Guns used for lawful self defense Pt. 4

[aspire1670]

If a citizen carrying a gun shoots a criminal it precisely proves that citizens carrying guns are a good thing.

If I carry an epipen and inject its adrenalin into a person having an anaphylatic reaction to something, I will very likely save his life. That does not mean that carrying an epipen and jabbing people who appear to be in trouble is a good thing. For every life I save, I would kill 20.

That's because you'd be an idiot to do so. But, if you properly diagnose the condition as anaphylaxis, then your epipen will indeed save a life and be a good thing. Interesting point, I have three of them, they reside in my three trauma kits, one for each vehicle, for precisely the reason you state; somebody else might need me to save their life. That's the same reason (one of them) that I carry a gun. And the fact is that your epipen, according to your idiotic logic, should be banned entirely for everyone simply because some idiot carrying one insists on injecting people without justification.

Your simile is stupid because people who lawfully carry firearms don't just go around shooting people on scanty evidence that they are justified in doing so. The facts show that armed citizens are eleven times LESS likely to use deadly force in a situation where it is authorized than police officers.

Your simile is also stupid because if your child has a known allergy to peanuts but you don't have an epipen because it's been denied to you by government on the idiotic premise that somebody, somewhere, sometime might misuse it and harm someone, your child is going to die needlessly. When it comes to violent criminal attacks, it's not a matter of medical diagnosis, it's obvious on the face of things that an unlawful attack is taking place. If that attack gives rise to the requisite mens rea in the victim, or another person, that justifies the use of lethal force, then it's not a "mistake" to use deadly force.

Likewise, if I'm denied the ability to carry a handgun, in the unlikely (but possible) event that I or another person is violently attacked in a manner that justifies the use of deadly force in self defense (which means axiomatically that the attack itself poses an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm to the victim), I will be unable to respond effectively to the attack and perhaps save a life.

In the same way, we know from statistics that having a gun available increases a woman's risk of being murdered (main culprit - the male partner) three fold.

Which is a very good reason for women to carry guns.

That is thousands of extra murders from having a gun around - mainly hand guns. If a couple dozen lives are saved each year from people carrying guns, that is massively outweighed by the thousands of people who die because those guns are available.

Except that it's 800,000 (DOJ) to 2.5 million (Kleck, Lott et al) times each year that firearms are used defensively against crime, which massively outweighs the small number of people who are killed by firearms.

That is why anecdotes are so misleading. Anecdotes so often describe exceptions to general rules.

But in this case the reports are merely the tip of the iceberg of validated evidence, which floats in an ocean of unreported DGUs, which justify the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right by US citizens.

Just because you've drunk the hoplophobe anti-gun Kool-Aid doesn't mean you're correct, just gullible.

• was excellent.

Have you ever thought of having children with young Seth? You would ensure the lulz for another generation.

[Jason]

Wow.

This is tedious.

[aspire1670]

Wow.

This is tedious.

It's good that you have finally recognized your problem. The next step should be for you to stop posting. HTH.

[Jason]

Damn my moderate eyes! I'm not an extremist either way and must be branded and cast out from society!

[Gallstones]

If a citizen carrying a gun shoots a criminal it precisely proves that citizens carrying guns are a good thing.

If I carry an epipen and inject its adrenalin into a person having an anaphylatic reaction to something, I will very likely save his life. That does not mean that carrying an epipen and jabbing people who appear to be in trouble is a good thing. For every life I save, I would kill 20.

That's because you'd be an idiot to do so. But, if you properly diagnose the condition as anaphylaxis, then your epipen will indeed save a life and be a good thing. Interesting point, I have three of them, they reside in my three trauma kits, one for each vehicle, for precisely the reason you state; somebody else might need me to save their life. That's the same reason (one of them) that I carry a gun. And the fact is that your epipen, according to your idiotic logic, should be banned entirely for everyone simply because some idiot carrying one insists on injecting people without justification.

Your simile is stupid because people who lawfully carry firearms don't just go around shooting people on scanty evidence that they are justified in doing so. The facts show that armed citizens are eleven times LESS likely to use deadly force in a situation where it is authorized than police officers.

Your simile is also stupid because if your child has a known allergy to peanuts but you don't have an epipen because it's been denied to you by government on the idiotic premise that somebody, somewhere, sometime might misuse it and harm someone, your child is going to die needlessly. When it comes to violent criminal attacks, it's not a matter of medical diagnosis, it's obvious on the face of things that an unlawful attack is taking place. If that attack gives rise to the requisite mens rea in the victim, or another person, that justifies the use of lethal force, then it's not a "mistake" to use deadly force.

Likewise, if I'm denied the ability to carry a handgun, in the unlikely (but possible) event that I or another person is violently attacked in a manner that justifies the use of deadly force in self defense (which means axiomatically that the attack itself poses an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm to the victim), I will be unable to respond effectively to the attack and perhaps save a life.

In the same way, we know from statistics that having a gun available increases a woman's risk of being murdered (main culprit - the male partner) three fold.

Which is a very good reason for women to carry guns.

That is thousands of extra murders from having a gun around - mainly hand guns. If a couple dozen lives are saved each year from people carrying guns, that is massively outweighed by the thousands of people who die because those guns are available.

Except that it's 800,000 (DOJ) to 2.5 million (Kleck, Lott et al) times each year that firearms are used defensively against crime, which massively outweighs the small number of people who are killed by firearms.

That is why anecdotes are so misleading. Anecdotes so often describe exceptions to general rules.

But in this case the reports are merely the tip of the iceberg of validated evidence, which floats in an ocean of unreported DGUs, which justify the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right by US citizens.

Just because you've drunk the hoplophobe anti-gun Kool-Aid doesn't mean you're correct, just gullible.

• was excellent.

Have you ever thought of having children with young Seth? You would ensure the lulz for another generation.

At least some of us will be laughing.



Are you sure you don't have some kind of man crush, 'cause you just can't leave Seth alone. You seem obsessed--seriously dude. Get help.

[SteveB]

Guns for all! Guns for none! Guns for some! I covered all my bases. Bye!

[Blind groper]

your epipen, according to your idiotic logic, should be banned entirely for everyone simply because some idiot carrying one insists on injecting people without justification.

Actually, I did not express that kind of idiotic logic. If asked, my logic is that no one who is not trained to recognise when an epipen is needed, should own one. In exactly the same way, no one who is not trained to use a hand gun intelligently should be permitted to own one. That would restrict it to police officers.

[aspire1670]

Are you sure you don't have some kind of man crush, 'cause you just can't leave Seth alone. You seem obsessed--seriously dude. Get help.

I bow to your superior knowledge of needing help for obsessions, man crushes and projection, young dudette.

[Gallstones]

Are you sure you don't have some kind of man crush, 'cause you just can't leave Seth alone. You seem obsessed--seriously dude. Get help.

I bow to your superior knowledge of needing help for obsessions, man crushes and projection, young dudette.

Excellent.
You are admitting I am right.

You might make progress yet.


Are you old? Because it seems you call others "young" this and "young" that.
Maybe it isn't wisdom you have, it's dementia.

[aspire1670]

Are you sure you don't have some kind of man crush, 'cause you just can't leave Seth alone. You seem obsessed--seriously dude. Get help.

I bow to your superior knowledge of needing help for obsessions, man crushes and projection, young dudette.

Excellent.
You are admitting I am right.

You might make progress yet.


Are you old? Because it seems you call others "young" this and "young" that.
Maybe it isn't wisdom you have, it's dementia.

I bow to your superior experience of dementia, it may explain your odd obsessions and your problem with reading for comprehension, old dudette. HTH

[Seth]

your epipen, according to your idiotic logic, should be banned entirely for everyone simply because some idiot carrying one insists on injecting people without justification.

Actually, I did not express that kind of idiotic logic.

Yes you did.

If asked, my logic is that no one who is not trained to recognise when an epipen is needed, should own one.

No, your logic is nobody should own one merely because someone MIGHT misuse one.

In exactly the same way, no one who is not trained to use a hand gun intelligently should be permitted to own one. That would restrict it to police officers.

Well, at least we've got you to admit that training overcomes your arguments. Now you might want to consider that I (and many other gun owners) actually train much more often than the vast majority of police officers and are far better shots than they are. You won't believe it of course because you have such a narrow-minded view of the subject, but it's true nonetheless.

[Blind groper]

Which is a very good reason for women to carry guns.

That would just increase the death toll. The women who are murdered by their male partner are mostly killed at home, which is when any gun they might own has been put away. If they carried a hand gun, it is just an opportunity for someone to tear it off them and use it lethally.

No, your logic is nobody should own one merely because someone MIGHT misuse one.

No, Seth.
I never said that. This is just you imagining something.

I should tell you, though, that I do not bother reading your anecdotes, and I suspect most others here are like me in this. Anecdotes are worthless. Rather like your logic, in fact.

On training.
If someone is going to carry a gun, being trained is vital. But it is not training in how to use it, and gaining accuracy that is important. The important type of training is training when not to use it. I do not know what the American police get trained in, but here in NZ, a very big part of police gun training is in recognising the majority of situations when the gun should not be used.

[JimC]

Damn my moderate eyes! I'm not an extremist either way and must be branded and cast out from society!

I am much more moderate than you!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I thought we got this all sorted in the first thread?

[Seth]

Which is a very good reason for women to carry guns.

That would just increase the death toll.

...of people who try to rape and assault women.

The women who are murdered by their male partner are mostly killed at home, which is when any gun they might own has been put away. If they carried a hand gun, it is just an opportunity for someone to tear it off them and use it lethally.

Or for them to use it tactically to prevent such an event, which is far more likely. A woman with a gun is far less likely to be cowed into submission and subsequently murdered. Pulling a gun and threatening an attacker is a really good way to end the attack, one way or another. Plus, it gives the woman an effective tool to assist in her escape. Most women are murdered by their domestic partners because they have been kept away from effective means of self defense, sometimes (significantly) by years of physical abuse that renders them mentally incapable of doing what they need to do when things get out of control.

Women who carry guns almost never get into such situations or relationships because the FIRST time someone tries to physically abuse them is the LAST time he does so. Either she throws him out at gunpoint or she shoots him dead, depending on the severity of the attack.

So, you're just fucked in the head, as usual.

No, your logic is nobody should own one merely because someone MIGHT misuse one.

No, Seth.
I never said that. This is just you imagining something.

That's exactly what your simile implies and you know it.

I should tell you, though, that I do not bother reading your anecdotes, and I suspect most others here are like me in this. Anecdotes are worthless. Rather like your logic, in fact.

Of course you don't. You're far to parochial and narrow-minded to bother with actual evidence. You've made up your mind and slammed closed the tiny crack that once existed and you're a hopeless case. But I don't present those examples of effective defensive gun uses for your benefit. I don't give a flying fuck what you think or say, I present them, and rebut your asinine arguments for the benefit of the lurkers and visitors who might get the mistaken impression that you can differentiate your asshole from a hole in the ground when it comes to the gun debate.

On training.
If someone is going to carry a gun, being trained is vital.

Indeed. I agree.

But it is not training in how to use it, and gaining accuracy that is important. The important type of training is training when not to use it.

Yup, quite correct. That is in fact the focus of every single concealed carry course I've ever taken (and I've taken many, not because I needed to but because the various state laws required I sit through them anyway, even though I have more than 20 years experience as a certified police officer). And the fact is that armed citizens are far LESS likely to shoot someone than police officers are precisely because they do not enjoy qualified governmental immunity as police officers do in the performance of their duties. Usually, shooting someone, even if it's completely justified, will cost you about 50 grand in legal expenses. Armed citizens are well aware of the dangers of discharging a firearm improperly, which not only includes civil liability for every single bullet fired, but also criminal liability.

An example is the guy who listened to Vice President Joe (I'm a dimwit) Biden's advice to "get a shotgun and shoot through the door" and ended up killing a neighbor's child with an errant projectile.

That's why shooting classes are increasingly popular, and those of us who carry routinely also practice routinely, far more so than most police officers, who are usually only required to qualify with their handguns once or twice a year. I shoot THOUSANDS of times more rounds in a year than just about any police officer I have ever known.

I do not know what the American police get trained in, but here in NZ, a very big part of police gun training is in recognising the majority of situations when the gun should not be used.

Same here, and armed citizens are, as I said, demonstrably better trained NOT to use their handguns profligately or improperly than most police officers. It wasn't armed citizens who perpetrated this fiasco:

NYPD Gunfire In Empire State Building Shooting Wounded All Nine Bystanders, Says Ray Kelly

The Huffington Post | By Inae Oh Posted: 08/25/2012 11:53 am Updated: 08/25/2012 1:30 pm
Share on Google+
Get New York Alerts:
Sign Up
Follow:
Michael Bloomberg, Gun Control, NY News, NYPD, Video, Empire State Building, Jeffrey Johnson, New York Shooting, Empire State Building Shooting, Empire State Building Shooting Nypd, Jeffrey Johnson Gunman, Jeffrey Johnson Shooter, Nypd Bullets, Nypd Gunfire, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, Ray Kelly, Slideexpand, Steve-Ercolino, New York News
Empire State Building Shooting

New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said all nine bystanders wounded in Friday's Empire State Building shooting had been hit with police gunfire, CNN reported Saturday morning.

According to Kelly, of the nine wounded, three suffered gunshot wounds and six were hit by fragments.

Gunfire broke out shortly after 9 a.m. on Friday when a gunman identified as 58-year old Jeffrey Johnson shot and killed former coworker Steve Ercolino near the Empire State Building.

Johnson attempted to flee the scene, but was thwarted after a construction worker who followed him tipped off police officers.

Police approached Johnson who aimed his gun at the officers before police opened fire, killing him on the spot.

The NYPD said officers fired 16 rounds with one officer shooting nine and another seven.

During a press conference held on Friday, Mayor Bloomberg had said some individuals may have been shot at by NYPD.

Less than two weeks prior to Friday's shooting, NYPD shot and killed a knife-wielding man in Times Square. The bizarre incident caused many to question if the NYPD had overreacted.

Since the chaotic incident, details have emerged describing a hostile relationship between Johnson and Ercolino, who both worked at Hazan Imports together until Johnson was laid off nearly two years ago.

CORRECTION: This article originally stated that the man in Times Square who was shot by NYPD had a gun. He actually had a knife. The article has been updated to reflect that.

Cops are well know for emptying their weapons regardless of the necessity to do so when they get in a shootout. Like these examples:

New York City Police Acquitted in 50-Shot Killing (Update10)
By Patricia Hurtado and Lindsay Fortado - April 25, 2008 17:07 EDT

April 25 (Bloomberg) -- Three New York City police detectives were found not guilty in the 2006 killing of an unarmed man in a 50-bullet barrage outside a Queens strip-club just hours before he was to be married.

Gescard Isnora and Michael Oliver were acquitted of manslaughter, assault and reckless endangerment in the shooting death of 23-year-old Sean Bell outside the Kalua club in the South Jamaica section of Queens. Marc Cooper was found not guilty of reckless endangerment.

``The people have not proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt that each of the defendants was not justified in the actions that each took,'' New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Cooperman in Queens said today as he gave his verdict. The defendants had opted for a non-jury trial. Isnora gasped while Oliver and families of the three men sobbed. Bell's fianc e, Nicole Paultre Bell, stood up and left the courtroom.

The U.S. Department of Justice said it will investigate the shooting for possible federal civil rights violations. It was one of several high-profile New York police shootings of unarmed men in the past decade. In 1999, four officers were found not guilty of murdering African immigrant Amadou Diallo after firing 41 shots as he reached for a wallet. In 2004, an officer killed Timothy Stansbury, 19, on the roof of a Brooklyn housing project where he lived. The officer wasn't indicted.

Fatally Shot

In 2003, Officer Bryan Conroy fatally shot unarmed West African immigrant Ousmane Zongo in a Manhattan warehouse. Conroy was found guilty of criminally negligent homicide and sentenced to five years of probation and community service. In 2000, an undercover narcotics agent killed Patrick Dorismond, a security guard in Manhattan, after mistaking him for a drug dealer. A grand jury decided against indicting the officer.

A $50 million civil rights and wrongful death lawsuit against the city was filed by Bell's fianc e and two of his companions from the night of the shooting, according to attorney Sanford Rubenstein. The suit, filed in Brooklyn, New York, federal court, was delayed pending the criminal trial.

New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said today that he would wait for a decision by Brooklyn U.S. Attorney Benton Campbell on whether to bring a civil rights case before pursuing disciplinary measures against the three detectives.

Federal Prosecution

Queens District Attorney Richard Brown, who said the judge acted fairly and that he accepted the verdict, added that he told Campbell he will cooperate in the federal probe. The Justice Department said it has been monitoring the case.

Isnora, Oliver and Cooper, though acquitted by a state court, may be tried again for the same crime if the second case is brought by the federal government.

``I'd like to say sorry to the Bell family for the tragedy,'' Cooper said at a press conference after the verdict. Isnora and Oliver thanked their families and friends.

Outside the courthouse, news of the verdict caused the crowd that had gathered to begin chanting obscenities at the more than 100 police and court officers posted around the building.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the trial had ``no winners.''

``An innocent man lost his life, a bride lost her groom, two daughters lost their father, and a mother and a father lost their son. No verdict could ever end the grief that those who knew and loved Sean Bell suffer,'' Bloomberg said, adding, ``we don't expect violence or law-breaking, nor is there any place for it.''

Protests were generally peaceful, with only a few scuffles between crowd members and television camera crews.

The mayor is majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News.

Almost Eight Weeks

Cooperman rendered his verdict after almost eight weeks of trial. The court is located in the Kew Gardens area of Queens.

More than 50 prosecution and six defense witnesses testified. They said that, at about 4 a.m. on Nov. 25, 2006, Bell was arguing with a man outside the strip club. Isnora, dressed in plain clothes, claimed he heard mention of a gun in the argument and followed Bell and his two friends to their car and stood in front of it with his gun drawn.

Oliver, 36, who allegedly fired his gun 31 times, and Isnora, 29, who fired 11 times, faced as much as 25 years in prison. Cooper, 40, faced as much as a year in prison. Prosecutors said he fired his gun four times.

Criticized Prosecution

Cooperman criticized the prosecution's case, saying many of the witnesses gave contradictory accounts. The judge said he was swayed by the fact that a prosecution witness recanted, and that some had criminal convictions and interests in the outcome.

``These factors played a significant part in the people's ability to prove their case,'' Cooperman said before the verdict, ``and had the effect of eviscerating the credibility of those prosecution witnesses.''

Brown and his assistants said that, unlike a jury trial, they were obligated to make available all evidence and witnesses to the judge. Otherwise, they may have been accused of suppressing evidence that may have helped the defense.

``All of them, they never tried to harmonize their testimony,'' said Assistant District Attorney Charles Testagrossa, the lead prosecutor in the case. ``This leads to conflicts. Judge Cooperman noted that.''

Defense lawyer Anthony Ricco, who represented Isnora, said before the verdict that there were ``many different perspectives to reconcile'' in the case.

Bell T-Shirts

Outside the courthouse, people wearing Sean Bell t-shirts lined the sidewalks. A group of about 50 people with Sean Bell signs sang hymns and prayed. Groups represented included the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Revolutionary Communist Party and the Community Church of Christ in Jamaica, Queens.

Patrick Lynch, president of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, a 27,000-member New York police union, said ``we're grateful for the outcome,'' and that the verdict ``sends a message to New York City police officers'' that they will be treated fairly in shooting cases.

As he spoke, the crowd chanted ``guilty.'' Several police helicopters hovered overhead.

``We have been portrayed as insensitive murderers and I can tell you we are not,'' said Mike Palladino, president of the Detectives' Endowment Association, at a press conference. ``The last thing they wanted to do is injure anyone.''

Modified Duty

The three officers remain on modified duty pending the federal inquiry and a departmental investigation. Palladino declined to comment on whether they wanted to rejoin the force.

The case against the detectives has been championed by the Rev. Al Sharpton, the president of the civil rights group National Action Network. Sharpton has held press conferences calling for the three detectives to be convicted. He was at the courthouse for the verdict, along with Bell's fianc e.

``This was an abortion of justice,'' Sharpton said today on his radio show. ``The fight is far from over.''

Lloyd Nelson, a member of Sharpton's group, said the judge ``is more guilty than the people that actually pulled the trigger. He has no excuse.''

Nelson said that Bell's fianc e had asked some of the members of the crowd to remain calm after the verdict.

The case turned on whether the judge believed the detectives were justified in firing at Bell and his two passengers, Trent Benefield and Joseph Guzman. The two men were seriously injured in the shooting, according to prosecutors. The police were in plain clothes at the time.

Identify Himself

Isnora claimed to have identified himself as a police officer. Guzman and Benefield testified they never saw Isnora's badge or heard him identify himself.

Bell accelerated the Nissan Altima forward, hitting Isnora's leg and then a police van. After the car backed up, Isnora said he started shooting, claiming he thought he saw Guzman reaching for a gun. There was none.

Police said Isnora fired the first shot. Officers other than the three defendants who fired shots weren't charged.

Cooperman said that Bell's friends had given the impression that they had a gun.

In an eight-count indictment handed up last year, Isnora and Oliver each were charged with manslaughter in the first and second degree in the death of Bell, and assault in the first degree for the injuries to Guzman, who was hit 16 times. Oliver was charged with assault in the first degree for the injuries to Benefield, who was struck three times, while Isnora was charged with assault in the second degree with regard to Benefield.

Three Officers

All three officers were charged with reckless endangerment for shooting multiple times on the street while other people were present. Cooper was charged with an additional count for shooting a bullet through a window of a nearby train station, and Oliver was charged with an additional count for shooting a bullet through the window of a residential home.

Following the verdict, Timothy Ford of Brooklyn, a member of the Black Panthers, attacked Cooperman's verdict.

``It's outrageous, it's unfair, it's unjust,'' Ford said. ``These cops are outright guilty.''

The case is People v. Isnora, 07-00001, New York State Supreme Court (Queens).

Care to do your homework and show me ONE SINGLE INSTANCE where an armed citizen or citizens lawfully fired 50 rounds at an attacker?

Don't bother, it's NEVER HAPPENED.

So, until you know something about handguns, firearms training and how armed citizens go about it, I suggest you shut the fuck up so you don't look like such an ignoramus all the time.