kevbone Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 There is a lot of unknowns with this and it is silly to sit at a computer and try to say what happened. That said, given what we know I'm OK with this guy going to jail for murder. I don't have a problem walking around the woods armed, that's your business. The real kick is that if you are going to own/carry a gun you need to be prepared to make some good judgment calls and realize that that if you screw up you might shoot someone that should be alive. If you fuck up than, than your going to jail. In this case I'd make an example of this guy and send him to jail for a good long while. Might make other people think twice before taking their gun out while on nature walk. Well said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 (edited) He just stood there, mute as he let the dog attack me. I kicked in it's direction to keep it from biting me. I managed to scare it (not sure if I actually struck it). At that point, I would of continued at a run, but I was completely out of breath. The man charged me with his fists raised. He stood there threatening me, while all I could do was gasp. If I had had a gun I would have shot the bastard. I have a right to run through a public park without being attacked by someone's dog and then by the owner who fails to control it. All I was doing was minding my own business. Sounds like the man got angry, but did he actually threaten you? He certainly didn't harm you. You would have had no justification to do anything to him, really, much less shoot him. You do have a right to run through a park without being attacked by a dog. That's what civil suits and laws are for, both of which you could have levied on the man had you chosen to do so. Had he actually threatened you, that is a crime also. Off leash fines in Seattle are $500; enough to make any dog owner think twice about letting aggropoodle run around free again. But you chose to do none of the above, so the jerk's probably still out there, messing with joggers. Next time you have a run in with a similar prick, and it sounds like he was every bit of that, I'd suggest doing something about it legally to stop the behavior rather than endulging in Dirty Harry fantasies. Carry a cell, and be ready to lower the boom when needed. why don't you replace CBS in the above scenario, and put one of your kids, under the age of 7 in that picture...or your wife...I woulda pulled the trigger on the dog...fuck your lawsuit... No lawsuit in Washington animal control said if I had shot the pit that attacked me and family, nothing they could have done. Edited March 19, 2007 by Seahawks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billygoat Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 I'm shooting anyone that comes near me, Fuck it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 I'm shooting anyone that comes near me, Fuck it! Well be prepared to be someones bith in Jail. Better hope Kevbones not there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 What is a Suncrisp? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 He just stood there, mute as he let the dog attack me. I kicked in it's direction to keep it from biting me. I managed to scare it (not sure if I actually struck it). At that point, I would of continued at a run, but I was completely out of breath. The man charged me with his fists raised. He stood there threatening me, while all I could do was gasp. If I had had a gun I would have shot the bastard. I have a right to run through a public park without being attacked by someone's dog and then by the owner who fails to control it. All I was doing was minding my own business. Sounds like the man got angry, but did he actually threaten you? He certainly didn't harm you. You would have had no justification to do anything to him, really, much less shoot him. You do have a right to run through a park without being attacked by a dog. That's what civil suits and laws are for, both of which you could have levied on the man had you chosen to do so. Had he actually threatened you, that is a crime also. Off leash fines in Seattle are $500; enough to make any dog owner think twice about letting aggropoodle run around free again. But you chose to do none of the above, so the jerk's probably still out there, messing with joggers. Next time you have a run in with a similar prick, and it sounds like he was every bit of that, I'd suggest doing something about it legally to stop the behavior rather than endulging in Dirty Harry fantasies. Carry a cell, and be ready to lower the boom when needed. why don't you replace CBS in the above scenario, and put one of your kids, under the age of 7 in that picture...or your wife...I woulda pulled the trigger on the dog...fuck your lawsuit... If you weren't so fat you could just wrastle them down to the ground and grind their face into the dirt til they come up with a cauliflower ear. why you gotta be so mean? Its in her blood and because she is a raging bitch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 He just stood there, mute as he let the dog attack me. I kicked in it's direction to keep it from biting me. I managed to scare it (not sure if I actually struck it). At that point, I would of continued at a run, but I was completely out of breath. The man charged me with his fists raised. He stood there threatening me, while all I could do was gasp. If I had had a gun I would have shot the bastard. I have a right to run through a public park without being attacked by someone's dog and then by the owner who fails to control it. All I was doing was minding my own business. Sounds like the man got angry, but did he actually threaten you? He certainly didn't harm you. You would have had no justification to do anything to him, really, much less shoot him. You do have a right to run through a park without being attacked by a dog. That's what civil suits and laws are for, both of which you could have levied on the man had you chosen to do so. Had he actually threatened you, that is a crime also. Off leash fines in Seattle are $500; enough to make any dog owner think twice about letting aggropoodle run around free again. But you chose to do none of the above, so the jerk's probably still out there, messing with joggers. Next time you have a run in with a similar prick, and it sounds like he was every bit of that, I'd suggest doing something about it legally to stop the behavior rather than endulging in Dirty Harry fantasies. Carry a cell, and be ready to lower the boom when needed. why don't you replace CBS in the above scenario, and put one of your kids, under the age of 7 in that picture...or your wife...I woulda pulled the trigger on the dog...fuck your lawsuit... If you weren't so fat you could just wrastle them down to the ground and grind their face into the dirt til they come up with a cauliflower ear. why you gotta be so mean? Its in her blood and because she is a raging bitch. That's a lot of quotin there fella:-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 He just stood there, mute as he let the dog attack me. I kicked in it's direction to keep it from biting me. I managed to scare it (not sure if I actually struck it). At that point, I would of continued at a run, but I was completely out of breath. The man charged me with his fists raised. He stood there threatening me, while all I could do was gasp. If I had had a gun I would have shot the bastard. I have a right to run through a public park without being attacked by someone's dog and then by the owner who fails to control it. All I was doing was minding my own business. Sounds like the man got angry, but did he actually threaten you? He certainly didn't harm you. You would have had no justification to do anything to him, really, much less shoot him. You do have a right to run through a park without being attacked by a dog. That's what civil suits and laws are for, both of which you could have levied on the man had you chosen to do so. Had he actually threatened you, that is a crime also. Off leash fines in Seattle are $500; enough to make any dog owner think twice about letting aggropoodle run around free again. But you chose to do none of the above, so the jerk's probably still out there, messing with joggers. Next time you have a run in with a similar prick, and it sounds like he was every bit of that, I'd suggest doing something about it legally to stop the behavior rather than endulging in Dirty Harry fantasies. Carry a cell, and be ready to lower the boom when needed. why don't you replace CBS in the above scenario, and put one of your kids, under the age of 7 in that picture...or your wife...I woulda pulled the trigger on the dog...fuck your lawsuit... If you weren't so fat you could just wrastle them down to the ground and grind their face into the dirt til they come up with a cauliflower ear. why you gotta be so mean? Its in her blood and because she is a raging bitch. man, you two are horrible to ea other...where's the love?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 He just stood there, mute as he let the dog attack me. I kicked in it's direction to keep it from biting me. I managed to scare it (not sure if I actually struck it). At that point, I would of continued at a run, but I was completely out of breath. The man charged me with his fists raised. He stood there threatening me, while all I could do was gasp. If I had had a gun I would have shot the bastard. I have a right to run through a public park without being attacked by someone's dog and then by the owner who fails to control it. All I was doing was minding my own business. Sounds like the man got angry, but did he actually threaten you? He certainly didn't harm you. You would have had no justification to do anything to him, really, much less shoot him. You do have a right to run through a park without being attacked by a dog. That's what civil suits and laws are for, both of which you could have levied on the man had you chosen to do so. Had he actually threatened you, that is a crime also. Off leash fines in Seattle are $500; enough to make any dog owner think twice about letting aggropoodle run around free again. But you chose to do none of the above, so the jerk's probably still out there, messing with joggers. Next time you have a run in with a similar prick, and it sounds like he was every bit of that, I'd suggest doing something about it legally to stop the behavior rather than endulging in Dirty Harry fantasies. Carry a cell, and be ready to lower the boom when needed. why don't you replace CBS in the above scenario, and put one of your kids, under the age of 7 in that picture...or your wife...I woulda pulled the trigger on the dog...fuck your lawsuit... If you weren't so fat you could just wrastle them down to the ground and grind their face into the dirt til they come up with a cauliflower ear. why you gotta be so mean? Its in her blood and because she is a raging bitch. That's a lot of quotin there fella:-) What are you talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 He just stood there, mute as he let the dog attack me. I kicked in it's direction to keep it from biting me. I managed to scare it (not sure if I actually struck it). At that point, I would of continued at a run, but I was completely out of breath. The man charged me with his fists raised. He stood there threatening me, while all I could do was gasp. If I had had a gun I would have shot the bastard. I have a right to run through a public park without being attacked by someone's dog and then by the owner who fails to control it. All I was doing was minding my own business. Sounds like the man got angry, but did he actually threaten you? He certainly didn't harm you. You would have had no justification to do anything to him, really, much less shoot him. You do have a right to run through a park without being attacked by a dog. That's what civil suits and laws are for, both of which you could have levied on the man had you chosen to do so. Had he actually threatened you, that is a crime also. Off leash fines in Seattle are $500; enough to make any dog owner think twice about letting aggropoodle run around free again. But you chose to do none of the above, so the jerk's probably still out there, messing with joggers. Next time you have a run in with a similar prick, and it sounds like he was every bit of that, I'd suggest doing something about it legally to stop the behavior rather than endulging in Dirty Harry fantasies. Carry a cell, and be ready to lower the boom when needed. why don't you replace CBS in the above scenario, and put one of your kids, under the age of 7 in that picture...or your wife...I woulda pulled the trigger on the dog...fuck your lawsuit... If you weren't so fat you could just wrastle them down to the ground and grind their face into the dirt til they come up with a cauliflower ear. why you gotta be so mean? Its in her blood and because she is a raging bitch. man, you two are horrible to ea other...where's the love?? She ant got any. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 I'm shooting anyone that comes near me, Fuck it! Well be prepared to be someones bith in Jail. Better hope Kevbones not there. Thutup, bith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 He just stood there, mute as he let the dog attack me. I kicked in it's direction to keep it from biting me. I managed to scare it (not sure if I actually struck it). At that point, I would of continued at a run, but I was completely out of breath. The man charged me with his fists raised. He stood there threatening me, while all I could do was gasp. If I had had a gun I would have shot the bastard. I have a right to run through a public park without being attacked by someone's dog and then by the owner who fails to control it. All I was doing was minding my own business. Sounds like the man got angry, but did he actually threaten you? He certainly didn't harm you. You would have had no justification to do anything to him, really, much less shoot him. You do have a right to run through a park without being attacked by a dog. That's what civil suits and laws are for, both of which you could have levied on the man had you chosen to do so. Had he actually threatened you, that is a crime also. Off leash fines in Seattle are $500; enough to make any dog owner think twice about letting aggropoodle run around free again. But you chose to do none of the above, so the jerk's probably still out there, messing with joggers. Next time you have a run in with a similar prick, and it sounds like he was every bit of that, I'd suggest doing something about it legally to stop the behavior rather than endulging in Dirty Harry fantasies. Carry a cell, and be ready to lower the boom when needed. why don't you replace CBS in the above scenario, and put one of your kids, under the age of 7 in that picture...or your wife...I woulda pulled the trigger on the dog...fuck your lawsuit... If you weren't so fat you could just wrastle them down to the ground and grind their face into the dirt til they come up with a cauliflower ear. why you gotta be so mean? Its in her blood and because she is a raging bitch. man, you two are horrible to ea other...where's the love?? She ant got any. Wonder how many time I will be able to quote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 (edited) why don't you replace CBS in the above scenario, and put one of your kids, under the age of 7 in that picture...or your wife...I woulda pulled the trigger on the dog...fuck your lawsuit... But that wasn't the situation, was it? That's a very different situation, which might have resulted in a different verdict. Being 'prone to flying into blind rages' (CBS's words and conjecture) does not make one violent or dangerous. Being violent or dangerous makes one violent or dangerous. I can scream at a wall all day long; I'm not sure that warrants being shot, although my wife might disagree. Finally, if you're prone to freaking out, don't carry a gun. If you do carry a gun, freak out, and use it wrongly, then you're responsible to pay for your mistake. If that seems unfair, well, tough toenails. You made the bad call to carry the gun in the first place. Edited March 19, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 why don't you replace CBS in the above scenario, and put one of your kids, under the age of 7 in that picture...or your wife...I woulda pulled the trigger on the dog...fuck your lawsuit... But that wasn't the situation, was it? That's a very different situation, which might have resulted in a different verdict. Being 'prone to flying into blind rages' (CBS's words and conjecture) does not make one violent or dangerous. Being violent or dangerous makes one violent or dangerous. I can scream at a wall all day long; I'm not sure that warrants being shot, although my wife might disagree. Finally, if you're prone to freaking out, don't carry a gun. If you do carry a gun, freak out, and use it wrongly, then you're responsible to pay for your mistake. If that seems unfair, well, tough toenails. You made the bad call to carry the gun in the first place. Its official.....this thread has hit the .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 my point is everything is relative...there is a point when a "nonshooter" will become a "shooter"...each is different as to when they reach that point... i personally think that being a state trooper would be almost impossible...they damn near have to wait until they've been shot or believe that they will be shot... what is wrong with the world today????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 why don't you replace CBS in the above scenario, and put one of your kids, under the age of 7 in that picture...or your wife...I woulda pulled the trigger on the dog...fuck your lawsuit... But that wasn't the situation, was it? That's a very different situation, which might have resulted in a different verdict. Being 'prone to flying into blind rages' (CBS's words and conjecture) does not make one violent or dangerous. Being violent or dangerous makes one violent or dangerous. I can scream at a wall all day long; I'm not sure that warrants being shot, although my wife might disagree. Finally, if you're prone to freaking out, don't carry a gun. If you do carry a gun, freak out, and use it wrongly, then you're responsible to pay for your mistake. If that seems unfair, well, tough toenails. You made the bad call to carry the gun in the first place. Its official.....this thread has hit the .... only because you keep posting stuff like this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtn_mouse Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 Finally, if you're prone to freaking out, don't carry a gun. If you do carry a gun, freak out, and use it wrongly, then you're responsible to pay for your mistake. If that seems unfair, well, tough toenails. You made the bad call to carry the gun in the first place. While it is good to discuss these things here, the above quote says it all. Remember, background checks on law enforcement officers try to weed out the above type of person. If you carry a gun, you must follow the rules, and go out of your way to avoid a shooting. You must have a concealed weapon permit, and in arizona, it is harder to obtain one, and a course is required. Simply put, you can use lethal force only to protect yourself or others from death or serious injury. The shooter could have shot a dog or two, or just fired a warning shot. Legal in most cases. If the totality of the situation indicated he was still in imminent threat of death or serious injury, he could have shot the dog owner. But we will never know what happened. But... it is unlikely that the dog owner would have actually attacked and assaulted an armed person. So the shooter should have redeployed and made an attempt to avoid contact. If the dog owner had actually made a physical assault on the shooter, then he could have been shot because it would be assumed that he would have tried to take the gun away from the shooter and use it on him. You don'g have to take that chance. The comment about 1 or 3 shots doesnt matter. If you must shoot in defense of your life, it does not matter how many shots you use within reason. My experience with NRA members is that they do not want to avoid a confrontation, and often escalate it. My opinion remains, the shooter did not shoot in self defense to neutralize a threat, but acted as aggressor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 I would only add that the number of shots matters quite a bit. One shot could have been explained away as an 'I didn't mean to actually pull the trigger'; manslaughter. After that, well, you're plinking using a human target. Taking it further, had the shooter emptied the clip into the victim, we probably wouldn't bother to have this discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted March 19, 2007 Author Share Posted March 19, 2007 Aggressor? Where was the body found? On the trail, not in his campsite. If the body was at the campsite, it would suggest that the shooter was the aggressor, but in this case the victim ran a fair distance to accost the defendant where he stood on the trail. If I remember correctly, all three wounds occurred while the victim was still standing. Forensics would have demonstrated differently, had any of the wounds been made while the victim was laying on the ground. The defendant rendered first aid and called for help immediately. What motive could he possibly had to shoot the man other than self-defense? Do you think a mild-mannered retired school teacher, father of seven and scout master just run around shooting people for no reason? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 I think you should stop asking questions until you address some of the ones posted for you to ponder first. Just an opinion... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtn_mouse Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 Just because the victim was still standing when shot does not mean he was physically attacking the shooter. Could have just been verbally abusing him. Another note, in Washington, LE officers are taught to fire 2-3 shots into the chest of an aggressor. They are not allowed to fire warning shots, and not allowed to shoot to wound, only shoot to kill if shooting is necessary. So the number of shots this guy shot, 3, shouldn't matter, nor should the caliber. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 Shouldn't, perhaps, but legally, it does very much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 there's only one man who can figure this shit out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 Just because the victim was still standing when shot does not mean he was physically attacking the shooter. Could have just been verbally abusing him. Another note, in Washington, LE officers are taught to fire 2-3 shots into the chest of an aggressor. They are not allowed to fire warning shots, and not allowed to shoot to wound, only shoot to kill if shooting is necessary. So the number of shots this guy shot, 3, shouldn't matter, nor should the caliber. Verbal attacks do not okay a shooting response. Officers play under different rules than the rest of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtn_mouse Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 The point is all cops in WA are taught to shoot multiple times, and do not have to stop at one. However it helps to look reasonable in the courts, and this guy definatly did not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.