If you carry do NOT be this idiot

[Koda]

MSN
More gun stupidity. I can't help wondering if the "victim" was really "innocent", but we'll see how this shakes out.

Everytime I read a -newer- article on this it becomes LESS clear the kid has his gun "in hand".
But the kids were innocent and the mall cop was an idiot.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Everytime I read a -newer- article on this it becomes LESS clear the kid has his gun "in hand".
But the kids were innocent and the mall cop was an idiot.

Glad to see your willing to change your mind as new and more accurate information becomes available!

 

[Alexx1401]

Everytime I read a -newer- article on this it becomes LESS clear the kid has his gun "in hand".
But the kids were innocent and the mall cop was an idiot.

He ( shooter) was a MORON no matter how those who want to defend him wish to slice and dice this. Those DESPERATE to find an out for the shooter are only doing it for one reason. They carry with the fantasy that they will one day get to play hero. Those like this who do get that chance will almost assuredly end up wishing they had not after its over. I could care less if adults want to screw up their life. I just hate that every one of these morons become fodder for those who don't want me to be able to carry.
I have LONG thought ALL should be able to carry to defend themselves. Those who do stupid things with that gun? Should be hung out to dry to make an example to others and the law should leave the rest of us alone. Sadly that is not how it works.

 

[Koda]

He ( shooter) was a MORON no matter how those who want to defend him wish to slice and dice this. Those DESPERATE to find an out for the shooter are only doing it for one reason.

You keep saying that and its not true. Discussing how the law might be applied is -not- finding an out for his actions. Nobodys defended the guy but the rabbit hole we went down got convoluted with the idea of taking sides.

 

[DB is Here]

Ah........The classic He said/He said argument.

 

[Yarome]

You keep saying that and its not true. Discussing how the law might be applied is -not- finding an out for his actions. Nobodys defended the guy but the rabbit hole we went down got convoluted with the idea of taking sides.

Which has been said and repeated multiple times in plain ol English, but some people just latch onto a bone gaslighting over and over with the false impression that their opinions are the only ones that matter.... and apparently... not afraid to keep calling everyone that doesn't fully agree with them idiots with mental issues and unfit to own a firearm.

So much for being respectful... and kinda makes you wonder... who actually seems to be struggling in the mental department, hu(?)

 

[Yarome]

Everytime I read a -newer- article on this it becomes LESS clear the kid has his gun "in hand".
But the kids were innocent and the mall cop was an idiot.

Ultimately innocent, yes. But still... a youth walking toward a store, or any public place where people gather... with what very obviously has every appearance of being a handgun in their hand is absolutely going to raise alarm bells. Those that are claiming it doesn't, it shouldn't and it's all perfectly innocent... are blowing smoke or seriously in denial. I guess it's possible "someone" might not personally consider it a red flag, but even if they wouldn't, you would think most folks have the reasonable sense to understand and acknowledge that many/most people would.

I haven't read every article, but haven't seen any that questioned if the first kid had an airsoft in his hand or not. Some didn't say it was in his hand but most all indicated that the youth dropped the "gun" immediately when told to do so. I know that "dropping" or "tossing" a gun down, more often than not, is going to require the use of a hand. Although... I guess if it was in your waistband you might be able to jump up and down... do a little hip shimmy or such and get it to drop.

Did you have a link to any of the articles that was claiming he didn't?

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

You keep saying that and its not true. Discussing how the law might be applied is -not- finding an out for his actions. Nobodys defended the guy but the rabbit hole we went down got convoluted with the idea of taking sides.

Kind it depends on what the definition of "defending" is. The line seems to be drawn between those who think that he never should've gotten out of his car at all and those that think that getting out of his car was OK but he made some errors after that.

 

[Koda]

Glad to see your willing to change your mind as new and more accurate information becomes available!

My only point was how the law could be applied. But I can concede as more information slowly comes in its less and less likely he could use that as an effective defense.
At least in my understanding of the law, which could be wrong, but thats the whole importance of group discussion to learn. Not to say anything else is "finding an out" and thus avoiding discussion.

I also think its worth noting the media isnt going to report fairly even if (hypothetically) the mall cop was right.

 

[Koda]

Kind it depends on what the definition of "defending" is. The line seems to be drawn between those who think that he never should've gotten out of his car at all and those that think that getting out of his car was OK but he made some errors after that.

Most of that is because on how unclear the media reporting is on this whole "gun in hand".
Im not even certain now where we got that from.

 

[Koda]

Did you have a link to any of the articles that was claiming he didn't?

No, but more importantly do we have any links to articles that explicitly stated it was "in hand"?

Where exactly did we get the impression it was literally in hand if we dont have it clearly stated in an article? Does it change the "reasonableness" of his intervention if it was in a pocket?

Its only safe to conclude he did see a gun.

 

[Yarome]

Kind it depends on what the definition of "defending" is. The line seems to be drawn between those who think that he never should've gotten out of his car at all and those that think that getting out of his car was OK but he made some errors after that.

And that's pretty much the whole difference. What one person would choose to do in that situation vs. what another would choose is moot when it comes to discussions on what is legally allowable.

I think the other part seems to be trying to argue facts not known until later to say an initial action was unjustified/illegal. Actions, and the legality of those actions can only be determined by the information that was available at that moment. It's completely illogical, otherwise.

 

[lucusloc]

Kind it depends on what the definition of "defending" is. The line seems to be drawn between those who think that he never should've gotten out of his car at all and those that think that getting out of his car was OK but he made some errors after that.

Yep. His mindset in getting out of the car was totally wrong. He was in the mental space of defending from malicious actions, not in validating if there was malicious actions. The problem is not in the checking on things, the problem is in making assumptions.

And yes, if his assumptions had been correct none of us would have been the wiser for it. All of his actions would have followed from an apparently logical course of action to his forgone conclusion. Any minor inconsistencies in that logic could easily be brushed away as "well you were not there, he probably noticed something you didn't." We would all agree it was a clean shoot.

But his assumptions were not correct, and those kids were (absent some groundbreaking revelation) totally innocent. And that means his assumptions and predispositions are now obvious for the whole world to see. He got out of his car with the expectation and intention to get into an altercation with bad guys, and all of his actions predisposed him to take actions that were unwarranted for the situation since, you know, there were no bad guys. He had entirely skipped the validation steps to determine the true nature of the interaction, escalating from cautious communication right up to lethal force.

Now some people might argue that he had a right to make those assumptions, that he was under no obligation to validate and he could operate on the worst case scenario his reasonably perceived facts would support. And under a different set of circumstances I would agree, such as you being in your own home and the altercation comes to you. You get to assume the worst and only validate as you feel you have time to safely do so. The issue has come to you and you are on someone else's schedule, so to speak.

But that is the difference between reactive and proactive. This altercation did not come to him, he went out and created it, which means he has a higher responsibility to validate than he otherwise would have if he had been on the receiving end of things. He had the option to sit and wait, even if his predisposition was screaming at him that the sooner he took action the safer everyone would be. It is obvious to me that that is the crux of the problem; his predisposition as to the nature of the situation blinded him to the fact that there was time to let things sit and sort themselves out.

This is the lesson we all need to take from this tragedy. Sometimes you have more time than you think you do, and we need to all have a good sit-and-think to figure out how we personally are going to identify and take advantage of that time, so we too do not make critical mistakes and shoot people who do not need to be shot. Some of us will choose to just not get involved in situations we are not a direct party to, some will wait until things develop to an obvious point before inserting themselves, and others will choose to use lesser interventions and will have to accept the risk of triggering a hostile response before they have all the information necessary to recognize it is coming. All of these are valid choices, and all come with different degrees and types of risk. It is a very good discussion to have, it is just sad it has to come to us at the cost of innocent life.

 

[HiFi Magnetics]

Sadly this will be used to death by those who don't want us to have guns. Unless a LOT more comes out sure looks like this moron is going to be a very old man when he gets out of prison over stupidity.

None of us works for Toys "Ur" Us....

 

[Yarome]

Most of that is because on how unclear the media reporting is on this whole "gun in hand".
Im not even certain now where we got that from.

I'm not 100% about "in his hand', but I'm fairly sure some did. I am certain some reported he was "carrying a gun"... and that might have contributed to the "in his hand" belief(?) Many also reported he immediately threw it to the ground (as seen in the security video footage) and he did not appear to have been rummaging around as if he might have been removing it from a pocket or waistband or such before tossing it.

At some point it would seem reasonable to believe it was clearly visible or the man wouldn't have identified it as a firearm and moved to approach them(?) Are people suggesting it wasn't even an airsoft that he dropped? Even though one was found on the ground next to that particular teen? (as well as a second airsoft pistol dropped by the other teen).

It would be difficult for me to believe there wasn't one... if I am also expected to believe that the teens where supposedly telling the man they were only BB guns, at the same time. A BB gun when there wasn't a BB gun(??) KWIM(?)

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Yep. His mindset in getting out of the car was totally wrong. He was in the mental space of defending from malicious actions, not in validating if there was malicious actions. The problem is not in the checking on things, the problem is in making assumptions.

And yes, if his assumptions had been correct none of us would have been the wiser for it. All of his actions would have followed from an apparently logical course of action to his forgone conclusion. Any minor inconsistencies in that logic could easily be brushed away as "well you were not there, he probably noticed something you didn't." We would all agree it was a clean shoot.

But his assumptions were not correct, and those kids were (absent some groundbreaking revelation) totally innocent. And that means his assumptions and predispositions are now obvious for the whole world to see. He got out of his car with the expectation and intention to get into an altercation with bad guys, and all of his actions predisposed him to take actions that were unwarranted for the situation since, you know, there were no bad guys. He had entirely skipped the validation steps to determine the true nature of the interaction, escalating from cautious communication right up to lethal force.

Now some people might argue that he had a right to make those assumptions, that he was under no obligation to validate and he could operate on the worst case scenario his reasonably perceived facts would support. And under a different set of circumstances I would agree, such as you being in your own home and the altercation comes to you. You get to assume the worst and only validate as you feel you have time to safely do so. The issue has come to you and you are on someone else's schedule, so to speak.

But that is the difference between reactive and proactive. This altercation did not come to him, he went out and created it, which means he has a higher responsibility to validate than he otherwise would have if he had been on the receiving end of things. He had the option to sit and wait, even if his predisposition was screaming at him that the sooner he took action the safer everyone would be. It is obvious to me that that is the crux of the problem; his predisposition as to the nature of the situation blinded him to the fact that there was time to let things sit and sort themselves out.

This is the lesson we all need to take from this tragedy. Sometimes you have more time than you think you do, and we need to all have a good sit-and-think to figure out how we personally are going to identify and take advantage of that time, so we too do not make critical mistakes and shoot people who do not need to be shot. Some of us will choose to just not get involved in situations we are not a direct party to, some will wait until things develop to an obvious point before inserting themselves, and others will choose to use lesser interventions and will have to accept the risk of triggering a hostile response before they have all the information necessary to recognize it is coming. All of these are valid choices, and all come with different degrees and types of risk. It is a very good discussion to have, it is just sad it has to come to us at the cost of innocent life.

Well said and I agree don't assume. Seperate observations from interpretations. Observe x, possible interpretations of what you see are a,b,c,d,e.

Now which one of those is it (need more data often but not always)? Observe and report or moving to an advantageous position while observing allows you to get more info. to figure out what it is. And then when you figure out what's actually going on, is that situation on your list for things you will intervene for?

All this "reasoning" in reality happens fast (ie seconds possibly), and can help determine good guys from bad guys among other things.

 

[Yarome]

The problem is not in the checking on things, the problem is in making assumptions.

That point has been brought up quite often, but I guess I don't quite understand this line of thought. I mean... if something bad is to be prevented from happening... how exactly would that occur is no assumptions can be made? After all, the only way to actually "know" before acting is if an incident were actually occurring. Would it not??

I have a sneaky suspicion that's why things like "probably cause" and "presumptive suspicion/cause" are codified. That's just a wild guess though.

 

[lucusloc]

That point has been brought up quite often, but I guess I don't quite understand this line of thought. I mean... if something bad is to be prevented from happening... how exactly would that occur is no assumptions can be made? After all, the only way to actually "know" before acting is if an incident were actually occurring. Would it not??

I have a sneaky suspicion that's why things like "probably cause" and "presumptive suspicion/cause" are codified. That's just a wild guess though.

The question is what are you attempting to prevent from happening? Can you articulate it? Can you support it with other observations? We can all assume bad things are happening, and even point to "evidence" that supports the suppositions, the question if is these perceptions are reasonable or if they are nothing but paranoid fever dreams (or some in-between of those extremes).

For example, you are waking out of a store to your car, and are crossing the parking lot. A car is coming and you see the driver giving you the "WTF?!" look like you are in their way. Never mind that you feel like you have the right of way. Do you now assume that you are about to get run down, or do you assume that they are just having a bad day, are running behind and may be venting some frustration in your direction? Do you think you are justified in making one assumption over the other because one situation is potentially life threatening? What actions do you think are reasonable in that situation? Does that change if you feel like you don't have a good avenue of escape?

We place our trust in people all day every day, not just with guns but with everything. When do we find it justified to act in the absences of a clear and unambiguous threat? Why should that change just because the danger is a firearm?

This gets right back to my earlier question of what else tipped this guy of to a potential threat other than a gun. What behavior, mannerism or circumstance was there that said "the sum totality of this situation leads to the reasonable assumption that these kids are acting with ill intent, mean harm to others and there is no other also reasonable and innocent justification for theses actions"? That is the threshold he would have needed to jump to lethal force like he did. Past that there simply are too many other reasonable and plausible (even if stupid) scenarios he could be responding to.

And, as I said before, things would be different if he was being dragged into the situation rather than creating it himself. He would have more leeway to act on assumptions if the kids were approaching and engaging him instead of vice-versa. But since he is the one doing the engagement he has the responsibility to ensure things are as they seem to him (i.e. validate his assumptions). Yes, that can happen fast, but it still has to happen. It, quite obviously now, did not happen, and an innocent party is dead because of it.

A huge part of this really does hinge on which way the interaction went. I reiterate again that a person who is inserting themselves into a situation has greater responsibility than someone who is being inserted into that same situation. This guy was doing the former, and so needed to take greater care (and assume greater risk) in validating what was going on. He did not do that and that is the primary problem before anything else we could discuss. If he was not willing to take on that risk (e.g. with the mindset that he wanted to make it home that night at any cost) then he needed to take up a more reactionary mentality rather than a proactive one. And yes, that means waiting for the actual crime to start, rather than trying to head of a potential crime beforehand. It would not have been incorrect for him to do that, legally or morally. It also would not have been incorrect to intervene before hand if and only if he had done so with the right mentality and accepted the greater risk to himself in doing so, instead of offloading that risk onto those kids by getting all trigger happy due to preconceived and incorrect assumptions.

 

[Koda]

The question is what are you attempting to prevent from happening? Can you articulate it? Can you support it with other observations? We can all assume bad things are happening, and even point to "evidence" that supports the suppositions, the question if is these perceptions are reasonable or if they are nothing but paranoid fever dreams (or some in-between of those extremes).

For example, you are waking out of a store to your car, and are crossing the parking lot. A car is coming and you see the driver giving you the "WTF?!" look like you are in their way. Never mind that you feel like you have the right of way. Do you now assume that you are about to get run down, or do you assume that they are just having a bad day, are running behind and may be venting some frustration in your direction? Do you think you are justified in making one assumption over the other because one situation is potentially life threatening? What actions do you think are reasonable in that situation? Does that change if you feel like you don't have a good avenue of escape?

We place our trust in people all day every day, not just with guns but with everything. When do we find it justified to act in the absences of a clear and unambiguous threat? Why should that change just because the danger is a firearm?

This gets right back to my earlier question of what else tipped this guy of to a potential threat other than a gun. What behavior, mannerism or circumstance was there that said "the sum totality of this situation leads to the reasonable assumption that these kids are acting with ill intent, mean harm to others and there is no other also reasonable and innocent justification for theses actions"? That is the threshold he would have needed to jump to lethal force like he did. Past that there simply are too many other reasonable and plausible (even if stupid) scenarios he could be responding to.

And, as I said before, things would be different if he was being dragged into the situation rather than creating it himself. He would have more leeway to act on assumptions if the kids were approaching and engaging him instead of vice-versa. But since he is the one doing the engagement he has the responsibility to ensure things are as they seem to him (i.e. validate his assumptions). Yes, that can happen fast, but it still has to happen. It, quite obviously now, did not happen, and an innocent party is dead because of it.

A huge part of this really does hinge on which way the interaction went. I reiterate again that a person who is inserting themselves into a situation has greater responsibility than someone who is being inserted into that same situation. This guy was doing the former, and so needed to take greater care (and assume greater risk) in validating what was going on. He did not do that and that is the primary problem before anything else we could discuss. If he was not willing to take on that risk (e.g. with the mindset that he wanted to make it home that night at any cost) then he needed to take up a more reactionary mentality rather than a proactive one. And yes, that means waiting for the actual crime to start, rather than trying to head of a potential crime beforehand. It would not have been incorrect for him to do that, legally or morally. It also would not have been incorrect to intervene before hand if and only if he had done so with the right mentality and accepted the greater risk to himself in doing so, instead of offloading that risk onto those kids by getting all trigger happy due to preconceived and incorrect assumptions.

Giving all this a 100%.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

The question is what are you attempting to prevent from happening? Can you articulate it? Can you support it with other observations? We can all assume bad things are happening, and even point to "evidence" that supports the suppositions, the question if is these perceptions are reasonable or if they are nothing but paranoid fever dreams (or some in-between of those extremes).

For example, you are waking out of a store to your car, and are crossing the parking lot. A car is coming and you see the driver giving you the "WTF?!" look like you are in their way. Never mind that you feel like you have the right of way. Do you now assume that you are about to get run down, or do you assume that they are just having a bad day, are running behind and may be venting some frustration in your direction? Do you think you are justified in making one assumption over the other because one situation is potentially life threatening? What actions do you think are reasonable in that situation? Does that change if you feel like you don't have a good avenue of escape?

We place our trust in people all day every day, not just with guns but with everything. When do we find it justified to act in the absences of a clear and unambiguous threat? Why should that change just because the danger is a firearm?

This gets right back to my earlier question of what else tipped this guy of to a potential threat other than a gun. What behavior, mannerism or circumstance was there that said "the sum totality of this situation leads to the reasonable assumption that these kids are acting with ill intent, mean harm to others and there is no other also reasonable and innocent justification for theses actions"? That is the threshold he would have needed to jump to lethal force like he did. Past that there simply are too many other reasonable and plausible (even if stupid) scenarios he could be responding to.

And, as I said before, things would be different if he was being dragged into the situation rather than creating it himself. He would have more leeway to act on assumptions if the kids were approaching and engaging him instead of vice-versa. But since he is the one doing the engagement he has the responsibility to ensure things are as they seem to him (i.e. validate his assumptions). Yes, that can happen fast, but it still has to happen. It, quite obviously now, did not happen, and an innocent party is dead because of it.

A huge part of this really does hinge on which way the interaction went. I reiterate again that a person who is inserting themselves into a situation has greater responsibility than someone who is being inserted into that same situation. This guy was doing the former, and so needed to take greater care (and assume greater risk) in validating what was going on. He did not do that and that is the primary problem before anything else we could discuss. If he was not willing to take on that risk (e.g. with the mindset that he wanted to make it home that night at any cost) then he needed to take up a more reactionary mentality rather than a proactive one. And yes, that means waiting for the actual crime to start, rather than trying to head of a potential crime beforehand. It would not have been incorrect for him to do that, legally or morally. It also would not have been incorrect to intervene before hand if and only if he had done so with the right mentality and accepted the greater risk to himself in doing so, instead of offloading that risk onto those kids by getting all trigger happy due to preconceived and incorrect assumptions.

I see this type of thing probably once a week in terms of crazies/driggies doing crazy things. Had one last night at 3am! (It wasn't serious enough to write about it or worry aboit it). You have to stop and watch for a while to get the truth of the situation.

When I was attacked (not last night) I waited until the opponent made physical contact cuz then i knew that legally I had the right of self defense. My actions prior to that were more geared towards taking passive actions visible to others and not escalating or even engaging. Didn't have to go to court and law was on my side. If you jump in with both feet (not saying I did that cuz I didn't, I used pepper spray to stop the attack) better make damn sure it's legal imo.