when you carry a hammer...

[Guillermo]

Being as how there are noise ordinances in most municipalities they are not free to do what they want.

But even if they are...the rules of decency exist. For example...if the guy at the pump was screaming profanities or describing sex acts in front of your adolescent daughter and her friends, would you not tell him to shut his pie hole?

 

[Risky]

It's my understanding that Mr Dunn left the scene and did not call police immediately afterward. He called police a day later, only after he saw that the incident had made the news and that someone had died.

Now, I can see that it reasonable to leave the scene of a defensive shooting... but not to go far and to contact police as soon as possible. Under no circumstances would I, or a reasonable person, ever believe that firing my handgun at another person doesn't at least warrant a phone call to police within a reasonable time period... maybe after a good puke and a cigarette if you partake.

Now, I don't know if Dunn's apparent reluctance to call the police is because the shooting was something other than self defense... but to the investigators/district attorneys/jury of peers it certainly could be seen as evidence of such.

ST&T takeaway: You should probably call the police if you draw your weapon and definitely call the police if you fire it.

 

[Losov]

Ayoob says you should be the first person to call the police after a defensive shooting. Dunn has gotten himself into a world of pain by his own actions.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by mr.scott: He had every right to approach them and tell them to turn it down.

Yes, he did.

But he wil probably regret having done so for the rest of his life.

Whatever happened here, there is always a risk that someone who is already behaving in an inconsiderate, or even anti-social, manner will not take kindly to suggestions from others regarding their behavior. Sometime their reactions may be violent.

What happens then is something that could have been avoided.

 

[Guillermo]

What happens then is something that could have been avoided.

So are you and others are suggesting that we let the anti-social behavior go unchecked because the jerk might turn violent?

Isn't that letting the scum take over society?

While playing music at maximum gain is not "evil", the concept that Edmund Burke spoke of is in play. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

(FYI, I am NOT suggesting that I know what happened with the incident in the OP, only speaking generally.)

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Isn't that letting the scum take over society?

Of course not. Because we already have mechanisms in place to deal with that. They're called laws. When anti-social behavior rises to a certain point, it becomes illegal, and then the guys who ARE supposed to step in and intervene are more than willing to do so. They're called police.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Guillermo: So are you and others are suggesting that we let the anti-social behavior go unchecked because the jerk might turn violent?

No. I am suggesting that we leave the enforcement of laws to sworn officers.

If he does turn violent, you may be killed or injured. If you are not, and if you are forced to use force to defend yourself, you may well end up losing everything, either because the totality of the evidence available after the fact does not support your self righteous view of your actions, or because the triers of fact decide that the use of force would not have been necessary but for your actions, or both. We've seen that from time to time.

Surely you do not believe that the actions the shooter took here were appropriate. He is very likely to end up in jail.

We employ, train, equip, empower, and indemnify others to enforce municipal ordinances and laws involving misdemeanors and to preserve the peace. Ordinary citizens do not have that right, whether they carry guns or not.

Once in a great while, it may be necessary for persons other than sworn officers to prevent forcible felonies. From time to time it may be appropriate for them to effect arrests of felons, but generally speaking,it is much more prudent to leave that to those who know what they are doing.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Curious. Someone sees your weapon while you're out in public. They walk to you and say "Excuse me sir, I would really appreciate it if you would not carry that gun around in public places where my children could see it. I think that's pretty anti-social".

How do you react?

 

[Guillermo]

Kleanbore,

You are with your 5 year old daughter and the couple in line to get movie tickets is loudly describing the (insert your own anti-social behavior if you don't like this one) a particularly "exotic" porn movie that they saw, using every profane term that they can.

They are not breaking the law. Do you keep your mouth shut because they "might turn violent"? or do you say "hey...watch your mouth...there are children here"?

If you would speak up in the line to the movies...why wouldn't you tell a jerk blaring music at the gas station to turn it down?

 

[Fred Fuller]

Leaving the scene certainly did not help Dunn's case in some respects, including losing sight of the alleged shotgun that he allegedly saw pointed at him. Life is certainly complicated sometimes. Missing chances to mind your own business seems to me likely to make it more complicated, but what do I know?
========================================

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/...ath-says-client-saw-shotgun-shot-self-defense

Attorney for suspect in teen's death says client saw shotgun, shot in self-defense
Posted: November 28, 2012 - 7:50am | Updated: November 28, 2012 - 11:33am
By Dan Scanlan

Update: Dunn has waived his first court appearance in Jacksonville and is officially charged with second-degree murder.

The attorney for Michael David Dunn, charged in the shooting death of Jordan Russell Davis, has a dramatically different story to tell about what happened Friday night at the Gate store on Southside Boulevard.

Robin Lemonidis of Melbourne said Tuesday night that someone in the red sport-utility vehicle that was next to her client’s car pulled a shotgun on him and that he fired in self defense.

“He acted the way any responsible firearms owner would act in a similar situation because a shotgun was aimed at him,” she said.

Jacksonville police said no weapon was found in the car.

“How hard did they look,” Lemonidis said. “Have they done an entire search?”
Lemonidis, who will be in Jacksonville Wednesday when her client makes his first appearance in a Jacksonville courtroom, said Dunn is “devastated that anyone was harmed in this instance.”

 

[Guillermo]

"Excuse me sir, I would really appreciate it if you would not carry that gun around in public places where my children could see it. I think that's pretty anti-social".

One reacts to polite people with politeness almost exclusively.

Certainly I would be congenial in my response.

 

[Guillermo]

Leaving the scene certainly did not help Dunn's case in some respects, including losing sight of the alleged shotgun that he allegedly saw pointed at him

Not calling immediately, leaving. This guy has problems.

Perhaps justified.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Guillermo: ...why wouldn't you tell a jerk blaring music at the gas station to turn it down?

What would give me reason to assume that I have the right to do so?

What would give him reason to believe that I have the right to do so?

What would make me confident that he would not react violently?

What would give me any expectation that if he were to react violently, it would turn out well for me?

The answers--nothing, nothing, nothing, and nothing--combined with my desire to come out of things without having been hurt, charged, put in confinement, and/or impoverished and unable to provide for my family, should answer your question.

If you prefer a shorter answer, it is prudence.

One reacts to polite people with politeness almost exclusively.

Rational people usually do. But see this.

 

[Guillermo]

What would give me reason to assume that I have the right to do so?

1st amendment and the fact that any reasonable person understands that people have the right to talk to one another.

What would give him reason to believe that I have the right to do so?

1st amendment and the fact that any reasonable person understands that people have the right to talk to one another.

What would make me confident that he would not react violently?

I do not assume that everyone will react violently to being talked to. Guess I am not that paranoid.

What would give me any expectation that if he were to react violently, that it would turn out well for me?

While I cannot answer for you, I will not react violently unless I am threatened (or those with me threatened, property attempted to be stolen...etc). If this happens I have attempted to prepare for such a scenario with legal coverage. Plus, I live in a state where the self defense laws are pretty reasonable

 

[Guillermo]

Kleanbore

I answered all of your queries.

Please return the kindness and answer mine from post #34

 

[GEM]

Interesting article in the current SWAT about dealing with such. The author points out that if you confront teens aggressively, their lack of emotional control (due to incomplete development of frontal lobes - added by me) leads them to respond aggressively.

He points out that such isn't a good plan. Politeness or the law is better. You know if there was a shotgun and pointed at the fellow, if it went off - would your handgun do you much good. We know that a shotgun will vaporize you. If there was a shotgun, he was lucky they didn't use it. What if they had a Judge or Governor - why he would be destroyed.

So you point a shotgun at someone, then watch him draw on you? Hmm?

 

[Guillermo]

FYI,

I followed your link and read your account of the photographer and her would-be attacker. I am glad you were there to intervene.

It is my policy to assume the best and prepare for the worst

(not technically "the worst" as I don't carry a rifle or travel in a main battle tank...but you know what I mean )

Please note, I do not go looking for trouble. In fact, two of my volunteer activities have to do with teaching how to avoid trouble (I am a radKIDS instructor and a RAD Women's Self Defense instructor).

But the guy with the blaring music or the "movie line scenario" that I described should be addressed or we allow society to decent to its least common denominator.

 

[Guillermo]

So you point a shotgun at someone, then watch him draw on you? Hmm?

At a gas station one can easily duck behind a pump, draw and then do an "IDPA lean" around the other side.

I am NOT saying that such happened in the OP. I have NO idea what happened there with the conflicting and changing stories.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

1st amendment and the fact that any reasonable person understands that people have the right to talk to one another.

+1 It isn't unreasonable to ask things of other people and it is definitely within our rights to do so. The other party may not be obliged to comply and I think sometimes people forget this. Just because you ask does not mean that you get. Also when asking a person to do something and you want compliance, being a jerk doesn't help.

What would make me confident that he would not react violently?

Have we reached that level of paranoia that asking a person to do something is reason to fear a violent reaction? If so, why aren't we in our bunkers and safe rooms 24/7?

 

[GEM]

Well, that's plan to hide behind the gas pump.

1. That assumes the shooter can't shoot you on the move. Try it in FOF against a shotty with sims or airsoft.

2. So they shoot the gas pump. What comes out of a gas pump?

How long does it take to get behind the pump from being in distance to talk talk to them and then get into an IDPA lean. I shoot IDPA all the time, you ain't the Flash. But you may see the flash, the whoosh. You may not be the Flash - but you could be the Human Torch. Flame On - Johnny Storm!

Look, if you approach the kids politely, maybe it works. Did this guy or did he do the old rant?

PS - just remembered - my uncle was a fighter pilot at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7. He didn't go for his plane as the first guys who did were killed. He hid under a truck. He told me when the attack was over, he got up and saw it was a gas tanker. Almost fainted. Luckily, it wasn't strafed. He later spend the day cleaning cosmoline out of an old Springfield as they were heading into the hills to wait for the Japanese invasion. Fire bad!

 

[Guillermo]

What comes out of a gas pump?

Have you ever seen inside of a gas pump?

A bullet is not going to puncture anything.

 

[GEM]

So you have the hose in your car with the gas running. That's why you are there.

Static sparks cause explosions during refueling. You're betting the shotty's expanding pattern doesn't interact with this system. Fire bad!!

 

[Guillermo]

Did this guy or did he do the old rant?

dunno...but it sounds like if it was wrong...he did it

How long does it take to get behind the pump from being in distance to talk talk to them

how close do you get to talk to rude, inconsiderate strangers? I would stay on my side of the island.

 

[Guillermo]

Static sparks cause explosions during refueling. You're betting the shotty's expanding pattern doesn't interact with this system.

Without a special effects team, you are not going to start a fire by shooting at a gas pump.

That said, the top end does not have much in it...it does not offer good cover. Concealment on the other hand...

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Guillermo: 1st amendment and the fact that any reasonable person understands that people have the right to talk to one another.

That does not give me the right to tell anyone to do anything.

I does not give anyone reason to believe that I do have that right; and there is no assurance that he is "reasonable."

I do not assume that everyone will react violently to being talked to. Guess I am not that paranoid.

Good. But you have to realize that there is some likelihood, that the potential consequences could be severe, and that the pattern of behavior at hand could be a good indicator of the risk involved.

...I will not react violently unless I am threatened (or those with me threatened, property attempted to be stolen...etc). If this happens I have attempted to prepare for such a scenario with legal coverage. Plus, I live in a state where the self defense laws are pretty reasonable.

The problem lies in what evidence will be produced after the fact.

You suggest a scenario in which you start a conversation, and suggest that if things go south, you will defend yourself.

The problem is, there is a high likelihood that only your account will describe the events that way. That won't get you very far at all.

The other fellow and his friends will certainly tell a different story. Witnesses whose attention had been drawn to the situation only after it started to unfold will likely remember and describe your drawing pointing your firearm, normally an unlawful act, without any apparent reason. Others who had not been paying close attention before things went south will remember your setting forth to talk to the person whom you think to have wronged your sensibilities, but it is extremely unlikely they will be able to substantiate your account of not having instigated a confrontation yourself.

These witnesses will earnestly and truly believe that you were the instigator, and it is extremely likely that they will convince investigators, a grand jury, and a trial jury likewise.

And you could have avoided it all very simply at the outset.by walking away

For a really excellent lecture on witness psychology, replete with actual examples, I strongly suggest attending Mas Ayoob's MAG-20.

BTW, from time to time we see accounts here of persons who went forth to confront or discuss something with someone, having armed themselves "just in case", when things did become violent, and when their self defense cases are not sustained or mad very costly simply because they could have avoided the whole thing from the outset, in Indiana, Texas, Oklahoma....

But the guy with the blaring music or the "movie line scenario" that I described should be addressed or we allow society to decent to its least common denominator.

I cannot disagree, but I suggest that contacting the movie manager or those who are employed, trained, equipped, indemnified, and lawfully empoewered to enforce the municipal ordinance would be a much wiser strategy.

Remember, the first letter in ADEE stands for avoid.