Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol

[scooter_the_shooter]

They are made of metal and are inatmimate(sp)? But I do agree they do require a little bit of responsibility. Like following the 4 rules.



Keep it pointed in a safe direction (most important IMO)

Only shoot what you are willing to destroy

finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.

be aware of what is beyond your target

[Duke of Gloucester]

The conviction in the Martin case was reduced on appeal from murder to manslaughter , the other case to which I refer (there is a topic on it here somewhere) is currently being appealed as the manslaughter conviction is a joke , it was definately murder.

In my view Martin was lucky to have his conviction reduced - a bit of a joke too.

The what if thing is ok but in gun control threads there is to much misinformation.



Like this



Quote:
you won't be able to approach a householder for help if you, say, crash your car and get injured - go up to their house and they will shoot you as a burglar. (This happens in the US, I understand)

I prefer a more aggressive form of self defence and consider property rights central to a functioning capitalist republic. If you cross my threshold without permission, I should have the right to blow you back across it with nearly anything short of a WMD.

Do I need to justify the "misinformation" any further? As a matter of fact, British visitors to the Southern states of the US have been advised not to approach rural dwellings at night in case they are shot.

[Tribesman]

In my view Martin was lucky to have his conviction reduced - a bit of a joke too.

Well the main difference between murder and manslaughter is intent and the mental condition of the accused .
Martins' defense could argue that he didn't intend to kill , whereas Nallys own testimony shows his intent , the only chance that Nally has in beating the prosecutions appeal is if the defense can succesfully question his mental state .

[Duke of Gloucester]

In my view Martin was lucky to have his conviction reduced - a bit of a joke too.

Well the main difference between murder and manslaughter is intent and the mental condition of the accused .
Martins' defense could argue that he didn't intend to kill , whereas Nallys own testimony shows his intent , the only chance that Nally has in beating the prosecutions appeal is if the defense can succesfully question his mental state .

You can be convicted of murder even if you did not intend to kill if you were reckless about whether death would be a result of your actions. If you shoot someone, that seems to me to be res ipso locutor reckless. However, the state of Martin's abode probably made it easy for his lawyers to argue poor mental condition. If Martin was lucky, maybe Nally will be too.

[Major Robert Dump]

I agree he should not have shot the guy...but what is wrong with a gun in the truck? It's a piece of metal it can't do anything. I am sick of the wacky left making it sound like they just "go off" and have minds of their own

Did you even read my post? It was in the back of the truck, on the outside. This guy is driving around a densely populated city with a loaded large caliber rifle in the back of his truck where anyone can grab it. Having it locked inside the truck is a lot different than what this man was doing, but having a RIFLE in a truck is just retarded for self defense anyway, because there aren't any scenarios where it would actually be useful and where a handgun wouldnt serve a better purpose. If they guy was waving a revolver around the victim might actually still be alive.

You're pretty funny, you just accused me of being a gun grabber.

[English assassin]

Slightly OT, I'm not too sure how Martin got away w manslaughter. The future Richard III has the mens rea for murder slightly wrong, it is intent and not recklessness, but intent to cause GBH would be enough (ie it doesn't have to be intent to kill).

I struggle to see how you can discharge a shotgun at someone at close range in the back without intending to cause them GBH (I'd just about buy that you didn't intend to kill them, supposing the gun wasn't loaded with buckshot).

I can only guess there was just about enough reasonable doubt that Martin intended to fire a "warning shot", and was reckless as to where he did it. Personally if I was a Lord Justice of Appeal his arse would still be in jail, seeing as the concept of a warning shot, dubious at best, is even more unlikely when the burglars were running away, and I struggle with the idea of a warning shot fired horizontally at chest height, as opposed to, say, into the air or the ground.

Of course if the police had actually done anything about the criminal careers of the scumbag burglars none of this would have happened, but that isn't the point.

[Major Robert Dump]

For you ceasar, you probably coudlnt find it because i got some facts wrong: it was a 30-.06, not a 30/30, it was Stillwater, not Tulsa (still a heavily populated college town) and he wasnt standing on his porch, he was in the street



Jury acquits landlord in shooting death of tenant

The Associated Press
STILLWATER, Okla. — A Payne County jury acquitted a Stillwater landlord of first-degree murder after he shot a former tenant who owed $350 in back rent.
John Gilbert Buntin, 65, claimed self-defense at his trial in the death of Darran Keith Brannon Mooreland, 33, who shot in the chest with a rifle in his front yard on Sept. 5, 2003.

Buntin told jurors he thought the rifle was unloaded and that he was trying to bluff his former tenant. He also said he thought the slain man had a gun in his pocket. The gun turned out to be a can of beer.

Buntin, who admitted he made several trips that day trying to find Brannon and his wife to collect back rent, testified that he only carried his rifle in his pickup "when I went to my farm to kill dogs killing my cattle." He said he had been to his farm that morning.

The jury deliberated nearly eight hours over two days and also on Wednesday acquitted Buntin of pointing his rifle at the victim's wife, Janeene Sumpter.

Sobbing, she kept saying, "I just can't believe it," of the jury's verdict.

The victim's aunt, Pamela Brannon Hathron of Tulsa, filed a wrongful death civil lawsuit against Buntin on behalf of the slain man's family in Payne County District Court on Monday.

"Just because the court found this man not guilty does not mean he is not guilty," Hathron said.

Throughout the trial, defense attorney Cheryl Ramsey repeatedly pointed out that the slain man was an ex-convict and the defendant was a law-abiding citizen who counted among his friends retired Stillwater Police Chief Hilary Driggs, who testified for the defense as a character witness.

In his closing argument, District Attorney Rob Hudson told the jury, "You can't shoot somebody because they have a can of beer in their pocket." He argued that Buntin "murdered Darran Brannon in cold blood."

Regarding the acquittal, Ramsey said, "We're very excited the jury believed Mr. Buntin and the situation he was in was life-threatening."

Buntin had testified that when he saw Brannon walking toward him from across the street, he thought Brannon had "a shiny pistol in his pocket," and "I thought I might be shot."

Also,


http://www.adaeveningnews.com/Crime/...003110716.html

http://www.cushingdaily.com/local/lo...004132755.html

http://www.kfor.com/Global/story.asp...nav=menu99_2_6


So there you have it. He was trying to "defend" himself with an "unloaded" gun because the victim was reaching for a chrome plated handgun that was really a can of beer.

I hope this old man loses everything he has in the civil suit, since the federal grand jury investigation, as many of us in the states know very well, means absolutely nothing. Kenneth Trentandue, anyone?

Oh wait, they had police records, they deserved to die, right? Police never make mistakes, people never rehabilitate.

[Duke of Gloucester]

As I understand it, if you intend to cause harm (not necessarily grevious harm) and are reckless about whether death will result, you can be convicted of murder.

[Redleg]

Do I need to justify the "misinformation" any further? As a matter of fact, British visitors to the Southern states of the US have been advised not to approach rural dwellings at night in case they are shot.

It seems your government is under the same delusion.

The rural south that I grew up in doesn't shoot people because they approach the house at night.

[Duke of Gloucester]

It seems your government is under the same delusion.

I can't blame the government for this one - it was a travel agent.

[Major Robert Dump]

These guys are taking one or two examples of some over-paranoid gun owner and using it to justify the villification of an entire people.

Out in the middle of nowhere, where no one ever passes through and your amongst the osrt that even shoots at the Census man? Oaky, okay, avoid the house with the cattle skulls on the fence posts that say NO TRESPASSING painted on the sides of old shot up cars. Fat chance tourists would be there. Fat chance any of us would.

A few crazies doesn't make us all crazies.

[Redleg]

These guys are taking one or two examples of some over-paranoid gun owner and using it to justify the villification of an entire people.

Out in the middle of nowhere, where no one ever passes through and your amongst the osrt that even shoots at the Census man? Oaky, okay, avoid the house with the cattle skulls on the fence posts that say NO TRESPASSING painted on the sides of old shot up cars. Fat chance tourists would be there. Fat chance any of us would.

A few crazies doesn't make us all crazies.

Absolutely correct - I know a few places in the United States just like that - the unfortunate thing is that they are not just in the South, hell they are not even primarily in the South. What the travel agents in Britian should be advisings is that the tourist check with the locals about what areas to avoid.

One sould not be surprised that the gun toting parniod people that shoot on sight are not average citizens but belong to groups that isolate themselves from the rest of society.

[English assassin]

As I understand it, if you intend to cause harm (not necessarily grevious harm) and are reckless about whether death will result, you can be convicted of murder.

I wouldn't hold myself out as the greatest expert on criminal law, but I am pretty sure its intent to kill or cause "really serious harm" (ie GBH) only. Intent or lack of it is the key difference between murder and manslaughter. (Ignoring defences).

You may be thinking of the rule that the law takes you to "intend" the natural consequences of your actions, even if your true intention was something else, and you merely accepted the natural consequence as an unfortunate byproduct of your actions. So, for instance, if I poison chocolate bars in Sainsburies, my real intention may be to blackmail Sainsburies out of a lot of money, but I am deemed also to intend the harm caused to people who eat the bars.

I seem to remember the "avoid the south" advice in the UK was connected with the law in Florida that said it was OK for citizens to start shooting people who annoyed them. Except that on further investigation the law didn't say that, it said something like when a jury is considering whether you were shooting in self defence, the fact that you did not retreat does not necessarily mean you cannot have been acting in self defence.

Which as a legal rule seemed perfectly reasonable to me, even if retreat would be the better option in the majority of cases.

[scooter_the_shooter]

Did you even read my post? It was in the back of the truck, on the outside. This guy is driving around a densely populated city with a loaded large caliber rifle in the back of his truck where anyone can grab it. Having it locked inside the truck is a lot different than what this man was doing, but having a RIFLE in a truck is just retarded for self defense anyway, because there aren't any scenarios where it would actually be useful and where a handgun wouldnt serve a better purpose. If they guy was waving a revolver around the victim might actually still be alive.

You're pretty funny, you just accused me of being a gun grabber.

I know of plenty of people who keep rifles in the truck They keep it there incase their handgun just won't do. One guy I shoot with (rarely) cracks me up about this. He carries a keltec pocket gun(p3at), a glock 17L and keeps a rifle in his truck.

[Ja'chyra]

So a responsible gun owner could be one who leaves his weapons lying around in his truck for all to see, not to mention take?

Doesn't seem that responsible to me.

[Ser Clegane]

I know of plenty of people who keep rifles in the truck

I don't think that this is a very good justification - it just shows that there are apparently quite a lot of irresponsible gun owners

They keep it there incase their handgun just won't do.

What kind of situations would that be?

[Strike For The South]

What kind of situations would that be?

zombies. Guns are blown waaaaay out of proportion. Teach your kids how to use them go hunting shoot cans etc. If you need to use it go ahead. There are more guns on my street than there are at Ft.Hood. (including an rpg) and yet no ones been killed shot or maimed.

[Major Robert Dump]

Here we go again, swerving waaaay OT in a gun thread, but okay I'll try to clear it up.

In CAs original story threat of bodily harm on the assailant and locked doors with screaming people inside did not dissuade him from the crime he was intending to commit. He deserved to be shot.

In the story I refer to, the man should have -- at the least -- been charged and convicted with manslaughter. It's people like himt hat make the rest of us look bad. As for the DA in that case, maybe the murder charge was a dummy charge...based on the law straight up murder might not stick, maybe the DA was pandering, trying to look tough, either way, this guy should be brought up again on manslaughter charges or negligent homicide as that would not be double jeopardy. Simply put, he should not be able to get away with such fool hardy negligence. The whole "i felt threatened" argument is as gay as an Elton john concert...

the florida (and now Oklahoma yaaay) law simply removed one criteria from the self defense act of using a handgun to defend yourself: you have to retreat. that's right, you have to retreat. Before these self defense laws were enacted you were required by law to retreat if a person meant you grievous bodily harm and there was an escape route rather than to "stand your ground." If a man with a gun kicked in your front door you could not shoot him if you had a back door to flee from, or if he carjacked you you could not shoot him if you could flee out the other door, or if 5 guys jumped you in a dark alley you could not shoot at them if there was the option to run. that is ridiculous. People are maimed and killed all the time by people who don't mean to seriously hurt them, or by people who are just using fists and feet but are superior in strenght and numbers. I'm not very willing to get my ass kicked by some drunks jerks who don't like my shirt and possibly end up with missing teeth and a bum shoulder the rest of my life. People who make decisions to asault people in such manner are void of rights, and deserve what they get if their intent is clear.

[yesdachi]

Growing up in the country, many of the people I knew that had a truck also had a gunrack in it and always had a gun of some kind there. I am not even sure if they are legal anymore but at the time, legal or not, many people had them. And just to clarify the guns were typically used for shooting coyotes, wolves, traveling salesmen or other dangerous pests.

Of all the hundreds of people I know who have a gun/guns I don’t know anyone who has ever been accidentally (shoulder burses don’t count) injured by one. Fireworks are another story .


I was thinking about this last night and some people mentioned a baseball bat, I don’t think a 15 year old and a hysterical mother could have protected themselves from a serious intruder with just a bat.

[Ser Clegane]

zombies.

Good point - quite a nuisance ... and they seem to get peskier each year

[Scurvy]

I was thinking about this last night and some people mentioned a baseball bat, I don’t think a 15 year old and a hysterical mother could have protected themselves from a serious intruder with just a bat.

those baseball bats are dangerous, i broke my arm with a cricket bat -->

i think it depends what your priorities are, if its self defence then anything solid will do in a panic (people tend to flail wildy etc. and that would fend off a mugger etc. if the attacker has a gun your no better with a gun yourself (equal chance of getting shot) and are probably best to run and hide.

[scooter_the_shooter]

I don't think that this is a very good justification - it just shows that there are apparently quite a lot of irresponsible gun owners

What kind of situations would that be?

It's their right. They don't need to justify it.


Why do you want a sports car you don't need one.

Why do you play video games you don't need too.

I can go on...


It's not irresponsible to keep a gun in the cab of a truck.

[BHCWarman88]

3 words, ash baseball bat. No need for a pistol if you got a bat. This is hardly a good example for allowing people to have pistols. In fact IMO using guns was not justified at all.

a Bat does Shit if he has a Gun man.. using a Gun is and was Justified in this Case,he Didn't have a Gun,but so what. He could have gave the Bat as you swang,or avoid the Knfie Stab and tackle you from behind.. Using a Gun is Better then a Bat or w/e.. I see nothing wrong with Guns for Self Defense..


here a Story I made up

Say,Guns are Ban for Sale,period..

Someone Breaks into your house one Night,4:00 AM, and he has a 9mm pistol.. Now, if you had your .44 Magnum,you could fight back,and hopefully subdue Him,but Since Guns are Banned, and he got one Illegaly, you got nothing to fight back with,and he kills you and your Family..


what you guys Prefer?? #1 or the Story #2

[Ser Clegane]

It's not irresponsible to keep a gun in the cab of a truck.

Sorry - I just noticed that your last reply was to MRD's general statement that having a rifle in a truck is "retarded".
If you keep it properly locked in the truck it would indeed not be very different from keeping it safely at home.

However, my second question stands - what kind of situation would it be where a "handgun just won't do", so that you keep a rifle in your truck "just in case"?

[Ser Clegane]

Someone Breaks into your house one Night,4:00 AM, and he has a 9mm pistol.. Now, if you had your .44 Magnum,you could fight back,and hopefully subdue Him,but Since Guns are Banned, and he got one Illegaly, you got nothing to fight back with,and he kills you and your Family..


what you guys Prefer?? #1 or the Story #2

How about that the guy actually only intended to hold you up and rob you - however, with your Magnum you turn the whole situation into a life or death situation where you potentially risk your and your families' life for your possessions.
See - it's easy to make up situations.

[English assassin]

You DO NOT need a rifle to shoot zombies. A rifle round goes through putrifying flesh far too easily, meaning you might shoot a normal human behind the zombie.

A shotgun is the obvious weapon of choice against a zombie.

[scooter_the_shooter]

How about that the guy actually only intended to hold you up and rob you - however, with your Magnum you turn the whole situation into a life or death situation where you potentially risk your and your families' life for your possessions.
See - it's easy to make up situations.

You shoot him or get shot...pretty black and white to me.

and to answer your other question. You never know when you may need that rifle. It doesn't hurt anything to keep it there so why not.


I don't keep one in a truck cause I am not old enough. I have plenty of guns ranging from old police revolvers to an ak47, but all my purchases are borderline legal.

[English assassin]

and to answer your other question. You never know when you may need that rifle. It doesn't hurt anything to keep it there so why not.

This is exactly why I keep my circular saw plugged in and on the living room table, instead of put away in its case in the workshop. You just never know when you are going to need a circular saw.

[Redleg]

This is exactly why I keep my circular saw plugged in and on the living room table, instead of put away in its case in the workshop. You just never know when you are going to need a circular saw.

That is why I have a rechargable DeWalt drill/driver in my bedroom. I never know if I will need a phillips or standard screwdriver - or if I need to drill a hole in something......

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Actually its back in the garage - my remodel project is completed. Advice: is make sure the wife knows that when she wants the master bath and bedroom remodeled - that she has an idea where she wants everything. But remodeling yourself is fun if you have the basic skills necessary. Now I need a electrian to finish up some wiring projects....

[BHCWarman88]

How about that the guy actually only intended to hold you up and rob you - however, with your Magnum you turn the whole situation into a life or death situation where you potentially risk your and your families' life for your possessions.
See - it's easy to make up situations.

So,it be a life or Death Situation anyhow if he breaks in your House,whatever reson it may be..