Defend yourself with a gun- go to prison?

[kevbone]

Here is a wake up call for you--you don't get to shoot people for scaring you. You are alive an unharmed. That makes it pretty obvious that you didn't have the right to shoot that person.

 

I'm on the fence about where I stand on this case but I will say that I'm not sure I agree with this statement. Do you really think you have to actually be hurt to defend yourself? What would it take? Do you have to be struck/stabbed/shot before you can shoot?

I think that there are certainly cases where threat is enough to defend yourself.

 

No shit.

[Stonehead]

Behavior, not character. Neither of the two men knew each other so this information cannot have a direct bearing on the incident as far as how the shooter reacted. But if they were acquainted then this information would change things. Perhaps this wasn't the first time that the two encountered each other? Of course, that's pure speculation in the absence of corroborating information.

[Weekend_Climberz]

Let's get a group together and break him outta jail

[Seahawks]

Let's get a group together and break him outta jail

[archenemy]

Well, it's one of those hypothetical situations. "I'd shoot the dogs." "I'd wait and assess the threat." I'd fire three shots into the ground in front of the man." "I'd climb onto a rock." Etc.

 

I think the judge saw it that way too. Automatic response.

 

Judge: This case does give new meaning to the word tragedy. I do believe he reacted out of fear and instinct when he shot and killed Grant Kuenzli. He made a split second decision with tragic consequences.

 

Of course this particular situation is hypothetical. But as I have mentioned in the thread, I have both been in a situation where I was attacked and I have been in a situation where I have actually killed living things. I know myself and my reactions pretty well, so I although I cannot say with 100% accuracy exactly what I would do in this hypothetical situation, I know myself and know my history well enough to give a pretty good picture of what I would do.

[kevbone]

I have both been in a situation where I was attacked and I have been in a situation where I have actually killed living things.

 

What did you kill? Animals or PEOPLE?

[Stonehead]

Well, it's one of those hypothetical situations. "I'd shoot the dogs." "I'd wait and assess the threat." I'd fire three shots into the ground in front of the man." "I'd climb onto a rock." Etc.

 

I think the judge saw it that way too. Automatic response.

 

Judge: This case does give new meaning to the word tragedy. I do believe he reacted out of fear and instinct when he shot and killed Grant Kuenzli. He made a split second decision with tragic consequences.

 

Of course this particular situation is hypothetical. But as I have mentioned in the thread, I have both been in a situation where I was attacked and I have been in a situation where I have actually killed living things. I know myself and my reactions pretty well, so I although I cannot say with 100% accuracy exactly what I would do in this hypothetical situation, I know myself and know my history well enough to give a pretty good picture of what I would do.

 

Should the onus be on the gunowner or the dog owner? Which one should take reasonable care to ensure that the additional element, dogs or gun, does not cause potential harm to the other? How much reasonable care and in what form?

[archenemy]

Both.

[catbirdseat]

I like the fact that people are actually thinking about this now and not just coming out with kneejerk responses. This is a complicated case.

[archenemy]

This is not a difficult quandry.

 

If you have dogs, follow the leash law.

If you have a gun, don't shoot people unless you absofuckinglutly have to.

[archenemy]

Funny how CBS and I see this so differently.

Why do my posts come across as knee jerk? I have dogs. I have guns. I have experience being in situations like these. My beliefs come from my background, my thinking through these issues, from reflecting back on what I've seen and done.

 

I don't see mobs running out saying hang him. They are talking through the issue with clarity and exploring how they might react in the same situation. Since when has that been "kneejerk"?

[catbirdseat]

You thought about how YOU would react and you assumed another person would do exactly as you would.

[kevbone]

I like the fact that people are actually thinking about this now and not just coming out with kneejerk responses. This is a complicated case.

 

Way to go CBS. You have started the CC.com machine. I have a feeling it will be hard at work for the entire day.

[kevbone]

I have dogs. I have guns. I have experience being in situations like these.

 

Do you also have bull horns on the hood of your car?

Edited March 19, 2007 by kevbone

[high_on_rock]

Whether the guy is guilty or not depends on the mindset of 12 people. I think cat you are getting an idea of where a seattle jury might land on the issue. I would have let the guy off as a bad decision of a scared person, but that puts me in the minority I believe. Juries do not typically like the self defense argument anymore.

[catbirdseat]

I like the fact that people are actually thinking about this now and not just coming out with kneejerk responses. This is a complicated case.

 

Way to go CBS. You have started the CC.com machine. I have a feeling it will be hard at work for the entire day.

Somebody needed to stir up shit.

[archenemy]

You thought about how YOU would react and you assumed another person would do exactly as you would.

I beg your pardon? I am curious about exactly when did you develop these mind-reading abilities? How, precisely, do you "know" what it is I was thinking regarding others? And when did I come across as incapable of seperating my personal beliefs from others' beliefs?

 

I think we should change this thread title to "Another Reason not to Believe a Scientist"

[catbirdseat]

Whether the guy is guilty or not depends on the mindset of 12 people. I think cat you are getting an idea of where a seattle jury might land on the issue. I would have let the guy off as a bad decision of a scared person, but that puts me in the minority I believe. Juries do not typically like the self defense argument anymore.

The question before the jury was, "is it Murder in the Second Degree"? Had I been a juror I would have voted to acquit. Had the question been, "is it Neglegent Homicide or Manslaughter?", I would have voted to convict.

[archenemy]

Whether the guy is guilty or not depends on the mindset of 12 people. I think cat you are getting an idea of where a seattle jury might land on the issue. I would have let the guy off as a bad decision of a scared person, but that puts me in the minority I believe. Juries do not typically like the self defense argument anymore.

The question before the jury was, "is it Murder in the Second Degree"? Had I been a juror I would have voted to acquit. Had the question been, "is it Neglegent Homicide or Manslaughter?", I would have voted to convict.

So now you know exactly what you would decide before hearing the trial? Isn't that type of condemning exactly what you have spoken out about?

[kevbone]

Whether the guy is guilty or not depends on the mindset of 12 people. I think cat you are getting an idea of where a seattle jury might land on the issue. I would have let the guy off as a bad decision of a scared person, but that puts me in the minority I believe. Juries do not typically like the self defense argument anymore.

The question before the jury was, "is it Murder in the Second Degree"? Had I been a juror I would have voted to acquit. Had the question been, "is it Neglegent Homicide or Manslaughter?", I would have voted to convict.

 

This guy has to do some time in jail....no way can he shoot a guy dead just because he screams at him while he runs towards him. Right or wrong he should not ever be able to carry a gun again. He killed someone.

[catbirdseat]

I believe it is within our rights to carry a gun and to use it when lives are in danger.

 

This man should not have shot the dog walker three times in the chest. I agree that shooting the dog that was threatening him would have been justifiable. But shooting an unarmed man who has not attacked you is, indeed, homicide.

So I have to quote you. This is a mistatement. The man WAS being attacked.

[tvashtarkatena]

I have dogs. I have guns.

 

I have dogs with guns.

[kevbone]

The man WAS being attacked.

 

In his mind he was. That does not mean he was being attacked. its a matter of perspective.

[catbirdseat]

Whether the guy is guilty or not depends on the mindset of 12 people. I think cat you are getting an idea of where a seattle jury might land on the issue. I would have let the guy off as a bad decision of a scared person, but that puts me in the minority I believe. Juries do not typically like the self defense argument anymore.

The question before the jury was, "is it Murder in the Second Degree"? Had I been a juror I would have voted to acquit. Had the question been, "is it Neglegent Homicide or Manslaughter?", I would have voted to convict.

So now you know exactly what you would decide before hearing the trial? Isn't that type of condemning exactly what you have spoken out about?

The fact is that those who watched the dateline show know more than the jury knew. The conviction says a lot about the judge in the case. His actions and his words are not in accord with each other.

[kevbone]

The guy that got shot, this is the last thing in his mind.....