Campers spend hours dodging hail of bullets

[General Geoff]

If you had the means to actually see the guy (such as night vision or whatever), you could have easily placed a few shots right near him and he'd probably have gotten the idea. If not, then you'd have been completely justified in dropping him. He was (inadvertently or not) putting your life and the lives of those around you in imminent danger, after all.

 

[doc2rn]

C.S.S.

 

[grimjaw]

Drunk (I don't care what the analyzer said), and shooting into/across water in a direction where he wasn't aware of what was beyond.

One can only hope Darwin comes calling for him soon.

jm

 

[uneasy_rider]

How about mandatory firearms safety training for each and every citizen?

How about just letting us all live in a free country?

 

[rainbowbob]

Lucky there wasn't a rifleman with a weapon in that campground.

That thought hadn't even occurred to me until Bogie and a few others brought it up. It would be hard to argue that returning fire would not be justified.

But...Why weren't the police called when it began? Apparently it didn't get "ugly" until the next morning - but I would expect more of a response to shots fired around a public campground in the middle of the night. Even if they were not yet whizzing in close proximity. Disturbing the peace - at the very least!

 

[rainbowbob]

How about just letting us all live in a free country?

That is a very good question. I assume from your post that your objection is specific to the idea of "mandatory" firearm safety instruction - or anything else. Fair enough.

However, had this person received firearm safety instruction, this incident may never have occured. Of course, there is always the possibility that no amount of instruction would cure this guy's stupidity.

So I'll throw it back to you, uneasy rider.

The shooter was free to purchase and fire his weapons without instruction of any kind.

He was free to be a moron with his firearms and put others in grave danger.

What should have happened at that point in a free country?

 

[Ltlabner]

Johnson, who had a bottle of beer in his hand,

That's never a good way to start off a story about firearms...

It would be hard to argue that returning fire would not be justified.

I don't know about that.

A skilled atorney could make the argument that all you had to do was hop in the car and haul booty out of there.

I mean, they were able to survive from 12:30am until well into the next morning. Dude had to take a break to reload or pee or something.

At the very least, already being 500 yards away, when there was a break in the shooting (and their had to be unless he had a truckload of loaded mags at his side) they coulda scattered further way or about 500 more yards to the left or right of point of impact.

If you can survive for 8 or 9 hours, make cell phone calls and lamely sit and wait until the police arrive, are you really in immediate danger with no ability to retreat? (just going on Ohio law there, WA is likely different).

I know, I know. I'm a flaming anti now. But let's be reasonable, while a highly dangerous situation, I don't think it's slam dunk self-defense situation (again pretending that Ohio law applied).

 

[rainbowbob]

Ltlabner wrote: If you can survive for 8 or 9 hours, make cell phone calls and lamely sit and wait until the police arrive, are you really in immediate danger with no ability to retreat?...I know, I know. I'm a flaming anti now.

Actually you make an excellent point. If you can retreat and get everyone out of harm's way - you should. It is a mystery why those campers didn't - and apparently didn't call 911 until 9 hours later?

 

[.38 Special]

Knew it would only be a matter of time before someone suggested that "If I'd been there with my GLOCK Snipper Rifle I'd have sorted this out!"

The you'd have gone to jail, of course, because this isn't a Bruce Willis movie, but hey: it sounds good on the in-ter-net, anyway!

 

[Acera]

How about mandatory firearms safety training for each and every citizen?

How about less government interference in the 2nd? Would that mean if you failed the course you could not own a gun? Please don't propose that we change a right into a privilege.

There are laws in place for people who do wrong, like this guy did and he will be processed through the system.

 

[Lonestar49]

Ok lets say youre one of the campers, and you are armed. Its hard to say if this is just some careless plinker or someone out to do you and others real harm? Would you return fire across the lake? If you thought that someone was actually shooting at you? Legal ramifications of this? Any thoughts?

...

Only another uneducated shooter would do the "exact same thing", shooting at an unseen target, at distance, and shoot and pray that all the shots fell harmlessly to the ground without hitting any one or any property they could not see beyond the trees..

Retreat, getting out of Dodge, is a most wise, valuable, thought-of-rule here.

Nothing like being, or trying to be, a "Hero" in jail for a long time..


Ls

 

[Firethorn]

lloydkristmas, my dad had a situation kinda like this - except it was deer season, my dad was armed(hunting), and the dude was hitting close with direct fire, repeatably. Dad was hiding behind a tree.

His finally firing back was what stopped the shooting. Didn't hit the guy. merely a tree next to him.

 

[HK G3]

Just for manure and giggles I looked through some of the manuals that came with my guns after reading this story.

Not one of them mention anything about shooting at water being a bad idea.

An uneducated person could easily just read the manuals, think they were knowledgeable, and then shoot water, thinking that it was a "safe backstop" because there was no human being endangered by the bullets slamming into the water.

Another thing that I'm still not quite sure on is whether or not a boulder counts as a safe backstop. I don't shoot into them just to be safe, because I've heard they could result in ricochets, but they seem like they would be harmless enough targets at 200+ meters out, but again, if there's a chance of something bad happening...

 

[buck460XVR]

sounds like a case of Dumb and Dumber, on both sides of the water. Maybe even a little artistic embellishment by the media. Makes me wonder if bullets really were "whizzin" by folks heads or if after a few hours they just got tired of some redneck with guns ruining their quiet weekend. I didn't read about anyone or anything getting hit, just about folk who "heard" the bullets barely missing them. I'm not defending the moron......he was ridiculously irresponsible and he needs a good slap on the hands so he learns a lesson. But folk who huddle behind cars for hours in fear because of hearing gunshots they suspect are being directed at them and then wait even more hours before notifying the authorities in this the age of cell phones sound like a episode of "Family Vacation".

 

[The Wiry Irishman]

An uneducated person could easily just read the manuals, think they were knowledgeable, and then shoot water, thinking that it was a "safe backstop" because there was no human being endangered by the bullets slamming into the water.

Everyone's that's been near a body of water or seen the opening credits to the Andy Griffith show knows that you can skip rocks. There's no excuse for not making the connection between that and shooting at water. Someone shouldn't need a warning in a safety manual to help them with it. They should just do a little thinking before they start shooting.

 

[Wheeler44]

I asked

How about mandatory firearms safety training for each and every citizen?

some responses were

How about just letting us all live in a free country?

and

How about less government interference in the 2nd? Would that mean if you failed the course you could not own a gun? Please don't propose that we change a right into a privilege.

and

After posting this, I saw Wheeler44 beat me to it.

To which I respond

1. It is possible to be educated in a free country. Our kids are in school long enough to learn advanced physics, why can't they learn the four rules. I think that they could handle it in the first grade.

2. I would never interfere with anyones right to own firearms (I do think that some folks that have lost their rights worked hard to do so) I don't think that there should be a test. I just think our Nation would be better off if firearm safety was taught to all.

3. I guess us Pacific North Westers must think alike.

I stand by my original statement.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

My questions:

Were the campers in real danger at that range (1530 ft)?

Yes

Should this guy (Johnson) have had his guns confiscated?

Yes

Should he get them back?

No

Should he lose his right to possess firearms?

I'm a bit undecided, but tilting heavily toward yes.

What should have happened at that point in a free country?

He should have been arrested -- if the cops got there before he got shot. That's what free people do when they're being shot at -- they shoot back.

 

[btg3]

How about mandatory firearms safety training for each and every citizen?

This is not without merit. If we can teach our citizenty to excercise their rights with responsibility, then it's a step to gaining as much acceptance for the 2nd Amendment as for the others. Perhaps put it into the school curriculum. Or do we just want to teach that "all guns are dangerous and should never be touched"?

 

[Randy in Arizona]

One can only hope Darwin comes calling for him soon.

Well, I can assure y'all I never did anything dumb when I was young or drunk!
But I didn't kill anyone or cause too much damage.



Now about that Arizona oceanfront property you wanted to buy - - -

 

[22-rimfire]

Yes, Yes; temporarily, Yes, No

The young man should have the full force of the law thrown at him and then when the judge is ready to pass judgement, spank him severly again and give him a modest but painful fine to pay. If he ever shows up for a stupid stunt or any reason in the judge's court, he won't be as lenient the next time.

I can also assure you that I never did anything dumb when I was younger.

 

[uneasy_rider]

What should have happened at that point in a free country?

I think the situation was handled just fine. Some idiot is out shooting in the direction of innocent bystanders, and he got arrested. That sounds good to me.

As for mandatory firearms training, I don't think mandatory training should be required for just about anything in a free country. Certainly, the right to keep and bear arms should not be dependent upon passing some government exam on firearms safety.

 

[rainbowbob]

I would never interfere with anyones right to own firearms...I don't think that there should be a test. I just think our Nation would be better off if firearm safety was taught to all.

I think wheeler44 got it right. Mandatory education doesn't mean that a passing grade would be required to own a firearm. It simply means that everyone would have at least some exposure to the safety rules regarding firearms.

Reading education is mandatory. That doesn't mean you have to pass a test to buy and read a book.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

hes 25 not a kid. maybe make part of his sentence working where he can see gun shot wounds my first choice would be iraq but a good second would be an er

 

[dmazur]

Returning fire to disable the shooter is hard to justify as self-defense, IMO. (For these circumstances.)

I like the idea of hitting something nearby as a notice that he's making folks on the other side of the lake PO'd, but then the 4 rules apply to that shot, too. What is the backstop? At that range, how sure are you of not hitting the shooter?

No, unfortunately, I can't agree with the concept of "free people shoot back".

It's something shooters should probably be aware of, that careless shots can incite an instant Hatfield vs. McCoy type range war. (Human nature being to shoot first and think afterward...)

However, both sides in such an exchange would probably be equally guilty of recklesss endangerment, or whatever the proper term is.

 

[Zoogster]

Maybe even a little artistic embellishment by the media. Makes me wonder if bullets really were "whizzin" by folks heads or if after a few hours they just got tired of some redneck with guns ruining their quiet weekend. I didn't read about anyone or anything getting hit, just about folk who "heard" the bullets barely missing them.

We should all keep this in mind. We really do not know what happened. It could have been a guy safely shooting in the woods, in a safe direction, that happened to be near a campground. I mean the guy was firing many rounds from several firearms over a period of hours.

Someone could have just got tired of someone nearby shooting. Perhaps they were not impressed with his setup or backstop.

After putting up with it one evening one of the campers called the police the following day when he continued to shoot.
At that point of course many others would chime in thier version since the police are already there asking questions.

The police may have approached him, found he was slightly intoxicated and then proceeded to just assume the worst because of that even with no significant evidence. They decide to 'play it safe' and arrest the guy.

Then the news gets the story, and sensationalism begins. Next thing you know he is a bad guy on websites such as this one.

Completely possible. All we know is that after many hours of shooting, nobody was harmed, someone called the police, and the police dealt with the situation.

No, unfortunately, I can't agree with the concept of "free people shoot back".

That all depends on the situation. If someone is firing rounds in your direction carelessly and is actualy putting you and family in danger, and it is an immediate danger to the extent that even getting into your car is too dangerous to you and family it could be warranted. If a safe exit behind cover is available that is a better solution.
This situation does not appear to warrant force, I mean if someone was shooting for many hours, and not a single person or vehicle was hit in a busy campground, then we must wonder how close those rounds were really coming. My guess would be not as close as the story alludes.