Yes, but the dead guy’s vision was not impaired. Why would he need the flashlight for, if it was light enough that a 74 year old guy who, according to you, might as well have been half-blind, could see a dark object in the dark ?
And, I just realized : one flashlight. Two dead bodies.
I’ll rely on your expertise, I don’t know enough about that show to support your sublime condescension. (Do so love being patted on the head…) I’ve not seen it, at least in part because the very words “Law and Order” gives me the historical willies.
But your precise wording obscures almost as much as it clarifies. “If the information is off limits…” Well, as the Spartans famously said, “If”…
Now, I can certainly understand why it might be. If the defense can insert the vision of two squatter junkie vagabonds into the jury’s collective mind, I suspect he would pleased to do so. I can also understand how the prosecution might prefer to nibble carpet tacks than allow that to happen. So, sure, I can see how that might be forbidden, in lime.
Are you suggesting that it was? Or only hinting that it could have been, maybe, who knows? Is that what happened?
It takes one to know one…
I believe you mean hysterical willies. Since Law and Order is something that keeps this country from being like Iraq, Afghanistan or Mexico, its almost batshit crazy to despise it.
I have no particular dog in this fight, and no legal background to offer, but first of all, I find this whole line of argument bizarre; you have seriously never in your life been in a situation where it is dim but you might appreciate a little more light?
And you might at least get the facts of the case straight. There was only one dead body.
Right. Two people shot. If the justification for self-defence is “I thought this one was pulling a gun on me”, that still leaves the second victim to account for.
In the SI system, the unit that expresses illuminance and luminous emittance is a lux. I mention this to give context to the following:
Standing in a meadow at high noon, you experience about 110,000 lux. In that same meadow at midnight, with moonlight, you are awash in about 1 lux.
Moonlight is usually bright enough for a young person to see well enough to recognize faces, but not to read or see more details. It doesn’t strain credulity in the slightest to imagine a young person in that meadow, under 1 lux, wanting a flashlight to walk along.
And if the moon is new, you’re experiencing 0.002 lux from starlight (if the night is a clear one, and not cloudy). That’s enough to see shapes of people and things, but not details. Again, it’s absolutely within the bounds of credulity to picture someone wanting a flashlight under those conditions.
So it’s very possible to have enough light to see shapes, but still want a flashlight, no matter what age you are.
Wow.
You know knowing at all about this case. You’ve got me looking up lux illumination of moonlight and you’re just saying anything you please?
No. Not two dead bodies. One dead body.
OK, thought experiment.
Ed and Fred get into an increasingly heated argument over which of the ‘My Little Pony’ characters is the best. Ed prefers Twilight Sparkle; Fred is an undying fan of Pinkie Pie. Finally, Fred declares their friendship a thing of the past, goes to his truck, and retrieves a loaded gun, whereupon he returns to Ed’s home, opens the door, and shoots at Ed. He wounds Ed, who grabs up a loaded gun of his own and fires three shots, striking Fred with two and killing him.
The third shot passes Fred and travels across the street, where it wounds Tara, a neighbor who cares nothing at all about My Little Pony and is a devotee of the Home Shopping Network.
What crime, if any, do you believe Ed has committed against Tara?
Reckless discharge of a firearm?
Is it your contention that Old Man Wayne just happened to hit Wilson by complete accident ? *Three *times ? Come on. As Ian Fleming once wrote : once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is enemy action.
You’ll have to enlighten me, are you saying I wouldn’t say that?
What kind of arduous training do I need to fire a gun into the air? Kids can do that with no training. Plenty of kids have shot others on accident just playing with a gun. I say this without a hint of arrogance but I think I’m perfectly capable of firing a gun into the air with little to no training. Its not rocket surgery. I also think its silly that gun people often come into any discussion with guns as a topic and claim one needs lots and lots of training for it. Yeah, maybe if you’re trying to be good at shooting, maybe if you’re training to shoot running people at a hundred yards, but we’re talking about pointing upward and pulling the trigger. No training necessary
Given the situation I’d be facing with a couple of potentially dangerous criminals, I think its a fair trade off. Besides, its dangerous for other people, not really me. I highly doubt I’d shoot it so vertical that it’d drop anywhere near me when it landed
Again, dangerous for other people, but given the situation, I’m fine taking that chance. Anyways, I’d spend at least a second to shoot it towards grass or dirt where the bullet would likely bury itself and not bounce off. I’m not aiming it towards any metal plates
You need the fucking training to learn how stupid it is to fire the gun up into the air. Don’t fire a gun at anything unless you intent to hit it, and are happy with the consequences of doing so.
Oh, and you don’t get to shoot potentially dangerous criminals. Or fire warning shots at them, or brandish a gun at them. You need a reasonable believe that they are actually, imminently dangerous.
I think you’re overestimating both the accuracy of the typical pistol and the precision of the typical (under duress) shooter.
More to the point, taken in the abstract, if I am faced with two assailants, only one of whom is brandishing a weapon and I happen to have a loaded gun in my hand (unlikely), then you bet your ass I’m shooting both of them. If we assume, arguendo, that Burgarello reasonably thought that Devine posed a lethal threat, it is reasonable to think that Wilson also posed a threat.
What tends to be missing from these discussions is the acknowledgment that we, sitting at home or work and typing at each other on a message board, have the advantage of hindsight, reflection, and rationality. Somebody, especially somebody who is not trained in these sorts of situations, who is faced with an imminent life-or-death situation cannot be expected to weigh evidence and make a rational choice. They are simply going to react.
Whether Burgarello actually felt in imminent fear for his life is certainly a valid question. The claim that even if he was, he should only have shot the person who he thought had a gun is, IMHO, an unreasonable expectation.
It’s OK if I shoot an innocent person, as long as I don’t hurt myself!
No. The discharge wasn’t reckless.
I don’t believe Fleming was discussing the phenomenon of three bullets missing a target and striking a nearby area. According to Wilson, the second squatter who was shot, the shots were “… just one after another — bang, bang, bang, bang…” Under those circumstances, it’s not at all correct to say that three shots means an intention to hit.
Now, returning to the question that I asked: What crime, if any, do you believe Ed has committed against Tara?
The training isn’t intended to teach you how to shoot into the air, Yogsosoth. It’s intended to teach you the inadvisability of doing so.
Yes. Why are you unwilling to shoot actual people in position to do you harm but cavalier about the possibility of injuring people that are doing you no wrong?
Well, in this instance, you’re inside a house. Grass and dirt are in short supply.
One dead body.
Are you saying if someone breaks into your house, and you point your legally owned gun at them and tell them to leave, they could call the police and have you arrested for Menacing?
The answer to that is “it depends”. Whether you’re a Castle Doctrine state or a Duty To Retreat one, whether you were there when they broke in or (like in this thread) deliberately went to find people who had broken into a property you don’t reside in.
It will depend on whether they are a threat to you or your property, and different states have different rules about what may be presumed a threat. If they are not a threat - that is, they are simply standing on your lawn doing nothing - it is far more likely to be illegal than if they kicked in your door, grabbed your jewellery and shouted that they were going to kill you if you didn’t back off. Although in the latter case, if you had a gun and didn’t shoot them you’d be foolish.
It’s also worth bearing in mind that what’s technically illegal and what’s in practice actionable are very different, both because it’s unlikely someone would report being threatened in that situation as it would mean admitting to a crime themselves, and because plenty of police departments would turn the other way to it happening.
And he claims to know more about the case than the jury. :(:rolleyes: