Guns And Threats: A Thought Experiment

[Master_Wang-Ka]

First of all, I don’t wanna argue about gun control. I am not anti-gun. I’m anti-idiot. Regrettably, the process of legally restricting and controlling idiots has historically run into problems due to our bad habit of electing them to Congress.

But I have a thought experiment involving various events and factors from recent history, and I wanna throw it out there and see what folks think. I am interested in your input, so feel free to rant away.

THE EXPERIMENT:

We will begin with two white adult men. TOM and JERRY.

TOM is sitting in a public venue, legally minding his own business. For purposes of this example, I will put him in a McDonalds restaurant, eating a hamburger. Tom also has a concealed carry permit, and a legally owned and licensed handgun, which he has holstered under his windbreaker.

JERRY is a gun enthusiast, although he and TOM have never met. JERRY has a legally obtained and licensed AR-15 rifle, which is now slung across his chest, easily accessible. And because he is a big Second Amendment advocate, he is walking into that same McDonalds, ostensibly to buy and eat some Chicken McNuggets while showing everyone that he advocates and enjoys his Second Amendment rights.

As JERRY is walking into the restaurant, TOM glances up from his Big Mac and sees a man armed with an assault rifle walking into the store. He draws and fires his handgun once, hitting JERRY in the forehead, killing him instantly.

Naturally, the police are called; TOM remains calm and present, and surrenders his weapon to the officers on the scene when arrested. No one else is hurt, although many people’s calm is shattered, and there will be much laundering of underwear.

When TOM is interrogated, he explains that he carries a handgun for self defense, and he saw an armed man enter the store with an assault rifle. With only a second or two to make his decision, it occurred to him that perhaps an armed maniac had entered, and intended to kill everyone in the McDonalds. TOM felt THREATENED, and decided to shoot first, in self defense, despite the fact that all JERRY did was walk in.

My question: Has a crime been committed, and if so, by whom? And who, if anyone, is culpable for this terrible thing? TOM, the shooter? JERRY, the activist? Barack Obama? The NRA? Ronald McDonald?

Go nuts, folks. I’m interested.

[Velocity]

I think the shooting was unjustified. Tom’s actions would only be justified if Jerry had opened fire first.

[Velocity]

Added comment: Sure, Tom may have FELT threatened, but until or unless Jerry actually commenced a killing spree, Tom’s feelings simply weren’t justifiable enough.

[Trinopus]

Technically, yes, the crime was when Tom shot a man who was not actually posing a threat.

You can’t just say “I felt threatened” to justify the use of lethal force.

The security camera footage from the restaurant will bear out that Jerry was not behaving in a threatening manner. Tom jumped the gun (so to speak), and needs to be prosecuted for it.

[Master_Wang-Ka]

Note, however, that an AR-15 much resembles its counterpart, the M-16 assault rifle. Had TOM waited, and JERRY turned out to be a maniac, he might have died in a hail of gunfire as JERRY avenged himself on the alien lizard people who made his wife divorce him, or whatever!

At least, this is TOM’s justification. Is it not valid?

[John_Mace]

@Master_Wang-Ka

First of all, I don’t wanna argue about gun control.

Ha! Come on. We all know how these threads always end up.

And an AR-15 is not an “assault rifle”.

And you did not specify which state this happens in.

[Velocity]

@Master_Wang-Ka

Note, however, that an AR-15 much resembles its counterpart, the M-16 assault rifle. Had TOM waited, and JERRY turned out to be a maniac, he might have died in a hail of gunfire as JERRY avenged himself on the alien lizard people who made his wife divorce him, or whatever!

At least, this is TOM’s justification. Is it not valid?

Of course not. It’s insufficient threat.

No offense, but…is this thread asking a rhetorical question/fishing for “of course it’s unjustified!” responses?

[DinoR]

@Master_Wang-Ka

At least, this is TOM’s justification. Is it not valid?

If I’m on his jury I don’t remotely consider a weapon slung across the chest as presenting a reasonable threat justifying use of deadly force. Slung in a position that doesn’t immediately present a threat in a state with open carry laws isn’t enough.

[Shodan]

@Master_Wang-Ka

Note, however, that an AR-15 much resembles its counterpart, the M-16 assault rifle. Had TOM waited, and JERRY turned out to be a maniac, he might have died in a hail of gunfire as JERRY avenged himself on the alien lizard people who made his wife divorce him, or whatever!

At least, this is TOM’s justification. Is it not valid?

No, of course it isn’t valid.

You claimed that your hypothetical is based on various events and factors from recent history. What do you think those events are? I could have missed it, but I am not aware of a CCW permit carrier simply shooting another person on sight, absent any previous history.

I don’t think it is gun owners who panic at cosmetic features on rifles. That’s mostly liberals who do that.

Anyway, TOM has committed a crime - likely manslaughter or something similar.

Regards,
Shodan

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Velocity

I think the shooting was unjustified. Tom’s actions would only be justified if Jerry had opened fire first.

That’s how people wind up in a casket, Tom would say.
If Tom could credibly demonstrate that he was unaware of open carry activism, I think he would have a reasonable case for extenuating circumstances. It would be difficult though, as I understand some use AR-15s as hunting rifles. The fact that the rifle is being carried on Jerry’s front as opposed to his back works in Tom’s favor.

John Mace makes a salient point: a lot of this turns on state law. I understand that there’s variance even between states that have passed stand your ground laws. My personal take is that Tom should go to prison as he did not use proportional force. But as a jury member I would be charged to interpret local law. Recommendation: pick 3-4 states and run the scenarios.

[Dallas_Jones]

Tom has committed cold blooded murder. Jerry made no threat toward Tom.

If just having possession of a gun could be deemed a threat, well Tom was the first threat. Open carry, concealed carry, the only difference is that you know who has a gun. That is it period.

Tom should be up for first degree murder.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Dallas_Jones

Tom should be up for first degree murder.

I agree that the prosecutor should certainly consider that charge.

What’s the motive?

[AdamF]

What if I add a few details:
This is a quite suburban town, where open-carry people are unprecedented. Jerry walks into the restaurant with AR-15 slung across his chest. Everybody goes still, few people jump up from their seats, a small child screams. Tom, who was listening to music on his iPod hears the scream. He looks up, sees a man with an assault rifle. He cannot see the man’s hands. He recalls a mass shooting incident in another state that was all over the media a few months back. He pulls his gun and shoots Jerry dead.

In such case, would a jury convict Tom?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Yes. Jerry’s not black. But as to the question presented, Tom has certainly committed a crime. Rightly or wrongly, in most US jurisdictions carrying a rifle across one’s back is not a crime, nor does it justify deadly force.

[Czarcasm]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Yes. Jerry’s not black. But as to the question presented, Tom has certainly committed a crime. Rightly or wrongly, in most US jurisdictions carrying a rifle across one’s back is not a crime, nor does it justify deadly force.

Small correction-in the scenario, it’s strapped across his chest, not his back. Not enough reason to kill a man, in my opinion…but perhaps a non-emergency call to the local police because strapping an AR-15 across your chest just ain’t normal.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Same analysis. But I agree that calling the non-emergency line is not an unreasonable response if this is unusual behavor where Tom is.

[Trinopus]

@Dallas_Jones

Tom has committed cold blooded murder. Jerry made no threat toward Tom. . . .

No, it isn’t “cold blooded.” He (mistakenly) perceived a threat. It’s a bad mistake, but it moves the case well away from intentional murder with malice aforethought, etc.

It’s a criminal act; no need to make it out to be worse than it really is.

(And I’m a huge gun-control advocate.)

[Trinopus]

@AdamF

What if I add a few details:
This is a quite suburban town, where open-carry people are unprecedented. Jerry walks into the restaurant with AR-15 slung across his chest. Everybody goes still, few people jump up from their seats, a small child screams. Tom, who was listening to music on his iPod hears the scream. He looks up, sees a man with an assault rifle. He cannot see the man’s hands. He recalls a mass shooting incident in another state that was all over the media a few months back. He pulls his gun and shoots Jerry dead.

In such case, would a jury convict Tom?

All those details would help him out in his trial. We, from our perfect objectivity here, can say, no, those facts still don’t justify his opening fire. But juries are weird, and can decide just about anything, any time. His defense will argue that the situation appeared (“to a reasonable person”) to be a gun crime in the unfolding, and Tom acted to stop it.

As a juror, I’d say no. The poor bastard panicked. I hope the other jurors would agree. Panic is not a valid defense against manslaughter.

(I was once driving in a parking lot, and thought I saw a man with a rifle that was pointed at me. It was actually a leg of a camera tripod. If I’d shot him – or run him down with my car – would my mistake be a sufficient defense in court? I hope not!)

[pkbites]

@Velocity

Tom’s actions would only be justified if Jerry had opened fire first.

Hate to nitpick but this is not correct.

If Jerry had made certain statements (“This is a robbery!” “Die, fuckers!” etc.) Tom could have made a case for shooting without Jerry firing a single shot or even touching his weapon.

Per the OP though Tom is going to have a tough time articulating and justifying feeling like his life was in danger when Jerry appears to have been doing nothing to cause that feeling. The act of open carry alone is not a use of or threat of force.

Some people are panicky sheep though, and I’m surprised that such incidents don’t occur more often in real life. About 3 years ago I took a complaint from a motorcyclist who said he was run off the road on the freeway by someone in a car that made several attempts to do so. The motorcyclist claimed he had no altercations with the other driver and felt perhaps the guy in the car did it because he [the motorcyclist] was openly carrying a pistol in a hip holster. Unfortunately he didn’t get a plate and that section of freeway didn’t have camera coverage. So I never was able to find the driver of the car and question them.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@AdamF

What if I add a few details:
This is a quite suburban town, where open-carry people are unprecedented. Jerry walks into the restaurant with AR-15 slung across his chest. Everybody goes still, few people jump up from their seats, a small child screams. Tom, who was listening to music on his iPod hears the scream. He looks up, sees a man with an assault rifle. He cannot see the man’s hands. He recalls a mass shooting incident in another state that was all over the media a few months back. He pulls his gun and shoots Jerry dead.

In such case, would a jury convict Tom?

Alternatively:

Tom sees the threat and pulls out the weapon. Jerry sees Tom, is startled, and flinches involuntarily - this is caught in the surveillance cameras. Tom sees the flinch and opens fire.

“Remember, seconds count,” the defense says. But the surveillance cameras don’t indicate a reach per se. Jerry intended no bodily harm, other than anxiety.
I would need to know more about the US jurisdiction to decide whether Tom should be charged.