either, and there would be no need of the post-hoc good guy. And dozens of people wouldn't be dead.
QFT
__________________
Carpe diem! But first, coffee.

Last edited by Siam Sam; 11-11-2017 at 12:37 PM.
  #258  
Old 11-11-2017, 05:28 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 26,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeWinder

Had the gun control crowd had their way, the BAD GUY would not have had a gun, either, and there would be no need of the post-hoc good guy. And dozens of people wouldn't be dead.
Had the gun control crowd had their way, the bad guy WOULD have had a gun or used some other method of murder and there would be no good guy to prevent further dead.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson

Last edited by Magiver; 11-11-2017 at 05:30 PM.
  #259  
Old 11-11-2017, 06:05 PM
mikecurtis mikecurtis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: chicago
Posts: 935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idle Thoughts View Post
. . .At this point, it's best to move this to Great Debates now, as it's fully evolved into a gun control debate. . .
I apologize for my part in the derailment. I thought about not chiming in, but then went and did it anyway. mea culpa

Since it is now a GD. . .
Let me make it clear, I am not advocating for gun control. I am advocating for an attitude change. I think we Americans are far too enamored of our cowboy heritage, and that many of us see the gun as a way to solve all our problems. I have no problem with defending yourself and others from clear and present danger, and in this specific case an argument can be made that the second gunman may have prevented further carnage, but he did it by putting himself and others (including the first gunman) in grave danger.
And it's really the attitude of some of the posters in this thread (and country) that set me off; cheering the "good guy with a gun" Even if you consider the second gunman a hero, there is nothing here to cheer about.

mc
  #260  
Old 11-11-2017, 08:24 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 26,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikecurtis View Post
Even if you consider the second gunman a hero, there is nothing here to cheer about.

mc
Someone risking their life to save others certainly falls into my definition of something to cheer about.

Do you honestly feel the first responder WANTED to get involved?
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #261  
Old 11-11-2017, 09:33 PM
Orwell Orwell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Keystone State
Posts: 1,688
The second gunman?? Was there a second gunman shooting innocent people? I hadn't heard about that?
  #262  
Old 11-12-2017, 12:13 AM
Urbanredneck Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,684
I just want to add to this that many churches I know of have persons with concealed carry watching for just this type of thing. And you would be surprised who they are.
  #263  
Old 11-12-2017, 12:39 AM
JXJohns JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikecurtis View Post
...Even if you consider the second gunman a hero, there is nothing here to cheer about.

mc
Second gunman, how clever...
__________________
It is abjectely terrifying to me that the future of firearms in this country is being decided by people who have no concept of how they are realistically or properly employed. -Solosam
  #264  
Old 11-12-2017, 09:56 AM
Iggy Iggy is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 4,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderman View Post
... Do you have a cite that states a private citizen can form their own posse to chase a bad guy?
What would possibly legally prohibit a good guy from chasing a bad guy?

There is no legal obligation for the general public to stand by while a criminal flees the scene. Indeed Texas law provides that "a peace officer or any other person" may effect an arrest under certain circumstances without a warrant.

So the law certainly presupposes that any person might arrest a person who commits a felony in his presence or within his view. It would be an absurd interpretation that limits such power to arresting only those who commit such felony and who then walk to within grasp of the arresting good guy. After all, any movement by the good guy might be interpreted as a pursuit.
  #265  
Old 11-12-2017, 01:56 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderman View Post
THere's no state that I know of that doesn't allow one to act in self defense; what this vigilante did was not a defensive act but an offensive pair of acts, 1) engaging him in gunfire & 2) pursuing him after he had left the scene. A LEO would not only be allowed to do this but expected to do this but from what I've heard, our vigilante isn't a LEO. Do you have a cite that states a private citizen can form their own posse to chase a bad guy?
Why do you need a cite for that? I'll wager you any amount of money you'd like that neither the armed citizen not his driver are convicted of any criminal wrongdoing for their actions in these circumstances. That's as close as we're going to find for a legal stamp of approval (aside from perhaps throwing him a parade), and it's plenty good enough for me. It apparently bothers you, but to most of us this guy acted courageously and righteously. Go ahead and keep calling him a "vigilante" if it keeps your blood from boiling at the thought of a good guy with a gun, but don't expect to persuade many people with that out-of-touch-with-reality labeling.
  #266  
Old 11-12-2017, 07:23 PM
Orwell Orwell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Keystone State
Posts: 1,688
Quote:
It apparently bothers you, but to most of us this guy acted courageously and righteously. Go ahead and keep calling him a "vigilante" if it keeps your blood from boiling at the thought of a good guy with a gun, but don't expect to persuade many people with that out-of-touch-with-reality labeling.
QFT
  #267  
Old 11-13-2017, 12:28 AM
Spiderman Spiderman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: somewhere East of there
Posts: 8,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Do you honestly feel the first responder WANTED to get involved?
Given he grabbed his gun, went to the church, & then chased down the bad guy; yes, I do think he wanted to get involved.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Why do you need a cite for that? I'll wager you any amount of money you'd like that neither the armed citizen not his driver are convicted of any criminal wrongdoing for their actions in these circumstances. That's as close as we're going to find for a legal stamp of approval (aside from perhaps throwing him a parade), and it's plenty good enough for me. It apparently bothers you, but to most of us this guy acted courageously and righteously. Go ahead and keep calling him a "vigilante" if it keeps your blood from boiling at the thought of a good guy with a gun, but don't expect to persuade many people with that out-of-touch-with-reality labeling.
I know they're not going to be charged, & they might just have a parade in their honor; in fact if the town wasn't in a somber mood from burying 26 people, they probably would. However, if in his gun battle he shot someone who happened to be in the line of fire past the gunman, or if they took someone out in their 95mph pursuit they'd have the book thrown at them. The vigilantes aren't going to jail only because of dumb luck. These two were never in danger; one can't go on the offensive & then claim self-defense.
  #268  
Old 11-13-2017, 07:20 AM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 26,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderman View Post
Given he grabbed his gun, went to the church, & then chased down the bad guy; yes, I do think he wanted to get involved.
Wow. I really don't know what to say here.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #269  
Old 11-13-2017, 10:58 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderman View Post
... These two were never in danger; one can't go on the offensive & then claim self-defense.
Except that's exactly what happened here. How can you say "one can't" with a straight face when they just did?

Quote:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
_ (1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
_ (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
_ _ (A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
_ _ (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
_ (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
_ _ (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
_ _ (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
_ _ (C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
_ (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
_ (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
  #270  
Old 11-13-2017, 11:00 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderman View Post
... if in his gun battle he shot someone who happened to be in the line of fire past the gunman, or if they took someone out in their 95mph pursuit they'd have the book thrown at them...
It's certainly possible (key word being "if"):

Quote:
Sec. 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.
Bravo to them for executing their pursuit and takedown with skill that avoiding injury to any innocents.
  #271  
Old 11-14-2017, 03:19 PM
kambuckta kambuckta is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: On the beach!
Posts: 8,948
After reports of another mass shooting with five dead in California, I've asked the mods to amend the title of this OP by removing (Texas). Might as well just keep it as 'Another mass shooting in the US'.

Report here
  #272  
Old 11-14-2017, 03:54 PM
Bone Bone is online now
Newbie
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 8,093
Moderating

Quote:
Originally Posted by kambuckta View Post
After reports of another mass shooting with five dead in California, I've asked the mods to amend the title of this OP by removing (Texas). Might as well just keep it as 'Another mass shooting in the US'.

Report here
No. If you'd like to offer a topic for debate, feel free to start a thread. This one is related to the events in Texas.

[/moderating]
  #273  
Old 11-14-2017, 04:01 PM
Buck Godot Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 4,360
Just popped in to point out the amusing post poster irony of a poster named "Spiderman" complaining about vigilante justice.

Otherwise, carry on.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017