Florida Concealed Carry banner

201 - 220 of 225 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,802 Posts
Fish, sorry, no just no. The SCOTUS has already ruled that the mere presence of a gun is not illegal.
don’t practice law or testify in court.
Yeah. And he said that it might be legal. He was not commenting about the legality. He was commenting about how people might react to it, and he is completely correct.

If I'm sitting on the sidewalk, at a cafe in downtown Tampa, and I see a guy walking down the street carrying a shotgun, you can bet your sweet a$$ that I am going to be on high alert, keeping a close eye on him, and wondering what the heck is this guy doing!?! The reaction being completely different that it would be if I was out for a hike in the woods and came across the same guy, carrying the same shotgun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,484 Posts
Yeah. And he said that it might be legal. He was not commenting about the legality. He was commenting about how people might react to it, and he is completely correct.

If I'm sitting on the sidewalk, at a cafe in downtown Tampa, and I see a guy walking down the street carrying a shotgun, you can bet your sweet a$$ that I am going to be on high alert, keeping a close eye on him, and wondering what the heck is this guy doing!?! The reaction being completely different that it would be if I was out for a hike in the woods and came across the same guy, carrying the same shotgun.

I get what you’re saying, and I totally agree. However, to be blunt, whenever I see ANYONE with whom I’m not familiar with carrying a firearm I’m on higher alert. Regardless of surroundings. Even at the local gun range. Too many yahoo’s out there with an unknown mindset. Even if intentions are good, far too many with lousy muzzle control. I was once standing behind a buddy while he took his turn at the line when a dude put one into the divider between his stall and ours at a well known LGS/range in Orlando because he was being stupid. One of the bevy of reasons I won‘t set foot in that joint again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,181 Posts
Maybe we are all getting sideways here in the analysis. Any way you package this thing, the analysis has to be whether someone jumping out of a pick up truck with a shotgun held in any fashion and trying to detain you is a threat. Even if no words are spoken, the message is that I have a shotgun here to enforce my detaining you. That is unequivocally threatening. A holstered pistol is different.

For the movie buffs, remember when Doc Holiday in Tombstone just tapped his finger on the grip of his revolver? That was a threatening message under the circumstances that existed. Different circumstances, maybe different message. Holding a Shottie and saying “We want to talk to you” implies enforcement of the request by more than just the request. You may rest assured the words spoken were without the lilt with which you would introduce yourself for the first time to a pretty girl.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,426 Posts
Maybe we are all getting sideways here in the analysis. Any way you package this thing, the analysis has to be whether someone jumping out of a pick up truck with a shotgun held in any fashion and trying to detain you is a threat. Even if no words are spoken, the message is that I have a shotgun here to enforce my detaining you. That is unequivocally threatening. A holstered pistol is different.

For the movie buffs, remember when Doc Holiday in Tombstone just tapped his finger on the grip of his revolver? That was a threatening message under the circumstances that existed. Different circumstances, maybe different message. Holding a Shottie and saying “We want to talk to you” implies enforcement of the request by more than just the request. You may rest assured the words spoken were without the lilt with which you would introduce yourself for the first time to a pretty girl.
Can I ask a serious question? Is the deceased on trial? I would contend no. If not, then it makes no difference what he thought, felt or knew. The only thing that matters is what the defendants thought, felt or did. The state tried the exact same argument you are using now, in the Zimmerman trial. How did that work out for them? They tried to say Trayvon was just defending himself from a white racist murderer. We saw how that went over.

The mistake people are making on here is the same one Andrew brought up. Both the defendants and the deceased may have both been doing what they legally had the right to do what they did. It is not as simple as one or the other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,181 Posts
Bob, I was responding to where we seem to be getting bogged down. Fish said that the presence of a shotgun or a long gun in a city is a threat, you responded that the Supreme Court has ruled that the presence of a weapon is not illegal. I believe you both were right. It’s the circumstances that matter. You or I or anyone with a self-defense mindset under that circumstance, when the guy jumps out of the truck with the shotgun, might will be thinking “can I find cover, I can’t hide behind the truck there’s a guy standing up in the back, can I make it to a tree, should I run or fight, do I shoot him now?” or any such combination.

Many folks have said that Arbery was the aggressor the video does show part of that. You can’t evaluate what the defendants thought, felt or did without putting it in context. Unless they just lay down, it seems they’re going to have to defend the case by asserting it was just a terrible accident or by saying it was self-defense. In either of those cases, not the decedent, but, the decedents actions will be on trial.

Rest assured that at a trial no matter which scenario they defend with, that will be an expert like yourself explaining the operation of a pump shotgun. We know they don’t fire unless you pull the trigger and you must rack the slide to introduce another shotgun shell into the chamber then pull the trigger again. The autopsy report showing that the fellow was shot three times is going to be difficult at trial.

If I were prosecuting the case I would stand in front of the jury with an 870, rack the slide on an inert round and pull the trigger then explain to the jury this is what you have to do to fire a second round then rack the slide again, pausing from their reaction then pulling the trigger and then tell them this is what you have to do to fire the third round and you will notice that when I fired the second round it required both racking the slide and pulling the trigger like this. I’m a little more prosecution minded but, if defending the case I would do a demonstration I suppose by having someone yank back and forth on the slide. I’m betting a gent with your wide range of experience in weaponry would advise the same tactic.

Who knows how this thing will turn out and how many of us gun folk are pontificating across the nation but, no matter how they defend the case they will have to do it in light of jumping out of a truck with a shotgun to stop an unarmed guy they shot three times with a twelve instead of waiting for the police to handle a suspected property crime. “Many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.”

A member of the judiciary told me when I was a baby lawyer that there were two questions in a murder case. One, did the deceased deserve to get killed and two, was your client the man for the job. If you get a yes on both, you go home.

One positive thing from this case may be as a reminder to concealed carriers and others that we should leave the policing to the police. In that sense, it may save lives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,426 Posts
Bob, I was responding to where we seem to be getting bogged down. Fish said that the presence of a shotgun or a long gun in a city is a threat, you responded that the Supreme Court has ruled that the presence of a weapon is not illegal. I believe you both were right. It’s the circumstances that matter. You or I or anyone with a self-defense mindset under that circumstance, when the guy jumps out of the truck with the shotgun, might will be thinking “can I find cover, I can’t hide behind the truck there’s a guy standing up in the back, can I make it to a tree, should I run or fight, do I shoot him now?” or any such combination.

Many folks have said that Arbery was the aggressor the video does show part of that. You can’t evaluate what the defendants thought, felt or did without putting it in context. Unless they just lay down, it seems they’re going to have to defend the case by asserting it was just a terrible accident or by saying it was self-defense. In either of those cases, not the decedent, but, the decedents actions will be on trial.

Rest assured that at a trial no matter which scenario they defend with, that will be an expert like yourself explaining the operation of a pump shotgun. We know they don’t fire unless you pull the trigger and you must rack the slide to introduce another shotgun shell into the chamber then pull the trigger again. The autopsy report showing that the fellow was shot three times is going to be difficult at trial.

If I were prosecuting the case I would stand in front of the jury with an 870, rack the slide on an inert round and pull the trigger then explain to the jury this is what you have to do to fire a second round then rack the slide again, pausing from their reaction then pulling the trigger and then tell them this is what you have to do to fire the third round and you will notice that when I fired the second round it required both racking the slide and pulling the trigger like this. I’m a little more prosecution minded but, if defending the case I would do a demonstration I suppose by having someone yank back and forth on the slide. I’m betting a gent with your wide range of experience in weaponry would advise the same tactic.

Who knows how this thing will turn out and how many of us gun folk are pontificating across the nation but, no matter how they defend the case they will have to do it in light of jumping out of a truck with a shotgun to stop an unarmed guy they shot three times with a twelve instead of waiting for the police to handle a suspected property crime. “Many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.”

A member of the judiciary told me when I was a baby lawyer that there were two questions in a murder case. One, did the deceased deserve to get killed and two, was your client the man for the job. If you get a yes on both, you go home.

One positive thing from this case may be as a reminder to concealed carriers and others that we should leave the policing to the police. In that sense, it may save lives.
Was it a pump shotgun? I have not seen that anywhere. I am betting it was a semi auto. I did not see the gun get pumped.
In answer to the deceased being put on trial. That has never worked in any Murder trial I have ever seen or been involved in.
The defense ONLY has to PROVE reasonable doubt to the charge of murder. If the jury finds there is reasonable doubt of murder they will have to acquit the defendants.
If I was a witness in this trial I could go either way on the witness stand. For the defense or for the prosecution.
It’s interesting. Especially in light of what I know about self defense.
I believe the defendants are only guilty of stupidity.
I also believe the deceased is guilty of stupidity.
I believe they both had the right to self defense and that both did what was legal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,484 Posts
Bob, I was responding to where we seem to be getting bogged down. Fish said that the presence of a shotgun or a long gun in a city is a threat, you responded that the Supreme Court has ruled that the presence of a weapon is not illegal. I believe you both were right. It’s the circumstances that matter. You or I or anyone with a self-defense mindset under that circumstance, when the guy jumps out of the truck with the shotgun, might will be thinking “can I find cover, I can’t hide behind the truck there’s a guy standing up in the back, can I make it to a tree, should I run or fight, do I shoot him now?” or any such combination.

Many folks have said that Arbery was the aggressor the video does show part of that. You can’t evaluate what the defendants thought, felt or did without putting it in context. Unless they just lay down, it seems they’re going to have to defend the case by asserting it was just a terrible accident or by saying it was self-defense. In either of those cases, not the decedent, but, the decedents actions will be on trial.

Rest assured that at a trial no matter which scenario they defend with, that will be an expert like yourself explaining the operation of a pump shotgun. We know they don’t fire unless you pull the trigger and you must rack the slide to introduce another shotgun shell into the chamber then pull the trigger again. The autopsy report showing that the fellow was shot three times is going to be difficult at trial.

If I were prosecuting the case I would stand in front of the jury with an 870, rack the slide on an inert round and pull the trigger then explain to the jury this is what you have to do to fire a second round then rack the slide again, pausing from their reaction then pulling the trigger and then tell them this is what you have to do to fire the third round and you will notice that when I fired the second round it required both racking the slide and pulling the trigger like this. I’m a little more prosecution minded but, if defending the case I would do a demonstration I suppose by having someone yank back and forth on the slide. I’m betting a gent with your wide range of experience in weaponry would advise the same tactic.

Who knows how this thing will turn out and how many of us gun folk are pontificating across the nation but, no matter how they defend the case they will have to do it in light of jumping out of a truck with a shotgun to stop an unarmed guy they shot three times with a twelve instead of waiting for the police to handle a suspected property crime. “Many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.”

A member of the judiciary told me when I was a baby lawyer that there were two questions in a murder case. One, did the deceased deserve to get killed and two, was your client the man for the job. If you get a yes on both, you go home.

One positive thing from this case may be as a reminder to concealed carriers and others that we should leave the policing to the police. In that sense, it may save lives.
Civilians playing wanna be cops making citizens arrests is fraught with danger. As this case so readily points out. If I were a prognosticator I might say something about the future of that statute being redrafted/edited due to this case, by that states law makers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,181 Posts
Bob, maybe wrong assumption on my part. I’m not sure semi or pump. Semi much easier to defend.

Probably will be numerous lesser included offenses to deal with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,426 Posts
Bob, maybe wrong assumption on my part. I’m not sure semi or pump. Semi much easier to defend.

Probably will be numerous lesser included offenses to deal with.
As of now it’s murder and felony assault. Not sure what else they can charge them with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,426 Posts
Civilians playing wanna be cops making citizens arrests is fraught with danger. As this case so readily points out. If I were a prognosticator I might say something about the future of that statute being redrafted/edited due to this case, by that states law makers
Yes I agree. But that ain’t helping this case. It is what it is now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,637 Posts
Shark, assuming for sake of argument it was a pump action:

If I'm hearing you right (in your prosecutor role), you are saying that after the first shot into someone's hand as they try to pull a shotgun out of your hands, your response is going to be to not attempt to bring that weapon back into battery and defend yourself? What are you suggesting a person should do, keep playing tug of war? If I was in the jury I would have to keep from laughing out loud while your rack - pull - pause show was ongoing. I would be thinking, "This guy is suggesting suicide as the remedy to someone trying to disarm you when you've committed no crime."

I don't know any living soul, and in the last week I've surveyed more than a few, who in that same circumstance wouldn't deliberately rack that pumper again and try to fill the attacker with as many pellets as it took to change his mind. It's a fight for life we're talking about here at that point, and only ONE party made it that way. As a juror, I wouldn't care what he (Arbery) thought, I'd care more what he actually did, and that was to try and pry a weapon out of another man's hands.

Say all you want about his fear, it doesn't make what he did reasonable, if anything only stupidly desperate. The obvious question that drags behind a hundred foot trail of reasonable doubt is why continue to run AT them when he had a choice not to, or why didn't he simply stop and - as everyone is so quick to condemn the McDaniels for - take his matter of feeling hassled unfairly to the police? How come the McDaniels are scoundrels for not doing that, but a guy who runs at and fights with an armed man gets a free pass? Maybe he's a bit lacking in the common sense department also, and sometimes that can get someone killed, himself for example.

GA criminal code is dead silent on the matter of getting out of a vehicle with a shotgun constituting a threat. Only pointing that weapon AT someone is addressed, or the already-criminal-on-its-own assault is modified (worsened) if a firearm is involved. If you carry a shotgun, it must be open and not concealed by anything. McDaniels violated none of those. The only way you get from legal to non-legal is by way of threat, and I haven't heard anyone even allege that except to speculate Arbery must have been scared because he thought they were racists about to lynch him. What evidence supports that?

The "Stop. We want to talk to you," wasn't communicated by the guy with the shotgun that we know of, only by the father as he was recorded on the call to a dispatcher (not sure if it was 911 or non-emergency). And, it's worth noting, his gun WAS holstered when he said that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,181 Posts
Bttbbob, they don’t charge defendants with the lesser included offenses. They are lesser charges that are included in the main charge, hence the name. That’s how the law works.

OHEng, respectfully, I can’t just argue the same thing with you over and over. You may be right, you may be wrong. We simply disagree. If someone trying to detain you while holding a shotgun is not a threat to you at all, you’re a very brave man.

Apparently they have now arrested a third, the video guy. Seems he tried to detain Arbery too and now has a Murder charge with, of course lesser included offenses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,700 Posts
As of now it’s murder and felony assault. Not sure what else they can charge them with.
Saw a little while ago that the guy that filmed the encounter has been arrested on murder charges and attempted criminal detainment in conjunction with the other two defendants. As I said on the FB discussion with you and Joe and Siaid(?) today and you did too, as well as here earlier, they all acted stupidly and the result is a dead man.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,484 Posts
Saw a little while ago that the guy that filmed the encounter has been arrested on murder charges and attempted criminal detainment in conjunction with the other two defendants. As I said on the FB discussion with you and Joe and Siaid(?) today and you did too, as well as here earlier, they all acted stupidly and the result is a dead man.
I'm sure there's more than me here, who being armed, would have drawn and fired on the shottie guy after he'd tried to hinder me [ others here ] 3 times by vehicle, then jumped out with the shottie. Anyone may be able to be armed and confront in Ga. lawfully. My own response of drawing immediately would have for NO other reason than an imminent fear of grave bodily harm or death.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,426 Posts
I'm sure there's more than me here, who being armed, would have drawn and fired on the shottie guy after he'd tried to hinder me [ others here ] 3 times by vehicle, then jumped out with the shottie. Anyone may be able to be armed and confront in Ga. lawfully. My own response of drawing immediately would have for NO other reason than an imminent fear of grave bodily harm or death.
And you could have been charged with murder and then claim self defense and got off Or sentenced.
They both can be right and still be wrong
 
  • Like
Reactions: Starfist52

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,484 Posts
And you could have been charged with murder and then claim self defense and got off Or sentenced.
They both can be right and still be wrong
When put in imminent danger, that may result in grave bodily harm or death, I'm on solid ground come court time. Any lay person on a jury would believe someone trying to impede/deny them their freedom and then exits with a firearm would believe they were in imminent danger of the criteria for deadly force use.

Pretty simple, arrest me, expected. No conviction once the jury would, put in the same set of circumstances, would consider that person an imminent threat. I don't see how any layperson wouldn't agree they'd be in fear with the summary of circumstances as in this case.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda, arrest me, my atty will convince the jury they'd be in fear of imminent grave bodily injury just like I was, and according to deadly use of force, well within the law.

Don't introduce a weapon when confronting me. My training will kick and you'll get dropped without hesitation. There's enough certs of training to support that in my background. Including the states police academy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,354 Posts
it is kind of funny to read the posts and the amount of "evidence" and "what is relevant" come up time and time again...then read the same people mentioning how he couldnt have been just jogging through the neighborhood because he has been in trouble before...all of the sudden so many things totally irrelevant to the situation are starting to make shotgun boy a hero who saved the world from what was certainly a career criminal...and hell yeah...hopping out of a car to detain somebody in a non-threatening manner with a shotgun in your hand...because open carry is legal...the best laugh yet...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,028 Posts
it is kind of funny to read the posts and the amount of "evidence" and "what is relevant" come up time and time again...then read the same people mentioning how he couldnt have been just jogging through the neighborhood because he has been in trouble before...all of the sudden so many things totally irrelevant to the situation are starting to make shotgun boy a hero who saved the world from what was certainly a career criminal...and hell yeah...hopping out of a car to detain somebody in a non-threatening manner with a shotgun in your hand...because open carry is legal...the best laugh yet...
Well, not sure about GA. today but “‘Cause he needed killin‘ “ used to be an affirmative defense in some parts of the South. :unsure:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,426 Posts
Well, not sure about GA. today but “‘Cause he needed killin‘ “ used to be an affirmative defense in some parts of the South. :unsure:
Well, not sure about GA. today but “‘Cause he needed killin‘ “ used to be an affirmative defense in some parts of the South. :unsure:
Not the South but Texas definitely
 
201 - 220 of 225 Posts
Top