Guns And Threats: A Thought Experiment

Great Debates
21

When I originally cooked this scenario up, I was thinking about a couple of then-recent events: the Trayvon Martin shooting and an incident in Texas where a buncha guys walked into a restaurant carrying rifles. In the picture I saw, one of these people had what appeared to be an M-16 slung across his chest, barrel downward, in a position that would have taken less than a second for him to grab, adjust to firing position, and begin shooting.

I was later told that the rifle in question was an AR-15, the civilian model of the same rifle, but without selective fire. Not being a rifle expert, I couldn’t tell the difference from the picture.

I was struck by Zimmerman’s defense in his trial, which was taken seriously, and got him acquitted, which as far as I could tell, boiled down to “Well, I was shadowing this kid in my car, and he freaked out and ran into this neighborhood, and the police dispatcher told me not to pursue, but I chased him anyway, and he ambushed me, and he tried to get my gun, so I shot him.”

This bothered me greatly. It’s okay to creep somebody out by following him, then chase him down, but if he fights you and you kill him, it’s okay? It got me to thinking about “I felt threatened” as a defense.

It also occurred to me that in parts of Texas, walking into a restaurant brandishing something that looks like an assault rifle is a very likely way to get shot.

Which made me ponder, and made me put myself in the Tom role. I don’t have a concealed carry permit, and I don’t carry a gun in public; I have no need to. But if some ape strolled into a public place where I was minding my own business, brandishing a rifle, what would I do?

The gun nut fringe position these days is “Well, if the teacher had had a gun, she could have returned fire on the little bastard, and potentially saved her own life and all the other children as well.” In practice, I can’t help but think it would lead to the exact scenario I described in the OP: Tom must make a split second decision as to whether this is a lawful and entitled gun activist… or a lunatic who will kill him and everyone else.

And the experiment changes when you change the circumstances, which is why I didn’t say where the McDonalds was. What if it was a theatre in Aurora, Colorado, and someone shot the idiot who walked in with the automatic weapon?

What if Tom was black? What if Jerry was black?

What if Tom had had his family with him?

For the most part, I agree: Tom shouldn’t have shot without more evidence. On the other hand, if he’d waited, how was he to know he wasn’t simply giving Jerry the time he needed to kill someone?

22

This is a very poor summary of the actual defense offered, although I take you at your word that it’s a good summary “as far as you could tell.”

23

Here’s my take on the scenario:

JERRY is a stupid jerkass. If he insists on carrying a long gun in public, it should be in some kind of case or scabbard, or at a minimum slung on his back with a muzzle cap. IMHO, he did the equivalent of walking into the McDonalds holding a pistol in his hand. Maybe not actually pointed at anyone but action-ready.

TOM would be not only justified but prudent in reaching into his jacket, unsnapping his holster, taking any manual safety off his gun and taking his gun in hand, being ready to draw and fire. That said, he was NOT justified in firing without any further indication of threat. The whole point of carry laws is that MWAG != inherent threat

24

What is the legal difference if Tom is a LEO? LEOs have legally shot civilians whose fingers looked like they might be going for a gun (even when there was no gun).

25

septimus: That’s when there is already a confrontation in progress. As when a policeman has stopped a driver and is asking for license and reg. The two are face-to-face, in a situation that involves authority and potential force.

In the restaurant example, no confrontation has happened.

If Tom (as a LEO) walked up to Jerry and said, “So, tell me about this rifle,” and then Jerry twitches in a way that makes Tom think he’s going for the trigger… Well, now there is at least the fig-leaf of a perceived threat.

26

Just because you disapprove of a certain method of carry does not make that method equivalent to brandishing.

27

[QUOTE=Master Wang-Ka]
This bothered me greatly. It’s okay to creep somebody out by following him, then chase him down, but if he fights you and you kill him, it’s okay? It got me to thinking about “I felt threatened” as a defense.
[/QUOTE]
As Bricker points out, this is a description somewhat at odds with the facts of the Martin case as established by the physical and circumstantial evidence.

But the main problem is that a reasonable person interprets being punched in the face, knocked down, and having your head smashed into the ground, as a threat. That same reasonable person does not react to the mere sight of a rifle as such a threat. And it is the “reasonable person” standard that is applicable in law.

Regards,
Shodan

28

Shodan: I agree. On the other hand, if a creepy man was following me in his car, and I attempted to evade him, and he leaped out of the car to give chase… what would I do? I’m pretty sure I can’t run as fast as Martin could, and if I thought he was armed, I might well decide my sole chance of survival depended on knocking the crap out of this guy and getting his gun!

It’s well established in Zim’s own testimony: the police dispatcher with which he was in contact told him “Do not pursue. Stay in your car.” Zim did not do this. If he had, no one would have died.

The main thing I got from this case was “In Florida, it’s okay to start a fight with someone and then shoot him if you think you’re gonna lose.” And I very much wondered what might have been different if the kid had been white… but that’s neither here nor there.

I agree, frankly: Tom can’t just shoot someone for having a plainly displayed gun that could be aimed and fired in a second. But I can also see a clever lawyer, in this day and age, arguing otherwise, and succeeding.

29

I’m a pro 2a gun guy and a concealed carrier. I’m also not a fan of open carry, especially of rifles and even moreso in restaurants or places likely to freak gun muggles out unnecessarily. I just don’t think it’s good for the cause. The exception for me would be in places where open carrying a long gun is your only legal way to carry I suppose.

A single point (of attachment to the rifle) sling is a very common method of slinging an AR; though for open carry most knowledgeable people would opt to use a two-point sling with the gun over the back pointed down. It’s just a lot less threatening.

However simply walking into a place with a legal weapon could never be construed as threat enough to draw, much less fire on. Jerry would have to grip and at least begin to raise the weapon before a reasonable man in that circumstance could be considered justified in shooting.

Tom would go to jail in nearly any locality in the US though I don’t think murder 1 would stick due to it not being premeditated.

Something that a lot of people incorrectly tend to believe about concealed carriers is that we’re cowboys just itching for something to happen so we can blaze away movie-style to save the day and be heroes. All the carriers I know (and I know quite a few through matches and various ranges I frequent) are extremely law abiding and quite established and the last thing we want is the life-changing emotional, legal and financial ramifications of even a fully justified self defense shooting. I’m not saying the cowboys don’t exist, but IME they’re definitely the exception.

30

Was this an order not to escalate, with the authority of a police command? Or was it a suggestion by an emergency operator for Zimmerman’s safety? The police never want any civvie to engage a suspicious person, but afaik as long as it doesn’t rise to the level of assault, there’s no law against it.

31

Whether there’s a crime is determined by the state. But if I were making the law, I would make it a crime to have Tom shoot Jerry, my reasoning being that while I’m not exactly upset that one gun nut killed an even nuttier gun nut, I don’t want people to go around thinking they’re justified in shooting simply because they are afraid. Justification must be backed up with something, either the guy brandishing a weapon or yelling for everyone to freeze or whatever. To me, your fears are irrelevant. If you’re going to bear the responsibility for being able to kill someone with a flick of your fingers, then you had better well be damn sure the situation calls for it. That means assessing the situation and waiting until there’s little doubt there’s actually a good reason to use your weapon, then you can use it. If that puts you in more danger, then so be it

32

He was found not guilty because the state could not get a jury of 12 to agree that it was not self defense.

At the time Zimmerman shot the kid, I agree that he was probably getting his ass kicked I also believed that he deserved getting his ass kicked.

We only heard one side of the story but if the kid had survived the gunshot, he might have told an entirely different story. One where Zimmerman gets out of his truck to confront the kid (rather than to read a street sign in his own neighborhood, why the fuck would you do that).

33

The dispatcher who told Zim to stay in his car, to my knowledge, was not issuing any kind of “police order.” It was simply the sane thing to do, particularly since Martin hadn’t actually been seen doing anything illegal, and it’s rather natural to get creeped out by someone following you in a car.

Nevertheless, based on everything I’ve read, Zim was just too eager to play cowboy. Nevertheless, a jury found him not guilty, which to me says a lot about the power of lawyers and the difference between attitudes in one place and another.

And it helped lead me to this experiment. Nearly everyone says “Tom was reckless and foolish and is guilty of at least negligence, if not murder.” But I’ve heard a vocal minority swear up and down that if someone wanders into your vicinity with a weapon close at hand, you might well be screwed if you don’t shoot first.

I’ve also noticed a bit of this attitude with the NRA’s constant insistence that “if those poor victims had all had guns, they coulda shot back!” Yeah, well, kinda hard to “shoot back” when you have allowed the shooter to shoot first. True, he can only shoot so many at a time, and a churchful of armed people could certainly have turned things into a merry firefight…

34

Any links to any examples from that vocal minority?

35

Based on what I remember from the Tom & Jerry show, the most likely outcome is that Tom’s bullet would miss, ricochet around the room until it hit and severed the rope suspending an anvil that for some unexplained reason was precariously hanging over Tom’s chair, giving Tom a concussion that is so severe that miniature cuckoo birds fly in a circle around his head.

36

Or Jerry sticks his finger in the muzzle of Tom’s gun, causing it to explode in Tom’s face, leaving his face blackened with soot.

37

No.

38

Tom loses in the end. Tom always loses in the end.

39

The NRA have been promoting the philosophy of “Be armed at all times for safety; against bad guys with guns”

The only way this makes sense is if you can shoot someone before they shoot someone else. Either that or be very very very good with a gun, and be just as good with eye hand and all mental functions. But not everybody can be Timothy Olyphant. Is this realistic for all those the NRA would prefer were armed?

If you have to wait under the law, before shooting someone who is threatening to you, what’s the point? Is this organization incapable of critical thought about what it is saying?

I can’t help but wonder has anyone here read about anything outside of their “carry” jurisdiction. Like specifically, South Africa, and a certain Olympian?

40

Part of the difficulty is those like myself who are not gun enthusiasts hear too little of this sort of rhetoric. Instead I hear things that lead me to question the quality of the gun holders’ risk assessment. I’m not just talking about the media. I’m talking about this message board. I’m more impressed by concealed carry folk who stress what they don’t do and stress the responsibilities of ownership. I’m less impressed with those who claim that wielding a gun safely is oh-so-easy and only involves 3 or 4 simple rules, none of which involve eg alcohol or sobriety. If there were an organization of gun enthusiasts that was pro-science and pro-risk assessment, I’d be inclined to hand the gun control legislation over to them. But since there isn’t, I trend towards mockery at times.

Also, “Muggles” I think is a good counterpoint to gun nut. The subtext is that muggles are naive and ignorant while gun nuts are fanatics. Methinks there’s more than a gram of truth in both characterizations.