Argument with victim's Brother


PDA






Yo Mama
July 28, 2011, 06:15 PM
I was speaking with someone whose Brother was shot by a citizen being mugged. The citizen tried to shoot the mugger, and missed hitting his Brother's arm making him paralyzed.

I tried to forward my belief that this citizen as horrible as it is should be blamed and not the gun. He replied that he blamed lax gun laws. It was like hitting my head on the wall to explain that plenty of laws exist to make what happened an offense punishable by law. His response was that this would not give his Brother his arm back.

If you enjoyed reading about "Argument with victim's Brother" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
chhodge69
July 28, 2011, 06:22 PM
please forgive me but in this case Gun Control could have helped.

He wouldn't have missed.

CAR-AR
July 28, 2011, 06:25 PM
I'm sure a lawsuit won't get the brother's arm back.

Mike1234567
July 28, 2011, 06:27 PM
It's a far too emotional issue for that individual for anyone to try and force him to see logically. Don't even try.

NavyLCDR
July 28, 2011, 06:29 PM
It was the mugger who paralyzed the brother's arm, plain and simple. America has totally abandoned the idea of blaming criminals for anything.

DoubleTapDrew
July 28, 2011, 06:30 PM
That's a rare occurance and there is probably nothing you can do to change that person's mind. It's unfortunate and thankfully rare. You are probably more likely to be shot/paralyzed/killed by police involved in a shootout. Should they be disarmed?

USAF_Vet
July 28, 2011, 06:32 PM
this is a case of a certified self defense shooting gone awry. Rule #4 was violated, know what is behind your intended target.

Although, I can only blame the shooter/ mugging victim if and only if lethal force was not required. Innocent bystanders get shot, and that sucks. But I guess the brother would have rather seen a complete stranger get killed than see his brother injured. No sarcasm there, because if it were me, I'd rather someone I didn't know get mugged and possibly killed than see my brother injured.

Ultimaetly though, the blame does lie with the criminla who instigated the entire situation.

NavyLCDR
July 28, 2011, 06:34 PM
You are probably more likely to be shot/paralyzed/killed by police involved in a shootout. Should they be disarmed?

Police should only be disarmed in states where the citizens are required to be disarmed. But that's probably off topic.

Ala Dan
July 28, 2011, 06:34 PM
Accidents do happen, all of the time~! So sorry this guy suffered from an ill
aimed shot; but that can be the nature of self defense business~! :( ;)

USAF_Vet
July 28, 2011, 06:40 PM
Kinda makes me wonder more about the situation. Was lethal force neccessary? How much training did the mugging victim have? What state did this occur, and what CCW requirements do they have?

As much as it is the muggers fault, a lot of people will ask what could have been done to prevent this.

Justin
July 28, 2011, 07:53 PM
You're highly unlikely to win this person as a convert. Better to focus on forms of activism that are more likely to get results.

Deltaboy
July 28, 2011, 07:58 PM
Just walk away Yo and pray for all of them. IMO it is the muggers fault. But in this personal case you will not win and just lose a friend.

JustinJ
July 28, 2011, 09:04 PM
There are costs to liberty. We are free to own cars but thousands upon thousands are killed and maimed by them each year. If this person's brother lost his arm in a car accident would they advocate outlawing cars?

It's highly unlikely you will convert this person but this is exactly why laws shouldn't be made based upon emotional responses. Every time i hear about some parent lobbying with some opportunistic politician to get a law passed because of something bad that happend to their child i cringe. A "conservative" congressman from my area is currently trying to get a law passed to create a federal data base of undiagnosed childrens' diseases bc some parent came to him for help all while he calls for lower taxes.

george29
July 28, 2011, 09:07 PM
Most people don't believe how hard a hit is to achieve in real circumstances.

Mike1234567
July 28, 2011, 09:10 PM
Police should only be disarmed in states where the citizens are required to be disarmed. But that's probably off topic.

Ooh... then we'd be just like merry old England.

MachIVshooter
July 28, 2011, 09:38 PM
Accidents do happen, all of the time~! So sorry this guy suffered from an ill
aimed shot; but that can be the nature of self defense business~!

This. People get maimed and killed everywhere in the world, every single day. Doesn't really matter if it was a stray bullet, a car accident or the gratuitous piano falling from a hoist 10 stories up. #!@* happens, nothin' you can do about it. There is no way to guarantee you won't get injured, not even by staying in your fortified home 24/7. Lightning, earthquakes floods. It is an extremely lucky person who makes it through their entire life without ever being in a gravely dangerous situation. A greater percentage manage to get through those perilous events unscathed or with only minor injuries, but so many are less fortunate and wind up with chronic pain for life, debilitating handicaps, etc.

In this case, there just happens to be human behavior/error to blame.

Any of our lives can be changed in an instant by a stupid decision (our own or someone elses), or just by chance. If you ask me, though, we as a species wouldn't appreciate life if those dangers didn't exist

That said, even drawing these parallels or using similar philosophies, you'll never change this guy's mind. Don't waste your breath.

scaatylobo
July 28, 2011, 10:24 PM
Putting myself in that mans shoes,I see that if I were not already very 2 nd amendment educated than I could go to the dark side and blame the gun.

Standard in our society is to blame an object for the actions of the shooter,and in this case it was the ACTIONS of the prep that are to blame.

But he will not see the forest for the trees,so dont bother.

DAP90
July 28, 2011, 11:10 PM
Itís all well and good to sit in front of your computer and say oh well, people get injured every day. While that may be true it makes it no less painful for those involved.

I donít blame lax gun laws. I do think the mugger is responsible for creating the situation and I really hope heís in jail, but it is not ok for us to miss and hit innocent people.

If it were my family member that got hit I would want to know that the shooter had no other choice but to fire. He had better have been seconds from death. If this was just because he didnít want to give up the $50 in his wallet then I would beÖ angry.

Would any of you trade your arm so somebody else didnít have to get mugged?

DoubleTapDrew
July 28, 2011, 11:20 PM
Would any of you trade your arm so somebody else didn’t have to get mugged?
We don't have enough details of the incident to answer that.
It could be anything from "I lost my arm because he didn't want to give up the $20 bill he had in his wallet"
to
"I watched some poor guy get killed today by a mugger for the $20 he had in his wallet...and the victim was armed but didn't do anything"

Yo Mama
July 28, 2011, 11:26 PM
It's a far too emotional issue for that individual for anyone to try and force him to see logically. Don't even try.

So I'm realizing this now.

jonmerritt
July 28, 2011, 11:30 PM
Na, the victim should have let himself be mugged, robbed, stabbed, raped or what ever else the criminal wanted to do. Remember, we gota protect those criminals.
Even if the criminal decided not to mug the guy, putting the victim in a situation to defend himself, it would still be someone elses fault, not the criminals. May be ho should have been somewhere else so he didn't get shot in the arm.
This sounds like a lot of BS!

Japman
July 28, 2011, 11:30 PM
Why even bring the subject up, and why even push the issue.

People like give us a bad name--you're no better than the "anti" that constantly pushes the issue.

Yo Mama
July 28, 2011, 11:32 PM
It just gets hard when you believe to your core in the 2nd and what it means to freedom.

NavyLCDR
July 28, 2011, 11:57 PM
Would any of you trade your arm so somebody else didn’t have to get mugged?

It's better than becoming a nation full of victims because only criminals can fire guns.

DAP90
July 29, 2011, 12:20 AM
It's better than becoming a nation full of victims because only criminals can fire guns.


What I am mainly objecting to here is the ďoh wellĒ attitude. This guy lost the use of his arm. His life is irrevocably changed.

If it were my family, that is not worth the contents of a wallet or the idea that you donít want to be a victim.

Congrats on the promotion by the way.

LibShooter
July 29, 2011, 12:29 AM
Yo... leave this guy alone. His family is dealing with a real live tragedy in which a gun played a starring role. Don't try to score a political victory on an emotional issue.

NavyLCDR
July 29, 2011, 01:59 AM
If it were my family, that is not worth the contents of a wallet or the idea that you donít want to be a victim.

Congrats on the promotion by the way.

Thank you.

Which is less tragic, a person who is injured with a paralyzed arm because someone defended themselves against a criminal attack, or a person being injured by the criminal in an attack? There isn't a winner, but personally, I would harbor no ill feelings towards the shooter so long as it was evident the shooting was justified. Why? Simple, the shooter didn't do anything that I would not do, I will attempt to defend myself with my gun, that is the exact reason why I carry it.

If the shooting was justified, there is ONE person to blame, and only ONE person to blame - that is the criminal. Unfortunately, the lawyers of the innocent victim of the errant round won't go after the criminal, because the criminal likely has no money - they will go after the victim of the crime and continue to victimize them for all they can get.

Is anybody taking into account the feelings and the effects that the victim of the crime is having? How do you think they feel, first being attacked by a criminal, and then living the results of their attempts to stop the attack.

Neverwinter
July 29, 2011, 02:08 AM
Na, the victim should have let himself be mugged, robbed, stabbed, raped or what ever else the criminal wanted to do. Remember, we gota protect those criminals.
Even if the criminal decided not to mug the guy, putting the victim in a situation to defend himself, it would still be someone elses fault, not the criminals. May be ho should have been somewhere else so he didn't get shot in the arm.
This sounds like a lot of BS!I understand now. Maybe the shooter shouldn't have been there to get mugged.

Unfortunately, the lawyers of the innocent victim of the errant round won't go after the criminal, because the criminal likely has no money - they will go after the victim of the crime and continue to victimize them for all they can get.There are no courses of action which would allow for the lawyers of the victim to get reimbursement from a person who doesn't have any money. If the mugging victim has the money, that is the only source of compensation for the decrease in quality of life for the gunshot victim. An insurance plan would be the best case scenario for this kind of situation by allowing the shooter to avoid a large upfront cost.

Sav .250
July 29, 2011, 08:59 AM
Wrong place....wrong time

When it happens to you (who ever) they have a much different take on the issue.

I`m sure if that situation happened to some orher person, that guy would have cared less.

olafhardtB
July 29, 2011, 09:17 AM
It is the criminals fault period!!! That said why were the victims there. Of course they had a right, but now they also have grief and injury. In the final essence the individual is responsible for his own welfare. This is what the second admendment is about. But if you are right and get hurt you are still hurt. They were TWO victims.

MyGreenGuns
July 29, 2011, 09:28 AM
#3
#5
#7
Thats what I was going to say.

MachIVshooter
July 29, 2011, 09:30 AM
What I am mainly objecting to here is the ďoh wellĒ attitude. This guy lost the use of his arm. His life is irrevocably changed.

I don't think that's the sentiment at all. As has been said, we don't know the situation, so we can't play monday morning quarterback on how the defender could have done things differently. All we can say for sure is that the entire incident is the fault of the criminal, and that crippling accidents happen every day to people who do not deserve to be injured. Sometimes there is a person to blame, sometimes there isn't. It sucks, but that's life.

On a personal note, and from the viewpoint of someone who had a father and stepmother that were victims of a firearm homicide, I do not, cannot and will not ever understand blaming the tool. Some of my extended family in NY went the guns are to blame route (they were already anti). Me? I keep a dog and arm myself to the teeth to make sure it doesn't happen to me.

If it were my family, that is not worth the contents of a wallet or the idea that you donít want to be a victim.

None of us feel that it would be, but that can change under the circumstances. Say after the fact, you come to find out that the mugger had killed some of his victims in the past, and that the defender who accidentally injured you or you family may have been next, not to mention countless others in the future. Of course you'll still be a little bitter, but people frequently manage to make peace with these situations. Hell, if you don't, your quality of life will go down the pooper.

Dude's brother was a secondary victim of the mugging. He could just as easily have been the primary, and just as easily have been injured or killed by the mugger. If this guy can't understand that, then there is no hope for him and he will be eaten alive by his own antipathy. Harboring malevolence like that is extremely self-destructive.

Loosedhorse
July 29, 2011, 09:33 AM
I tried to forward my belief that this citizen as horrible as it is should be blamed and not the gun. He replied that he blamed lax gun laws.Agree with previous comments: this is primarily the mugger's fault. And trying to talk logic to a grieving, angry person doesn't often work.
Which is less tragic, a person who is injured with a paralyzed arm because someone defended themselves against a criminal attack, or a person being injured by the criminal in an attack?What is least tragic is avoiding shooting at all. Just me, but I'd be pretty angry if I had a paralyzed arm because some guy who can't apparently shoot straight--do we know if he ever even practiced?--decided to "bust a cap" at a supposed (unarmed?) mugger (rather than part with $20), and hit me instead! Not saying that's what happened...but exacly what did happen? There is a reason that shootings are investigated, and that "defenders" sometimes face criminal or civil trial.It is the criminals fault period!!!Maybe. We don't know the details, and certain details would put a lot of the fault on the shooter, as I implied above.Maybe the shooter shouldn't have been there to get mugged.Well, now that you mention it, where were they and when? If they were all hanging out in a dark alley adjacent to a bar (or worse) at 3AM? Well, one of the reasons I avoid such places and such times is the higher meteorological probabilty of airborne lead precipitation in those areas at those times.

Many questions, and they should be answered before we use sweeping statements like it was all the gun's fault--or it was all the mugger's fault.

DAP90
July 29, 2011, 10:44 AM
I don't think that's the sentiment at all.

These are what I was referring to.

There are costs to liberty.Most people don't believe how hard a hit is to achieve in real circumstances.Accidents do happen, all of the time~! So sorry this guy suffered from an ill aimed shot; but that can be the nature of self defense business This. People get maimed and killed everywhere in the world, every single day. Doesn't really matter if it was a stray bullet, a car accident or the gratuitous piano falling from a hoist 10 stories up.It does matter. A stray bullet that didnít need to be fired, a car accident caused by someone texting or a gratuitous piano falling because somebody didnít take the proper safety precautions elicit a different response from me then a necessary shooting or a true accident.

I just saw a somewhat cavalier attitude about the guy who ended up getting shot. I was grouchy last night and that may have colored my responses and perception.

NoirFan
July 29, 2011, 12:03 PM
This is NOT the mugger's fault. Did the mugger misalign the sights? Did the mugger pull the trigger? Gun people yammer on about the NRA Four Rules all the day long but when something like this happens they circle the wagons and defend "their own" just like any other clique.

The mugger is responsible for the mugging and should be judged accordingly. The shooter is responsible for not knowing his backstop and should be judged accordingly. Two completely seperate issues.

Would you all be so forgiving if the shooter was a cop?

USAF_Vet
July 29, 2011, 01:09 PM
It has been common and codified law that all injuries sustained during the commission of a crime are the responsibility of the individual perpetrating that crime.

Not long ago there was a thread where a self defense shooting took the life of a man who was assaulting him. The dead mans father, who was also involved in the attack, was held on charges of the murder of son. the one who actually fired the gun, killing his assailant, walk away free and clear as I recall.

So in the eyes of the law, the mugger IS at fault for the shot fired in self defense. Had he chosen to not attempt to rob his intended victim, the shot would never have been fired. There is a chain of events that start and end with the mugger.

NoirFan
July 29, 2011, 01:46 PM
It has been common and codified law that all injuries sustained during the commission of a crime are the responsibility of the individual perpetrating that crime.


If this is true (and I'm not saying it's not) does that put to rest any concerns of overpenetration and collateral damage? If this case were a little bit different, and the shooter blasted through the mugger with a .44 magnum hardcast before hitting the brother's arm, does he bear no legal burden for the arm injury?

That aside, legal responsibility and moral responsibility are two different things. The shooter is not absolved of the moral responsibility for the injury caused by not knowing his backstop.

USAF_Vet
July 29, 2011, 02:01 PM
the shooter blasted through the mugger with a .44 magnum hardcast before hitting the brother's arm, does he bear no legal burden for the arm injury?

As I understand it, yes.


That aside, legal responsibility and moral responsibility are two different things. The shooter is not absolved of the moral responsibility for the injury caused by not knowing his backstop

No argument here at all, see post #7, my first comment on this was to point out a Rule #4 vilation.
I can play Devil's Advocate here and see things from all sides (except for the muggers).

The shooter, if in fear for his life, had every right to fire his weapon (depending on the laws of his given state). Things go wrong, but things could have been much worse. If attacked by someone intent on greivous harm done to my person, I honestly can't say I'm going to check and see what/ who is behind the guy trying to kill me. I going to send high velocity lead into him, as many times as I can until I know the threat is over. The alternative, my death, is not the better option over collateral damage.

As the victim of inflicted collateral damage, I'm royally PO'd. Walking through the park, minding my own business, I don't expect to get shot, regardless of the circumstances. I'll be upset with the gun owner, who could be portrayed as irresponsible, but I'm going to kick the tail off that mugger, because he is to blame.

Would you all be so forgiving if the shooter was a cop?

That's a toss up. We hold cops to a higher standard, whether they deserve it or not. We consider them to be better trained, when often are they are not. We feel they have a duty to protect and serve, even if that is not true. So any police associated collateral damage will be more heavily scrutinized by the public. And where there are cops, there is a city with deep pockets. Who is more likely to be sued, successfully, the cops, or the mugger?

hermannr
July 29, 2011, 02:56 PM
I respond that maybe if the mugger had not tried to rub the shooter, he might not have been shot?

The big problem is a lot of the youth today have been taught that "society owes it to them" and if it is not freely given, you deserve the right to take it, by force if necessary.

rondog
July 29, 2011, 03:22 PM
His brother shouldn't have been involved in mugging someone. Price ya gotta pay for being a criminal.

DAP90
July 29, 2011, 03:35 PM
His brother shouldn't have been involved in mugging someone. Price ya gotta pay for being a criminal.

I respond that maybe if the mugger had not tried to rub the shooter, he might not have been shot?

I think you've misunderstood the thread/OP.

GEM
July 29, 2011, 03:35 PM
If it is the case (can we have a reference to the incident, link of a story, please), that the guy was minding his own business - then the shooter has some responsibility, it would seem.

Thus, if you were the shooter and the victim (paralyzed guy) sues you, do you tell your insurance company or lawyer to settle or do you fight it?

Your insurance company might just settle over your wishes.

You might have taken away someone's livelihood.

BTW, in FOF, I've been 'shot' by a participant who didn't need to shoot. That was a lesson to all.

NavyLCDR
July 29, 2011, 03:53 PM
This is NOT the mugger's fault. Did the mugger misalign the sights? Did the mugger pull the trigger? Gun people yammer on about the NRA Four Rules all the day long but when something like this happens they circle the wagons and defend "their own" just like any other clique.

The mugger is responsible for the mugging and should be judged accordingly. The shooter is responsible for not knowing his backstop and should be judged accordingly. Two completely seperate issues.

Would you all be so forgiving if the shooter was a cop?

Very easy for you to say from the safety of behind the internet keyboard. Now, try saying the same thing on the street, with a criminal attacking you.

"Excuse me, Mr. Mugger, please don't hit me with that bat, or please don't stab me with that knife until you step to left a little. I notice that there is a guy walking down the street behind you, and I don't want to hit them by accident. Oh, and please, would you mind standing still, I want to make sure and shoot you and not anyone else, and it's pretty hard to hit a moving target. You cooperation is greatly appreciated, thank you for being such a considerate criminal."

If the cop was being attacked, yes I would be just as forgiving. If the shot in self defense and stopped shooting when the threat was over.

To you all blaming the shooter on this one - we sincerely hope you never have to be in the shooters shoes, being attacked by a criminal and have to defend yourself during a violent attack. The time you take to look behind the criminal and to properly aim like you do on the target range may be the diference between you walking away or being gravely injured or killed.

DAP90
July 29, 2011, 05:00 PM
I’m not blaming the shooter; he has a right to defend himself. I am saying I hope it was worth it. I hope he really was about to die and this wasn’t just about a wallet or an ideal. From where I sit it seems like the bystander has suffered the most.

We’ll probably never know.

NoirFan
July 29, 2011, 05:25 PM
Very easy for you to say from the safety of behind the internet keyboard. Now, try saying the same thing on the street, with a criminal attacking you.

There are two participants here with rights that I care about. The shooter has a right to defend himself against violent attack. The brother has a right to not be shot. Ever heard the phrase, "My right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose?" Carrying a gun gives you a "fist" with hundreds of yards of lethal range. If you choose to use it in self-defense you bear the moral burden for any unintended consequences.

Again, this is not a legal indictment because I don't know enough about self-defense law to condemn the shooter or not. This is a moral indictment and I stand by that.

henschman
July 29, 2011, 05:36 PM
I think your best argument here is to state that you are more likely to be hit by stray gunfire from a policeman than you are by an armed citizen, and ask him whether he thinks they should be disarmed too. You might also mention that innocents always get injured or killed in wars, and ask him whether this means that our country should never go to war, even if we are attacked first.

Tread lightly -- this is obviously a very emotional issue for the guy. Don't get too heated, just try to stay cool, collected, and logical.

MachIVshooter
July 29, 2011, 05:43 PM
the shooter blasted through the mugger with a .44 magnum hardcast before hitting the brother's arm, does he bear no legal burden for the arm injury

As I understand it, yes.


That's not how that law works. The defender who fired the shots may or may not be held accountable in the eyes of the law. That's going to depend on every aspect of the incident and the DA's perception of it. However, the person who precipitated the criminal act that led up to it absolutely will be.

The statute here in CO is more specific to homicide, it's called felony murder. What it means is that, whether or not it was the intended consequence or even directly the fault of the criminal, if someone dies during the commission of a felony, the perpetrator(s) get charged with felony murder. There could be 6 robbers and a getaway driver outside, all unarmed, and someone trips running away, falls down the stairs and breaks their neck. All 7 conspirators are going down for homicide.

In the instance of SD shooting, the robber/mugger/etc. would be charged with murder if another person died as a result of the crime, even if the cause of death was a stray bullet from the defender's gun. However, the defender would also most likely face legal consequences, probably be charged with something like involuntary manslaughter.

Cosmoline
July 29, 2011, 05:44 PM
Would any of you trade your arm so somebody else didnít have to get mugged?

I'd blame the attack on the criminal, not on the person trying to defend himself. Blaming firearms makes no sense whatsoever. It's like hating cars because a carjacker got in a fight with a driver and the car ran your brother over.

Mike1234567
July 29, 2011, 05:45 PM
No, no, no... no further discussion with the guy especially if your first discussion really did escalate to an arguement. The best advice given thus far is to ---leave---him---alone.

USAF_Vet
July 29, 2011, 05:50 PM
I agree that the OP should just drop the subject. I would like to hear more of the details surrounding the incident itself, but I don't see that happening.

We can all sit around and play armchair general about the facts, but we just don't have enough of them to make any valid arguments. There is too much grey area here to be definitive.

Bozwell
July 29, 2011, 05:52 PM
Noir, I agree with you to the extent that the shooter has some responsibility here, but I also think you can't make the statement that none of this is the mugger's fault. Blame does not have to be accessed in a binary fashion - it's all shades of gray. The shooter is responsibility for every bullet he fires - that's basic firearm safety. If he had closed his eyes and recklessly fired with a preschool class standing behind the mugger, would the shooter be completely blameless? Of course not. He's still responsible for every bullet he fires.

On the other hand, I don't think you can argue that the mugger is absolved of blame in this situation either. But for the mugger's illegal actions, the shooter wouldn't have needed to discharge his weapon. No, the mugger isn't the actual cause of the victim's injuries, but he's certainly a proximate cause.

At the end of the day, both people are at fault, but that's not going to matter to the brother of the victim here. You aren't going to convince the guy of your point, regardless of the merits, because this isn't a scholarly debate to him. This is his brother minding his own business and then getting paralyzed from a stray bullet. Save the debate for forums like this, save your prayers for the victim and his family.

mgmorden
July 29, 2011, 06:02 PM
His brother shouldn't have been involved in mugging someone. Price ya gotta pay for being a criminal.

As has already been pointed out, the guy's brother wasn't the mugger. The person being mugged shot at the mugger, MISSED, and hit his brother who was a bystander.

All in all though, I agree with the others that say that you're not going to be able to reason with this guy. Once you become emotionally vested into a particular issue you're no longer going to be able to logically and reasonably evaluate the issue. It's the same reason why victims families don't get to be on a jury. Despite their pain and need for justice, their emotional investment won't allow them to pass a fair and balanced judgement on the issue.

bigfatdave
July 29, 2011, 08:19 PM
Kinda makes me wonder more about the situation. Was lethal force necessary?
mugging is armed robbery, so YES.
I would want to know that the shooter had no other choice but to fire.
someone threatened their life for the contents of their wallet/pocket ... there is no way that they were obligated to trust in the altruism of their attacker and meekly hand over their property in the hopes they wouldn't be executed or injured.

bigfatdave
July 29, 2011, 08:26 PM
This is NOT the mugger's fault. WRONG!
The person initiating the violent felony caused all subsequent actions.
The defender/victim wouldn't have been randomly slinging lead about if they weren't faced with being the victims of a violent felony and threat to their life.

And, no, I don't think randomly slinging lead is a good plan if mugged, but the odd thing about muggers is that they really dislike armed resistance and make themselves difficult targets to hit ... which is great if they're exiting the area at high speed, not so much if they're still presenting a threat to their victim.

rondog
July 29, 2011, 09:12 PM
Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought the injured party was WITH the mugger and got hit instead. He was just some poor guy in the background? That sucks.

george29
July 29, 2011, 09:54 PM
Most people don't believe how hard a hit is to achieve in real circumstances. Why did I get attacked? All I meant was don't shoot unless you are certain where that bullet is going to hit or there are absolutely no other choice but to shoot. I thought tha was just common sense. Are you calmer now mr Potvin? Perhaps you should keep your trigger-fingers off the keyboard when under emotional duress. Have a Margarita on me bud, life sucks sometimes and all you can do is suck with it.
BTW, there isn't enough info to know if clearing-leather was warranted or whether the shooter intended on shooting (almost sounds like someone cleared leather with their finger inside the trigger guard). On the face of things, the law many times blames the assailant and not the defender so I don't think people here were being cavalier, they were being politically-incorrect and insensitive but they were making a macro point and you are making a minor point and both are right.

DAP90
July 29, 2011, 11:06 PM
Why did I get attacked?
I would not call that an attack. I was responding to a perceived difference of opinion.

All I meant was don't shoot unless you are certain where that bullet is going to hit or there are absolutely no other choice but to shoot.
This is exactly what I want others to remember. Exactly that! When I read your post what I got from it was the exact opposite. Itís hard to hit, therefore, when you miss and a bystander takes a bullet you shouldnít be surprised. No indication that this was a bad thing; just donít be surprised.

Did I read to much into it? Sure, but I'm not the first person to misinterperate posts on the internet.

Believe me George29, I have nothing against you and wouldnít attack you. If I felt we couldnít have a civilized discussion I simply wouldnít respond.

Now, where can I pick up that margarita you offered?

george29
July 30, 2011, 02:58 PM
In NM. IM me when you're here.

Brock Landers
July 31, 2011, 01:13 PM
Sure it's the muggers fault for starting the situation, but the blame for this man's injury rests squarely with the shooter. You can't go firing off rounds with no idea of what they might hit. Someone who carries should know better than that.

If I were the victim, a family member, friend, etc., I would expect both the mugger and the shooter to end up in jail for this.

303tom
July 31, 2011, 01:54 PM
I think you all are F.O.S. a bystander in a mugging , probably why the accident happened too him (for not helping) . Never knew muggers like to have bystanders watching , unless they were involved .

NavyLCDR
July 31, 2011, 02:05 PM
If I were the victim, a family member, friend, etc., I would expect both the mugger and the shooter to end up in jail for this.

So, mugger comes at you wielding a knife and you shoot to possibly save your own life and you accidentally hit a bystander who maybe is out of sight on the other side of bushes. Would you feel the same way, that you should go to jail?

This whole thread is making me want to vomit.

Mike1234567
July 31, 2011, 02:40 PM
So, mugger comes at you wielding a knife and you shoot to possibly save your own life and you accidentally hit a bystander who maybe is out of sight on the other side of bushes. Would you feel the same way, that you should go to jail?

This whole thread is making me want to vomit.

Now, now, NavyLCDR. Please remove your "logical" helmet and promptly replace it with the emotional "guy with the gun is guilty" helmet.:D

bigfatdave
July 31, 2011, 02:46 PM
Now, now, NavyLCDR. Please remove your "logical" helmet and promptly replace it with the emotional "guy with the gun is guilty" helmet. oh, that will solve everything!
PUT THE KNIFE AND GUN IN JAIL!
Problem solved, those weapons won;t be able to make those people do nasty things any more!

GEM
July 31, 2011, 02:49 PM
So Navy - want to play what if's. A killer is looking for you. He corners you and pulls a gun. You pull yours. However, he is standing in front of a school bus full of kids. However, so if you shoot , you may hit a kid. Of course, you are such a great shot, you would not miss.

Yeah, right. But wouldn't a moral person sacrifice himself rather than risk a kid? It makes me vomit to think that someone could be so narcissistic as not to be concerned about hurting an innocent to save their own skin.

Let's be real, if you shoot and ignore a reasonable risk to others, you are to blame - independent of the crook having started it. You value yourself more than the other. Thus it is self interest couching it in moral terms that you aren't responsible is just sophistry.

Mike1234567
July 31, 2011, 02:55 PM
Guys... NavyLCDR is DEFENDING the right of the guy to defend himself.

withdrawn34
July 31, 2011, 03:03 PM
So Navy - want to play what if's. An killer is looking for you. He corners you and pulls a gun. You pull yours. However, he is standing in front of a school bus full of kids. However, so if you shoot , you may hit a kid. Of course, you are such a great shot, you would not miss.

Yeah, right. But wouldn't a moral person sacrifice himself rather than risk a kid? It makes me vomit to think that someone could be so narcissistic as not to be concerned about hurting an innocent to save their own skin.



You aren't attacking Navy's hypothetical here. Strawman argument.

Let's be real, if you shoot and ignore a reasonable risk to others,

If someone is "on the other side of the bushes" and reasonably, you could not have known, how is that even close to analogous to a situation where you have a bright yellow bus full of kids that you definitely see?

They are clearly different scenarios. You cannot equate them and remain intellectually honest.

bigfatdave
July 31, 2011, 03:45 PM
Yeah, right. But wouldn't a moral person sacrifice himself rather than risk a kid?

That's a laughable strawman argument, but just for fun I'll pick it apart.
1 - there's no guarantee you'll hit anything in particular with a missed shot
2 - the initiator of the gunfight is responsible for any consequences
3 - we don't have a duty to make sure we know the exact position of every person within effective range of our defensive tols
4 - wouldn't you feel like an idiot after getting mugged, raped, tortured and murdered if that bus you sacrificed yourself for turned out to be empty?

Mike1234567
July 31, 2011, 03:51 PM
I wouldn't shoot in any direction I "see" other people, let alone a school bus. I'd drop lower and fire the gun upwardly.

jsimmons
July 31, 2011, 04:25 PM
this is a case of a certified self defense shooting gone awry. Rule #4 was violated, know what is behind your intended target.

Although, I can only blame the shooter/ mugging victim if and only if lethal force was not required. Innocent bystanders get shot, and that sucks. But I guess the brother would have rather seen a complete stranger get killed than see his brother injured. No sarcasm there, because if it were me, I'd rather someone I didn't know get mugged and possibly killed than see my brother injured.

Ultimaetly though, the blame does lie with the criminla who instigated the entire situation.
Here in Texas, if you shoot and hit someone other than your attacker in a situation like this, you will be taken to jail, and tried in court, and you can also be held liable in civil court.

blindjim
July 31, 2011, 04:52 PM
...and it's gonna get worse before it gets better.

There's no easy answer for moral and social decay. It's epidemic. And we face the mirror of blame.

These people... children... are our own kids... or were at some point.

We are to blame. We carry that burden of not being there. Having both husband and wife forced to work to eek out a living. We just weren't there... or didn't tender sufficiently those values we must have rooted in ourselves for a nuturing caring culture to move forward positively and with character.

TIVOs, Game Boys, X Boxes, Play Stations, and MTV became the teachers.

Respect is neither a favorite game, or a show. It's not taught through those media. Caring. consideration. Thoughtffulness and responsiblity aren't being conveyed in HALO, Mafia Wars, or from first person shoote games. only a devaluation and atrophying condition of 'you first after me!' prevails. Kill 'em all, and the sooner the better.

now we are face to face with damage control measures. Now we fill our hands so we can protect our own selves, our property, and our privacies thru leathality.

many only feel comfortable if they are carrying weapons! Just waht does that say about the society we live in day to day?

Or the individual who makes such a choice?

I'm old enough to remember well, those times of sleeping with doors unlocked. Strolls about the neighborhoods long after dark without any notion of dred.

If we... myself... and you... are not the reasons for why our world is as it is today... then who is to blame?

More importantly however... and for the benefit of us all, what now do we do?

Arm everyone? Freely? Openly? Quickly? With fully Auto gear?

that answer just doesn't seem like a feel good solution. One which lays deep inside peacefully.... and which good remedies probably ought to.

We're taking on water and alll we can do is bail... we've no time to fix the hole in the boat anymore.... or we simplly cant fully understand waht keeps making holes in the boat? Now that is really..... too bad.

USAF_Vet
July 31, 2011, 05:04 PM
I've got the answer. Sell your guns. Don't even go target shooting because every time you pull the trigger, there is a possibility, however slight, that some innocent might get shot by accident. We should all just carry cap guns and hope the noise drives off our attacker. I mean after all, for all we know, the bullet fired passed clean through the mugger and still hit the innocent bystander in the arm.

Now I'm not saying the shooter in this instance shouldn't be held liable. But in no way do I feel he should be held to the same standard of punishment as the mugger.

Art Eatman
July 31, 2011, 05:42 PM
Time for a :barf: break...

If you enjoyed reading about "Argument with victim's Brother" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!