19-Year-Old, Gun, Macho Puffing Up, "Self-Defense," Dead Bystander

That is the most patently idiotic thing I've read on the internet in the last month.

Click to expand...

Thank you

Yep, this fails the self-defense test.

Jarvis originally sought cover when fired at. He then got a handgun out and fired at a fleeing Dixon, "And as the vehicle goes in front of the fireworks tents, he fires five times across the parking lot."

Even if the parking lot was only ten spots the person being fired on was making some kind of departure. Since this was a Wal-Mart parking lot something leads me to believe it was a pretty good size lot. You have to ask yourself if a reasonable person would fire at a moving vehicle from which no shots were being fired.

While the story posted does not say so, I am guessing a couple gangbangers decided to shoot it out. If so, they should both get the needle.

Quote:
In warfare bystanders who are killed are called collateral damage. Why should the standard be any different for us mere citizens when faced with a life or death situation.

Click to expand...

Frankly, if this is how you think, I really have to question whether you possess either the mental acumen or the proper understanding of personal responsibility to even be able to own a firearm, much less carry one.

Click to expand...

You got that right!

I think it fails self defense BUT not for the reasons some people are listing here.

It is possible to fire in self defense and accidentally shoot a bystander. In this instance however Jarvis moved to a position of safety THEN LEFT the position of SAFETY to PURSUE the shooter and killed someone in the process.

Even in states that have "stand your ground" laws they don't have "retreat then re-engage" laws.

Once he chose to pursue the aggressor it was no longer Self Defense.

Know your target and what's beyond. Whether this was self defense or not, he should not have gone blazing away in a direction and angle where he could hit bystanders.

Ithaca:
Even in warfare, if I shell a marketplace filled with civilians because 1 sniper is shooting at me, I can expect problems too including a Court Marshal and possibly jail time. If we want to take the moral high ground in a shootout (as a nation or as an individual) we are required to behave like a "good guy"--that means that sometimes we may have to keep taking rounds until you can respond without endangering others.

"Spray and pray" is not responsible firearms use, and indiscriminate shooting is NEVER justified. The right to carry and defend yourself comes with responsibility to act correctly. If you publish lies about someone, you are not protected by the 1A--similarly, if I use my weapon recklessly I am not protected by the 2A. Your attitude and Jarvis' actions are precisely the ones that all responsible gun owners should denounce.

and SN13: manslaughter is a murder that happens with some element of an excuse (accidental, unintentional etc.)

In warfare bystanders who are killed are called collateral damage. Why should the standard be any different for us mere citizens when faced with a life or death situation.

Click to expand...

This is absurd. What if you're attacked and fire at your assailant only to kill an innocent bystander? Who's to say that that person's life is less important than your own, and that you have the right to risk taking theirs in order to protect your own?

Last I checked, the WalMart parking lot is not considered a "war zone"

Click to expand...

I wish it weren't. However, with the recent stabbings, shootings, and gang signs being spray painted everywhere it might as well be.

what makes this difficult is that you are allowed to return fire if your life is in danger.. but if the people stop firing and start to drive off the crime is over... and if you were to fire into the trunk for example it would then be illegal...

however that applies in florida law not sure bout the others...

and yes john wayne if im defending my life and kill a civilian by accident i am shielded by law... however you have to deal with your concience for the rest of your life... which i think is worse than a prison cell....


which means if your going to defend your life make sure you practice so you can avoid such things..

I was not attempting to defend this particular man. Reading the article more completely this is definitely a couple of punks shooting at each other.

You are all saying that I am an idiot for saying that there is a moral exception made for some and not for others and that the treatment should be the same. Where is the consistency?

Please tell me what punishment you would like if, despite acting in good faith, your bullets were to cause property damage or harm to a bystander.

I was not attempting to defend this particular man. Reading the article more completely this is definitely a couple of punks shooting at each other.

You are all saying that I am an idiot for saying that there is a moral exception made for some and not for others and that the treatment should be the same. Where is the consistency? Please tell

Click to expand...

The problems is you compared soldiers in combat operations (very broad ROE "Rules Of Engagement") to to a civilian in Self Defense (very narrow ROE).

A soldier is not always engaging in Self Defense. A soldier often will be in minimal or no danger what so ever (i.e. pilot in close air-support role where enemies anti-air assets have been destroyed). The soldier will still attempt to destroy the enemy. Self defense has NOTHING to do with ROE in combat. A civilian should only fire in Self Defense of themselves or other (exact language depends on local laws) from immediate danger.

It is acceptable for soldiers to do things that a citizen can't.
Would you consider it acceptable to flush a BG out of a building by lighting it on fire and then fire upon him as he flees?
Would you consider it acceptable to shoot a BG in back at range of 800m who is running away?
Would you consider it acceptable for cops to call artillery on the city block where a meth lab is?

IF the guy had a legal firearm and IF he was legally carrying and IF he was in imminent danger and IF he shot in a responsible manner and STILL accidentally hit a bystander (ricochet, round passed through BG) IMHO (for all it is worth) he shouldn't be on trial for murder, the DA may disagree..

That however isn't the case:
He retreated and then when the "enemy" was fleeing he shot (no longer in immediate danger). He isn't a soldier, he isn't even a LEO. He has no duty to stop fleeing suspects. He has no RIGHT to endanger other people to stop someone FLEEING. That isn't self defense. Just because a soldier can fire at a fleeing enemy doesn't mean that citizens can shoot at any criminal fleeing the scene regardless of how many people are put in danger. If you stop and think about it, would you want to live in that kind of society?

He was NO LONGER in danger, therefore was no longer firing in self defense. Even if he was in danger but had the ability to retreat instead of taking a shot w/ HIGH probability (firing into a crowd at a moving target) of hitting innocent bystanders he should have retreated. He had a responsibility to ensure the shoot was good. He DID NOT take responsibility for his actions so he will be HELD RESPONSIBLE now.

Even soldiers ability to respond w/ force is not unlimited.. The level of force allowed depends on how necessary the elimination of the threat is. Many times in Iraq we were shot at and didn't return fire because either there was no PID (Posative Identification of the target) of the target was masked by non-combatants.

Example:
Insurgent w/ AK firing from a crowd = no return fire.
W were in up-armored HMMWV and he was not a significant threat. If he moved or ran and presented a PID with minimal risk to civilians he would be engaged. Likely w/ M-16 to minimize risk to civilians.

Insurgent w/ RPG firing from same crowd and HMMWV stuck in traffic = return fire
The PRG could pierce HMMWV. We were in immediate danger. The higher threat allowed a higher level of response.
Civilians may be killed but the threat and scenario resulted in a combination that force would be justified.

Understand the difference now?

You are all saying that I am an idiot for saying that there is a moral exception made for some and not for others and that the treatment should be the same. Where is the consistency?

Click to expand...

We're not talking morality here, we're talking legality.

If you think those 2 are always the same well..... I got this bridge......

And even from the morality viewpoint there is the idea that an LEO is compelled to act on behalf of "the people" and a private citizen like you and I are not acting on behalf of "the people" merely a "person".

What morality code do you have that justifies the killing of an innocent bystander if you yourself can survive the encounter?

texas... there is no justification for taking an innocent life.... however legally there you are fine.... (as long as the shooting was declared self defense)

either way my life is still worth more than an innocent bystander... because if i am dead i cant protect my family which i care about most of all in life...

but thats just me

either way my life is still worth more than an innocent bystander... because if i am dead i cant protect my family which i care about most of all in life...

Click to expand...

It might be to you, but not to me if my family is the bystander you hit. If you are in prison you can't protect your family either.
And you will be in prison if you kill an innocent in a self defense shooting. Even in a justified self defense shooting you are not protected legally from killing an innocent.

You see the problem with this?

Allowing everyone to behave as their OWN moral code justifies won't work very well

I personally think this is a case of ghetto rage. Two guys/thugs that think they need to prove they are the bigger man. I would almost think it safe to say neither of them probably had half an hour of range time between them and the only gun no how they had was from some crap rap video. I'm sure street credit had something to do with it as well. F em, let em finish the bout in prison.

i understand your position very well texasrifleman

but just like im sure you would.. i will protect my family regardless of the concequences...
however i personally train, and shoot every single day to try to prevent any of these incidents...

betobeto do you believe that people become "gang bangers" based on demographics, poverty, and how their parents raise them?
or do you believe that they are just bad eggs, and shouldnt even be allowed the basic human rights?

Self defense? Yeah, right. Sounds like yet another case of some inner city scum bags who gave each other looks and had to back them up with bullets.

IF the other guy did fire first, he should have just run away. But no, he 'armed himself' and fired back.....Thats not self defense....

"Officer I was scared!" aint gonna fly this time.

The owner of the firearm needs to be indicted for unlawfully providing a firearm to a minor.

Click to expand...

In some states (including TN) it is NOT unlawful for a firearm to be owned by someone >18 but <21.

Federal law makes purchasing from an FFL impossible until >21 but ownership is different. If the weapon was legally sold, or given w/o FFL the original owner is not criminally liable unless they KNEW it was unlawful for him to own a weapon for another reason (convicted felon).

So don't hang whoever gave/sold him the weapons until you know all the facts.

I don't know... Certainly is a complicated case. In any event, no good came out of it.

You may be responsible for every bullet that leaves you gun, but duress / diminished capacity and other things will mitigate that guilt.

If someone breaks into my house, I shoot him in the doorway with a .44 mag and the bullet goes through him and down the street injuring or killing another party, to try me for anything is a miscarriage of justice.

Killing an innocent for one's own advantage was found to be universally considered immoral across many cultures. There was a study on this a bit ago. The actor in this situation should have had an appreciation of the risk of doing such. It was not a sheer accident that was unpredictable.

To act in good faith, one would have to show that you had some appreciation of the circumstance and the risks and that the harm to the innocent occurred even though you acted with due diligence. Even then, you might be in trouble. Certainly, shooting across a parking lot in this situation is not acceptable.

agreed shooting across a parking lot with a pistol is probably not the most desirable thing to do....

however you are still talking morals.... and universally accepted morals?

universally everyone used to think the world was flat...

Lessons learned:

1. Problem #2 is real. It is not something El Tejon invented to take away your fun of harming fellow human beings.

2. Your "threat" will be a fellow human being. There will be consequences for your deployment of a firearm. You will be held responsible in criminal, civil and administrative venues.

3. If you do not have to fight, do not fight. The best fight is no fight. Any moron can get in a fight, the indicia of quality training is not fighting.

4. Lawyers cost a lot of money and having your fate decided by people you do not know is never fun.

If someone breaks into my house, I shoot him in the doorway with a .44 mag and the bullet goes through him and down the street injuring or killing another party, to try me for anything is a miscarriage of justice.

Click to expand...

That it might be a miscarriage of justice, but recognize that it could happen and be ready to pay.

Problem #2 has many heads, not just criminal. You may escape criminal prosecution, but end up sued and bleeding money.