LibShooter
Member
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.
Argument with victim's Brother
- Thread starter Yo Mama
- Start date
- Status
NavyLCDR
member
DPotvin said:
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
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
I understand now. Maybe the shooter shouldn't have been there to get mugged.
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.navylcdr said:
Last edited:
Sav .250
Member
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2011
- Messages
- 393
Bad luck
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.
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
Member
#3
#5
#7
Thats what I was going to say.
#5
#7
Thats what I was going to say.
MachIVshooter
Member
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.
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
member
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.
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.
Maybe. We don't know the details, and certain details would put a lot of the fault on the shooter, as I implied above.
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.
Last edited:
DAP90
Member
MachIVshooter said:
These are what I was referring to.
It does matter. A stray bullet that didn’t need to be fired, a car accident caused by someone texting or a gratuitous piano falling because somebody didn’t 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.
Last edited:
NoirFan
Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2006
- Messages
- 671
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?
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
Member
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2006
- Messages
- 671
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.
mortablunt
Member
I wouldn't bring up firearms with the guy. You're just going to make an enemy.
USAF_Vet
Member
As I understand it, yes.
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.
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
Member
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.
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.
DAP90
Member
rondog said:
hermannr said:
I think you've misunderstood the thread/OP.
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.
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
member
NoirFan said:
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
Member
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.
We’ll probably never know.
NoirFan
Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2006
- Messages
- 671
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
Member
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.
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
Member
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
Member
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
member
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
