There's a video of the entire encounter from a neighbor security camera, but I can't find it.
Sent from my moto z3 using JazzFanz mobile app
Sent from my moto z3 using JazzFanz mobile app
Is your first instinct gun owner or parent?
- Thread starter Harambe
- Start date
I say we judge the other wrongs and dismiss them because they are not material when compared to the guy punching down on that kid, then pulling a gun and firing it in the vicinity of a human.
olden_undercover
Well-Known Member
Yeah-- you're being obtuse with this thread, man. What is it you think the article does not address, exactly? It's like you're implying there were important facts or details left out that would change how we all regard the story, and you want us to speculate wildly about what those might be. Do you know something we don't, or is this just a vague commentary on how we shouldn't take news reporting at face value? I'm really hoping you don't esteem the 'multiple wrongs' committed as equal in their level of wrong-ness, making Mr. Lindem some sort of victim. That's not what you're saying, right?
There is a problem with our current interpretation of stand your ground. It is very possible that had the guy who punched a 6 year old actually connected with his gunshots he'd be found innocent of murder/manslaughter whatever, because he WAS defending himself.
There are no rules of the road. There are no rules of engagement. The way it works right now is like this, you have a right to keep and bear arms (you can own a gun and you can have it on you and you can let it be clearly known that you do). You also have the right to "stand your ground." If you feel threatened (not if you ARE threatened) then you can draw and fire at the threat. Period. That's our current situation.
You don't need to do any real evaluation of the threat (****, you might be killed in the split second you're deciding if you're in mortal danger or if your kid is springing out of the closet for a surprise birthday party), you don't need to consider what is behind your potential target, you don't need to be sure that the threat is real. The current standard is that you should have a gun and you should fire it as fast as you can at anything you feel is threatening. That's legal right now. That's our current law.
That is why I am no longer a vocal advocate for firearms rights, because the groups that currently lead the firearms rights cause are 100% cool with where we're at right now. I'm not.
There are no rules of the road. There are no rules of engagement. The way it works right now is like this, you have a right to keep and bear arms (you can own a gun and you can have it on you and you can let it be clearly known that you do). You also have the right to "stand your ground." If you feel threatened (not if you ARE threatened) then you can draw and fire at the threat. Period. That's our current situation.
You don't need to do any real evaluation of the threat (****, you might be killed in the split second you're deciding if you're in mortal danger or if your kid is springing out of the closet for a surprise birthday party), you don't need to consider what is behind your potential target, you don't need to be sure that the threat is real. The current standard is that you should have a gun and you should fire it as fast as you can at anything you feel is threatening. That's legal right now. That's our current law.
That is why I am no longer a vocal advocate for firearms rights, because the groups that currently lead the firearms rights cause are 100% cool with where we're at right now. I'm not.
