Chief pulls license of Marine

[MaverickNH]

IANAL, but I have serious questions about the advice you were apparently given.

But, aside from the example that appears in dispute, my main point was (in relevance to the Marine story):

A major defensive use of guns in the US likely entails firearms use, brandishing or shots fired with no dead/wounded bodies or police reports, in a manner that might not qualify as self-defense in a court of law. This said, we need to consider personal strategies to use firearms effectively without adverse legal burdens.

That is what our course instructor was letting us consider - not telling or leading us - but just letting us figure out for ourselves. If you know the bright line of the law, then you know which side of it you need to have been on after-action.

Good people worry less about when it's morally & ethically right to use deadly force, because they know they are right. Good people might worry more about when they can be sure that their story and the evidence compells a self-defense decision. I'd wager that in many self-defense instances, there are no witnesses (who come forward), evidence or police involvement or any sort. Remember, these statistics don't come from government data, but from private interviews. What people will fess up to anonymously is different than police reports.

Scumbags with no morals/ethics get away with committing violent crime every day - being honest, moral and ethical should not be a disadvantage in use of force for self-defense. It would be naive to imagine an attacker will satisfy all the requirements for your use of deadly force in self-defense - having the Ability, Opportunity and Intention of causing your death or great bodily harm - and leave you a fighting chance. Do you have to wait until the odds are 50-50 before acting?

No advice offerred other than think it through and know what you will do.

Like it says on the Job Application
QUESTION: Have you ever been arrested? Please explain.
ANSWER: No. Never been caught.

 

[DickWanner]

No one was hurt, but things could definitely have gone differently. When police run riot control they keep that fine line of control in their favor, becuase they know when they lose control they're pretty much dead in the water.


So Lugnut and Mark, if you were at home on a Friday having a few brews enjoying your night off and someone attempted to break into your house would you not go for your HD weapon becuase you had been drinking? I'm not going to get into it, but as far as I am concerned he was aquitted of charges and that alone should have been good enough for him not to have had his license revoked.

 

[mark056]

"So Lugnut and Mark, if you were at home on a Friday having a few brews enjoying your night off and someone attempted to break into your house would you not go for your HD weapon becuase you had been drinking? I'm not going to get into it, but as far as I am concerned he was aquitted of charges and that alone should have been good enough for him not to have had his license revoked." NW

NW:
In this instance no one was trying to break into his house, no one had crossed the threshold. Someone, we don't know who, threw a bottle into his window. What you are suggesting is an entirely different scenario where the threshold has been breeched. Also, if someone crossed my threshold, and they persisted in advancing into my domicile after they had been admonished to cease their actions and leave the premises (this under optimal circumstances), there would be no warning shot. Of course, I only hope that I would be sober enough to realize that there was a genuine home invasion and not my Aunt Matilda who was returning from a night on the town.

You may wish to review when it is appropriate to fire warning shots...and frankly I can think of no scenario, plus it's not legal in Massachusetts for the police or anyone else. Perhaps if the gentleman had not been drinking which could have impaired his judgement, no warning shot would have been fired, no people would have been wounded, no charges would have been filed to begin with. The warning shot displayed irresponsible use of a firearm which are grounds for revocation of a license, an acquittal of charges (jury nullification in this case) notwithstanding.

I am a stage in life where I use alcohol only very moderately for the very reason I do not wish to impair my judgement with regard to a life or death situation, plus the simple fact that my reflexes are getting slower and alcohol only increases that.

This horse is dead and I'm through kicking it.

Mark L.

 

[dwarven1]

Where is that... Oh! Here it is.

 

[greycar]

shooting in familiar parking lot

October 12, 2008 03:12 am

One dead, another injured in Lawrence shooting

LAWRENCE — One man is dead after a shooting outside the Punto Final nightclub early this morning.

Lawrence police Chief John Romero said two men were shot around 1:15 a.m. in the parking lot of a nearby gas station at the corner of Broadway and Tremont Street.

One of the victims was pronounced dead at Lawrence General Hospital shortly afterward, Romero said. The second man was in serious condition this morning, but is expected to live.

Both shooting victims were believed to be in their 30s, police said.

Romero said witnesses told police the two men had been in Punto Final prior to the shooting. He said police are investigating whether a dispute inside the club might have led to the shooting.

State police detectives and crime scene analysis technicians assigned to the district attorney’s office were called in to conduct the homicide investigation.

It is the fourth homicide in the city so far this year, Romero said, equalling last year’s figure.

http://www.eagletribune.com/punews/local_story_286031351.html

 

[mikem317]

I see John Romero every night on the 10 o'clock news. Every damn night.