ps. Just a reminder that guns don’t protect you from other guns unless you are pointing them at the threat at hand, or carrying them at constant readiness.
Courts have generally rejected the “it was just foolishness” defense in attempted murder cases.
Was the hypothetical passenger also guilty of attempted murder?* If a cop was found to have killed someone unlawfully, would his/her partner at the time also be guilty? (Assuming they weren’t complicit in trying to cover the unlawful killing up.)
- Try and bear in mind that I at no time have said that the driver was only acting foolishly.
Not a lawyer, but as I understand it, it’s the driver not the passenger who would be guilty of murder. The cop after all wouldn’t have been shooting if the driver hadn’t stuck a gun in his face and fired. Any deaths occurring during the commission of a felony can lead to the perpetrator being charged with murder (even if they are just heart attacks), and trying to murder a cop is certainly a felony.
Who gives a crap about what could have happened? He could have had a huge tank of gasoline and firecrackers in the backseat and the shooting ignited them into a fireball. He could have had 5 nuns kidnapped in his back seat. He could have had the cure for cancerAIDS rolling around in his head. WHO CARES ABOUT HYPOTHETICAL?
Fact is the dude was drunk and thought he’d get out of a DUI by killing the cop, plain and simple. The way he got the gun in the cop’s surprised face means he planned it as soon as he was stopped. He got what he deserved.
I’ve had a gun stuck in my face twice in my life. Once was just a dumbass going “hey lookit mah gun” and the other was a car of gangbangers who thought I’d Done Them Wrong by following them too close on the highway and stuck the gun out the car window at my window. Both times I got out of the way quickly, but if they’d meant to shoot me in the face they’d have done it and there’s nothing I could have done about it.
Well. Yeah. I’ve never heard anyone argue that merely holding a gun will protect you from being shot at.
No, but a lot of people seem to think being allowed to carry them concealed about their person, is going to protect them. Remind me how that works when your hypothetical attacker already has their gun drawn and ready to fire?
ivan astikov said:
No, but life doesn’t always give you what you deserve.
ivan astikov said:
Not always, but sometimes life gives you summary execution anyway. Doesn’t have to be at the hands of a cop returning gunfire, maybe it’s going snow-skiing, taking a trail that’s slightly above your skill ability, and kissing a tree.
No, but he was probably guilty of complicity in hanging out with a drunk buddy who has his gun out. Several witnesses commented that his prior remarks included statements that he had a gun. Could potentially be grounds for negligence, or perhaps even accessory charges.
Der Trihs said:
ivan’s point appears to be that the passenger would be being punished for the crimes of the driver, not his own.
But ivan, you have yet to make the case that there was any passenger or other person that the cop put at risk by returning gunfire. There is no evidence about what the cop did or did not know about the geography of the area, there is no evidence that the cop didn’t get a look into the passenger seat and back seat while leaning in to ask the driver “How much have you had to drink?” So your hypotheticals, while possibly meriting discussion on the proper techniques for drunk stops and the kind of details that an officer has to keep in mind on something as simple as a drunk stop and the level of training that officers receive and whether it covers the real-life situations, are completely irrelevant to discussing what happened in this instance.
Oh goody, another gun control debate! Just what this thread needs.
You seem to be having a different discussion than the rest of this thread.
Okay, I’ll bite - sometimes people miss gasp. Sometimes guns misfire (like here). Then it could be useful to have the ability to (a) take cover and (b) return fire to keep the attacker from chasing after you, coming behind your cover, and continuing to shoot you.
You are correct, no amount of having a gun in your waistband, in your purse, under the car seat, etc will protect you if the attacker gets the draw on you. Then you have to rely on something else to get you that “lucky” break. However, most gun advocates are expecting that the ability for someone to get the draw on them is going to be limited - mostly through vigilence on their own part to identify the threats early and avoid situations that could lead to threats. Whether that expectation is justified or highly unjustified is fodder for a different thread.
What is crazy is that he had to prove he was innocent for defending his own life. I wonder how the guy managed to drive away riddled with bullets? Nice job staying cool and taking out the perp.
No, he didn’t.
Someone might argue that the fact there was a jury involved at all suggests he did. YMMV.
Not a trial jury, this was a Coroner’s Inquest. It’s a fairly common thing out west, even tho it is very much partial and easily manipulated.
ETA: This was clearly a justified shooting, and after reading the story that accompanies the video, it seems likely that the officer saved at least the life of the ex-GF and perhaps whoever was near her once the deceased found her.
There’s usually going to be a grand jury and/or coroner’s inquest after a deadly encounter. What was pretty clear to me was that he approached the car carelessly and his tactics weren’t what they should be. It’s always good to watch something like this… reminds you of what you should be thinking and where you need to be. His body should have been bladed and his light should have been in his off hand. As for the bridge video… he was far to close to the guy considering he was crazy and his size… If a crook won’t listen to you at 6 feet… he’s not gonna listen at 12… 12 does give me more options and more weapons on my belt to handle him with.
Essentially… they both went home… so it was a job well done…