Police: Ga. woman, 65, gunned down after her car, motorized wheelchair bump at gas station
Source: Washington Post
ATLANTA A chance encounter at a Georgia gas station left a 65-year-old woman dead and a 73-year-old man facing a murder charge after authorities say the womans car and his motorized wheelchair bumped and he opened fire, police said Wednesday.
Linda Hunnicutt, 65, had just pulled into the gas station in Macon shortly after 1 p.m. Tuesday and stepped out of her Buick Lucerne when the man pulled a gun and fatally shot her, city police spokeswoman Jami Gaudet said.
The whole encounter, I can tell you, was very brief, Gaudet said. Everybody is just reeling from this.
Hunnicutt had driven onto the gas pump bay when the two vehicles made contact, police say.
Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/police-ga-woman-65-gunned-down-after-her-car-bumps-motorized-wheelchair-at-gas-station/2012/12/05/1f75e9f2-3f0c-11e2-8a5c-473797be602c_story.html
Just sad...
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Otherwise this might have been a tragedy.
shawn703
(2,702 posts)Because this murder was entirely possible without the firearm.
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)Heather MC
(8,084 posts)we need to wait for a week when no one dies because of a gun to discuss gun control.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)discuss this issue.
eppur_se_muova
(36,269 posts)We hear that line (without the sarcasm) from the NRA after every mass shooting.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Heather MC
(8,084 posts)Tragically I was being sarcastic.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)sofa king
(10,857 posts)And about that--did he have a gasoline-powered wheelchair, or was he just, you know, wandering among traffic in an electric wheelchair, with a gun?
sinkingfeeling
(51,460 posts)Javaman
(62,530 posts)The issue I have with guns is this (this will be my first and last statement on this topic, because I usually choose not to wade into the gun cesspool), they are immediate.
Squinch
(50,955 posts)do you really think stricter gun laws would have stopped him?" Well, um, yes. I do.
OR: If only she had her own gun, she could have defended herself.
OR: Russia forbids guns and their gun deaths are higher than ours. (This is based on how we all know that Russia is such a law abiding place. No crazy ass Russian mafia there!)
OR: If we limit guns, only the criminals in the motorized wheelchairs will have them.
The pea brained-ness and predictability is staggering.
But let's no one hold our breaths waiting for any of this to get through. We all know it won't.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)In the Costas thread. The Russia one is especially popular.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)(It's a rhetorical question).
See, the tragedy of guns. So many people die just because some asshole loses his temper.
And I'm sure that's what this was. She hit him accidentally and, instead of dealing rationally with it (although I understand being pissed off about it), he grabs his conveniently located gun and shoots her. This why gun nuts drive me fucking nuts. How many people have to die in a stupid rage incident before we wake up to the fact people do not need to carry guns all the time, because crap like this WILL happen.
Squinch
(50,955 posts)But you can't convince the gun people of this.
samsingh
(17,599 posts)don't expect that from the
.
slowly
.
analytical
.
gun
.
supporters
.
....except when they perceive a remote control being placed on any gun.
Demobrat
(8,982 posts)other than killing from a distance. Sure knives and bats can be used to kill too, but in order to use them the aggressor has to get up close and personal. And then there's the fact that knives and bats have a purpose other than killing. That said, I believe the guns nuts have won. I try to keep myself safe from gun violence by having no guns in my life, and having nothing to do with people who have guns. (I live in a city where there is no legitimate reason to own a gun. Wild animals are not a problem here). Of course I could be walking down the street in Oakland, CA, where I work, and get hit by a stray bullet at any time, but at least my killer won't be someone I invited into my life.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)(in fact, that probably means YOU qualify for one, too).
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)barbtries
(28,799 posts)it is good to know that there are others who see it the same way.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)Ever go to "Friar Tuck's"? Turns out Teddy K used to go there a lot in the 80's. My brother witnessed it and liked because he was always advocating for the regular folk, even when he had a drink.
NV Whino
(20,886 posts)But one does wonder what the electric wheel chair was doing at the gas station.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Was he profiling and stalking, or just out to get beer or cigarettes?
NOLALady
(4,003 posts)behind the gas station.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)People go to the gas station for all kinds of things.
NV Whino
(20,886 posts)If one is in a wheel chair, motorized or not.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)that's not always possible. No matter how you slice it, it's a tragedy for both families.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)I think the family of the dead woman deserves sympathy. The murderer and his family don't. His family should spend time feeling sorry for the victim, not asking for my sympathy. That's just me though.
Now, if the murdered paid his debt to society and after being released from prison wanted to secure the right to vote and to gainful employment, I'm happy to work for that. Don't get me wrong, I am for an economically and socially just society. But sympathy for the overt and deliberate act of taking the life of another? That I don't give.
Call me judgmental. I am. I admit it.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)chances are they don't have much of anything. I don't know that any member of his family asked for sympathy.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)they had nothing before. No change. No reason to feel sorry for them because their grandfather chooses to shoot people first and ask questions later. If you are concerned about their financial circumstances, don't waste your time feeling sorry for them. Do something about it.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)We have some elders who make their way to the closest gas station by wheelchair for basic groceries. What's a real shame is that corner store charges high prices for basic items like, milk,bread, eggs. $5.00 for a little pack of shreaded cheese where its 150ish at a grocery store. They take food stamps of course.
It's dangerous to be alone like that. I could understand an elder or anyone to carry a weapon in fear of robbery. This crime is an auto accident(by the driver) and an armed road rage. I don't think the age or the wheelchair has anything to do with it.
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)to do so without entering space sometimes used by cars
Drivers, moreover, are rather often as unpleasant to the wheelchair user as to the bicyclist: some drivers really dislike sharing space
patrice
(47,992 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)He won't be able to prove the three elements of self-defense (Ability, Opportunity, Intent on the part of the woman), although he may try insanity or deminished capacity for himself.
SYG only deals not having to retreat. You still have to prove lawful self-defense, even with SYG.
Lots of folks here don't understand the law.
patrice
(47,992 posts)we know that ? = exchanged somekind of words with the killer.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)SYG comes into play only AFTER self-defense is shown.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)According to a Fla defense attorney.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Based on the media reports he doesn't have the needed elements of self-defense. The police searched the kid's vehicle and did not find any guns. The kid didn't get out of the vehicle so he can't claim a physical threat.
Unless you first have the elements of self-defense, SYG won't help at all.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Though the attorney has suggested she/ he will invoke SYG.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Throw enough at the wall and hope something sticks.
tclambert
(11,087 posts)For this joke I am truly sorry. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)skrempi313
(29 posts)It Helps To Calm Your Rage!!!
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,330 posts)Squinch
(50,955 posts)dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Hey!
Opens the job market, then , right?
by god, I think we are on to something here, that just might avoid that pesky fiscal cliff.
Squinch
(50,955 posts)dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)ReRe
(10,597 posts)CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)Assuming no one intervened during the 20 minutes it would take him to do so, of course.
Fucking guns.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)DallasNE
(7,403 posts)The story reads that the guy in the wheelchair bumped into the car in a gas bay and when the woman got out of her car and yelled at him that he shot her. He could claim that he felt threatened and was standing his ground.
No, I am not justifying this shooting. Far from it. Rather, I am pointing out the absurdity of the stand your ground defense. It always seems to be the people that started the problem that also are the one that is the shooter. Now what could possibly be wrong with that picture?
CatWoman
(79,302 posts)wellst0nev0ter
(7,509 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)It would help if you actually knew the law. Before SYG, one must make a claim of self-defense. To do that you must be able to show that the person you shot actually did endanger you. You must show that they had Means, Opportunity, and Intent as demonstrated by an overt act. If you can't show all three, then you are in serious danger of a long time in jail.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)he will claim he thought she was going to run him over.
1) Means: her car
2) Opportunity: the car was right there
3) Intent: the car moved
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Unless there are some really big unreported circumstances, that isn't enough for self-defense.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Now, whether the DA will buy it is another story. The trouble with these laws is that how closely the criteria you outlined is considered is more a function of the color of the victim than actual fact. If she is black and he is white, chances are he'll skate.
Bacchus4.0
(6,837 posts)s
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)There are many black cops, lawyers, and judges. Also Asian and Latin too, and any other group I may have left out.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)...and most of the minor ones. Yep, been to Macon, GA. Guess what? Blacks vote there. The 1960s are over with.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Bacchus4.0
(6,837 posts)s
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)People may not be aware of all the elements of a legitimate claim, or think these are present when in fact they are not.
It remains the case that the passage of these laws encourages people to shoot, in the belief the law is on their side, whether it actually is or not.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)If not, then he was breaking the law by having a gun on him. Further, we don't know if he had a criminal record as the paper doesn't say.
In most states people with CCWs have to attend classes that teach what is and isn't legal self-defense, and pass an exam. In those states it is extremely rare for a permitted person to wrongfully shoot someone. Texas has over half a million Conceald Handgun Licensees and averages about one murder conviction per year for CHL holders. In Texas ALL shootings, even obviously justified ones, still have to go before a grand jury so they are investigated. I doubt that other states are much different.
Personally, I doubt that the shooter had a CCW. It will be interesting to find out.
BTW - I appreciate the way that your posts are always polite.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)Which has no bearing on the question of whether 'stand your ground' laws are correctly understood by people who take gun in hand in altercations, or on the question of whether such laws encourage people to use lethal force in situations where it is not appropriate, in sincere belief their conduct is lawful.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)CCWers, for the most part, have been trained in that part of the law. They enjoy their privledge and are careful to guard it least they lose it. They will use SYG properly.
People who carry illegally are criminals and don't care about anybody's law, except their own. SYG means nothing to them. The mere fact that the gun is illegally possessed taints the claim of self-defense.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)They are given a brief quiz after a cursory reading; to claim this means all or even most, will have a solid appreciation of what actually constitutes legal grounds for self-defense will not bear the weight of a soap bubble.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)We have over half a million Concealed Handgun Licensees, and only about one a year is convicted of murder. The rest of the shootings are legal. So I would say that the person who screws it up is very rare. That suggests that they learned something in the classes that they took.
The concept is exceedingly simple. In one paragraph you explained it quite well.
FredStembottom
(2,928 posts)I keep trying to tease out the difference between SYG and simple self defense concepts.... If SYG needs all the elements of a self defense claim then what is SYG?
Is just feel-good iconography, like a tattoo? Men are manlier with Passage of SYG?
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)Florida's, which became notorious, is a little different than most.
Basically, the idea is like this. Common Law, while granting the right of self defense, expected violence in self-defense to be a last resort. If you could reasonably evade the confrontation without resorting to violence, you were supposed to do so, and if you used violence when you could have secured your safety without doing so, then you had a problem with the authorities. A modern illustration might be if you are in a car at a stop-light, and someone comes up to the passenger window with a clenched fist and utters a verbal threat, in a most convincing manner. Getting out of your door with a baseball bat and a cry of 'you and what army!' would fail the traditional test as a response, since you could well have simply pressed the accelerator and left him swathed in exhaust, and so whatever you did could be viewed as a criminal act, rather than as self-defense. The 'stand your ground' laws remove this condition. Under them, you do not have to exhaust reasonable options short of violence; even if you could have departed instead, you can still use force legally (providing of course you are facing an actual threat).
Florida's law adds a sort of extra layer, in which if someone claims self-defense, the state has to show it was not. This is a reverse of the general traditional doctrine, in which self-defense is an affirmative defense, one the defendant must prove.
FredStembottom
(2,928 posts)Borders on "shoot first. Ask questions later".
Very dangerous thinking.... With a strong odor of adolescent fantasy wafting through it.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)It has to be a reasonable fear for life or limb. And in fact, in situations of real threat, you do not have much time for careful consideration --- in fact, you generally have no time at all; you act or you never get the opportunity to do so. There have certainly been instances when zealous or idiotic prosecutors have abused the former standard, and prosecuted people who really, most people would agree, did not have reasonable options short of violence in the face of imminent threat. No matter where the line is drawn, someone, somewhere, will likely end up on the wrong side of it wrongly; this is a vexed matter, that gets more intricate the closer one looks. I am not a great opponent of these laws in general, though I do dislike the Florida wrinkle intensely, and some of the license certain state's laws give for using deadly force in defense of property.
I do agree that there is 'a strong odor of adolescent fantasy' in the argument for these laws, and the attachment to possession and carrying of fire-arms 'self-defense'.
FredStembottom
(2,928 posts)..... from Thanksgiving Day. 2 teens robbing houses for prescription drugs were, apparently, surprised, shot and then shot further when they didn't die obligingly enough for the homeowner.
I can only wonder how the coming trial of the homeowner might be complicated by SYG laws (which we have managed to avoid in Minnesota so far).
As things stand, it's pretty clear he will be convicted of "executions".
SYG seems to me, to be an attempt to form real-life into the neat, uncomplicated scenarios of the Western movies of our(?) youth. And nevermind that no one under the age of 40 has even seen a Western, the instant-justice fantasy from those films and TV shows lives on in a thousand different video games.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)SYG applies only outside the home. His killings were inside, against intruders. Under Castle Doctrine he is allowed to shoot the intruders, but once they are down and no longer a threat he must give them first aid while calling an ambulance. Nowhere does any state law authorize him to execute.
If someone breaks in you can shoot until they are no longer a threat, then you must stop.
FredStembottom
(2,928 posts)I really do.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)true, however no state law requires that he render aid or specifically call an ambulance either
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)And I think a very prompt call to the police is legally necessary, but I'm not a lawyer.
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)Did he have one of those signs? Maybe he thought that would absolve him.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Bacchus4.0
(6,837 posts)s
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)All SYG does is remove the requirement to retreat. It is the self-defense claim that relies on the killer's version of events. Background investigation of the dead person will tend to confirm or deny the killer's version. If you claim tat you were about to be mugged, and the dead guy has multiple convictions of strongarm robbery, you will likely be belived. But if you claim that and the dead guy is a highly respected, peaceful humanitarian, then you are in trouble. But in either case, it isn't the SYG but the claim of self-defense that is able touse only one side's testimony.
This has been explained to you many times. Why to you persist in saying otherwise?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)If there is no DTR, then it is a free pass to the killer (at least in the minds of several killers), because the killer only has to demonstrate that he was in fear for his life, even though he made no effort to reduce that fear by retreating, or avoiding the situation.
Using your example, it would be easy for a vigilante type to pursue guys with criminal records, confront them and shoot them, claiming SYG. All they need to avoid are witnesses.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)We have had shall-issue and SYG for a long time now. Problems have been very few, although one case is extremely high-profile.
People with the type of personality that you describe tend to get in trouble with the law early and become criminals.
Bacchus4.0
(6,837 posts)just like the Dunn case a claim of SYG isn't a get out of jail free card.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Cops do it all the time.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)There are very few details in the media. More information is really needed.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Stand Your Ground if he thought he was in danger from her.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)And in GA, as in all states except FL, self-defense is an affirmative defense. That means that the shooter has to prove that he had to shoot. SYG only means that he didn't have to retreat, and nothing more.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Because he's black. SYG is only for white people who kill black teenagers and men. Geesh. Don't you know anything about the law?
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)but the gun nuts will claim it doesn't, not even possible.
Kingofalldems
(38,458 posts)So if we get into a squabble with someone we can just shoot them.
Squinch
(50,955 posts)Because people should know better than to squabble with me. Squabbles suck and make me mad. Pow.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Of course they're being sarcastic, but it's very consistent who says such things and who does not.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)Or More guns could have saved "insert name here"
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)You had to go all the way to the farthest extreme to find an example of someone saying that.
You won't see anyone on DU making a similar remark, other than sarcastically.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)What excuses will they come up with?
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)bad racist words, would that make it OK?
(here's where the sarcasm thingie goes in case you really need it.)
question everything
(47,487 posts)No?
onehandle
(51,122 posts)The casual carrying of guns is a national security problem.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Laurian
(2,593 posts)I was surprised that it was locked, but I didn't fight it.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)The one in GD who locked yours is a 'Team NRA' stalwart down in the RKBA group, and tends to shut things down when the home team seems to be getting the short end of the exchange....
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,330 posts).... when one of these 'anti-gun' stories shows up on DU.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)LBN has no such rule, but it does require the subject line to match the originally published headline. Your post in GD spun a news item as an "OMYGOD GUNZ!" item.
The Gun Control & RKBA group was created for the purpose of keeping emotionally charged "gun" discussions out of GD. I believe if you had simply posted the headline as published, that it would not have been locked in GD.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)Since we both know who locked it, we can make reasonable surmises as to why it was locked, and mine is that the lock had nothing to do with SOP, but rather with the poor display the locking host's side of the matter was making in the thread.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Please remember WHY there is a Gungeon.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)That seems to be pretty much how it is run, anyway...
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Be they NRA subscribers or not.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there always is."
question everything
(47,487 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 5, 2012, 10:03 PM - Edit history (1)
I admit, I had no idea what kind of a reaction my post - that started this mini discussion and that I posted as a tongue in cheek - would generate. I was wondering whether it would be deleted and me banned..
On edit - the same individual blocked a post of mine several days ago. About how Republican state law makers are split between the rights of a business owners who do not want guns in cars parking on their property, and rights to bear arms. At least in the case above s/he spelled the name of the alternative forum. In my case s/he used acronym and I had no idea what they meant.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Their views range from slightly more control to desiring a total ban of all guns. It is hardly a safe haven. There have been three who have been locked out due to uncivility.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It's hard for me to take seriously claims that we're in some sort of state of emergency. Whatever we're doing, we're doing it right.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,330 posts)For Linda Hunnicutt.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"When one man dies it is a tragedy, when thousands die it's statistics'".
onehandle
(51,122 posts)And yet I can't pick up a suitcase nuke at Walmart.
WTF?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)tiny elvis
(979 posts)In the United States, annual firearm homicides total
2009: 9,146
2008: 9,484
2007: 10,129
2006: 10,225
2005: 10,158
2004: 9,385
2003: 9,659
2002: 9,369
2001: 8,890
1999: 8,259
1998: 9,257
In the United States, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is
2009: 2.98
2008: 3.12
2007: 3.36
2006: 3.42
2005: 3.43
2004: 3.20
2003: 3.37
2002: 3.25
2001: 3.12
1999: 2.97
1998: 3.37
1993: 7.07
In the United States, annual firearm suicides total
2005: 17,002
2001: 16,869
In the United States, the annual rate of firearm suicide per 100,000 population is
2005: 5.75
2001: 5.74
1993: 7.35
In the United States, annual unintentional shooting deaths total
2005: 789
2001: 802
In the United States, the annual rate of unknown-cause shooting deaths per 100,000 population is
2003: 0.11
2001: 0.02
1993: 0.22
classof56
(5,376 posts)Then jumped out of her car to rush to his side? That's what this 74-year-old person would have done, but then I don't live in a SYG state and never pack anything more than a pocket comb.
Truly, this is such a sad and tragic event, I can hardly stand to think about it. WTF!
onehandle
(51,122 posts)csziggy
(34,136 posts)The head line says the wheelchair and car 'bumped' and the photo captions says, "Police said in a statement that Reeves motorized wheelchair bumped into 65-year-old Linda Hunnicutts car Tuesday" but it's not clear what happened.
Did he run into her car and she yelled at him? Or did she run her car into him, making him fear for his life?
Badly written story leaves a lot unclear!
Javaman
(62,530 posts)he shot her because she yelled.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)Javaman
(62,530 posts)cheers!
csziggy
(34,136 posts)In his prosecution. If she ran into him, causing him to fear for his life, then that would be of benefit to his defense.
Either way, using a gun in the situation was almost definitely unreasonable but understanding all the factors rather than jumping to conclusions helps us avoid this kind of insanity in the future.
Javaman
(62,530 posts)I don't think it's at all unreasonable to say that is a gross display of negligence. I'm not jumping to conclusions, just using common sense.
AAO
(3,300 posts)These people should be put in prison for life until it stops.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)So if it is happening often now, it was happening much more often in the 80s and 90s.
AAO
(3,300 posts)It's like the value of life is being degraded.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)"The kids are killing each other for shoes", etc.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Sick, sick, sick GUN Culture.
JohnStJohn
(9 posts)but I am here to tell you that the insane lust that many in this nation have concerning firearms and vigilante justice flat pisses me off. And because I am a firearms owner I can also say with great certainty that there needs to be a reckoning when it comes to the laws in this nation as to who can or cannot own them. Personally I feel that people should have to undergo psyche evals just like any legally sworn law enforcement officer before they are ever allowed to posses a weapon as deadly as a firearm. Let me also add that continuing, yearly education on the safe use and storage of firearms should be mandatory for any and all firearms owners as well.
Paladin
(28,264 posts)Milliesmom
(493 posts)About 46 people are killed a day in the US according to crime stats, I wonder how many from guns.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)Kaleva
(36,312 posts)One never knows who has a gun on them.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I can only imagine that the victim, Linda Hunnicutt received succor and comfort in those last minutes before death from the knowledge that gun violence in America is at an all time low...
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)She must have been so exhilarated by the sacrifice she was making for her country....
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)if I ever get into an accident. I will call the cops on my cell, keep my windows rolled up, and wait for them to get there. With all the stupid SYG laws in this state, you cannot know that some totally INSANE moran, even an Old Coot, will just try to to get you into an argument and pull out a gun and shoot you claiming YOU were going to attack them.
I have said this to my gun collecting, CCW holding husband, and you know what he said? "You are probably right in that".
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)And I never get out of my car either, unless I really have to.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)If only everyone in a five-mile radius of this gas station had been armed, this whole thing could have been avoided. Right? Right?
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)Otherwise there might have been real trouble.
Just shows how important it is to be armed these days.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)The guy was obviously out looking for a confrontation. If this wasn't so tragic just the inability of the perpetrator to assess the situation and come up with a sane and civilized proportional response such as, excuse me, is laughable. Now it's just sad on one side and pathetic on the other.
Milliesmom
(493 posts)Another child shoots himself while handcuffed behind his back and in a patrol car?? How many will it take?
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/05/15702942-police-handcuffed-high-school-student-shoots-self-in-back-of-police-car?lite
maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:44 PM - Edit history (1)
73 year old has "anger issues" brought on by dementia/years of substance abuse. Has always had a handgun. Has waved it around before to threaten people, and the cops knew about him.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)He may even have discharged the weapon negligently, i.e. without meaning to. (I wouldn't call that an accident.)
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)He did not have a CCW, therefore it was illegal for him to have the gun at hand.
Nay
(12,051 posts)right?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)See by-state map here: http://my.opencarry.org/?page_id=103
Nay
(12,051 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)janx
(24,128 posts)YEAH!!!!
my state gets a gold star!!!!
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)tabasco
(22,974 posts)Time to start throwing away the key with these cowardly gun kooks.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Jesus!
JI7
(89,252 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Heck, there have been threads in the gungeon on "best guns" to shoot people fleeing a natural disaster; best loads; and worse.
The callousness and disregard for society are disgusting.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)with a machine gun.
Who do you suppose posted that Hoyt?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)with a friend who shot a US Marshal that was giving daddy weaver time to walk out of his racist compound under a federal warrant for selling guns to the Ayran Nation. Surprises me that folks who carry guns and applaud shooting unarmed teenagers while stealing a CD player would have a problem with a Federal Marshal shooting an armed racist, who had just participated in the murder of a Federal agent. But then, I find gun lovers are often callous, and of course bigoted.
None of this would have happened if daddy weaver -- a racist and gun trafficker -- had not hidden behind his armed, racist kids and wife. In any event, you -- like a previous poster under another name who always made the same comments -- need to find better heroes than these racist, criminal gun traffickers hiding out in an Idaho compound.
Finally, I suggest not spouting gun crud from stormfront on DU.
I'll make similar posts to anyone attempting to glorify the weaver family and their racist, gun trafficking ways. You should be ashamed.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Your vileness never ceases to amaze me.
Citation, please.
Except for the small hindrance that the courts didn't convict anyone of murder. In fact, the government was forced to pay a settlement for wrongful deaths and injuries.
Your projection is obvious.
He didn't, and even if he had, it wouldn't be sufficient justification to shoot anyone.
No-one here has ever held up Weaver as a hero (that's a vile lie you've told), merely as someone who was wronged by the government. And when that happens, political beliefs are irrelevent. Or do you object to the ACLU as well?
Except that he actually wasn't.
No-one has.
And the fact that you get support for comments that would earn instant PPR status anywhere else on D.U. boggles the mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge#The_siege_and_controversy
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I'm amazed your support of such racist, gun traffickers survives.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)I do not hold Weaver as a hero. No-one on D.U. does, to my knowledge. If you have evidence otherwise, post it here or cease lying.
Aknowledging government wrong-doing is not equivalent to considering someone a hero.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Yes, that's right, ladies & gentlemen: you see, if the woman in this story had simply been packing too, they could have had a "fast draw" and may the one with the fastest trigger finger win! Or, at the very least, she' would've been able to shoot back and plug him on her way down! Two dead instead of just one! It's guaranteed by the 2nd amendment! Freedum rulz!!!!11
*( )
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)And many in the gun culture acquire boat loads of guns for some strange reason.
I would venture that almost every gun used by a criminal starts out as someone's legally purchased gun. Then it was stolen; misplaced; sold to anyone with a fist-full of cash; the so-called "responsible" gun owner became irresponsible; etc.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Distributing themselves evenly to occupy all available space at a uniform density.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)The euphemisms and circumlocutions for guns that are being sold/bartered are many and often inventive and I'm not even looking for guns.
I agree with the previous poster that the vast majority of guns enter the marketplace through legal means and at some point become diverted to less formal methods of distribution.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)are you really going to maintain that most in the gun culture are not of the "more guns, less crime" frame of mind??? Can we at least keep the discussion reality-based?
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)I presume you have heard the old expression "Don't judge a book by its cover." That applies to this book.
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636
As to your vague generalization about "gun culture," I'll just say that you are parroting a stereotype with no real information to back it up.
Paladin
(28,264 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Apolocalypsenow said that the gun culture's answer to this tragedy is more guns. You claimed that no one believes that. I replied that your claim is preposterous, to which you pointed me to a book review.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)And I stand by my statement.
If I've told you once, I've told you SEVENTEEN QUADRILLION TIMES not to exaggerate so much.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)5.0 out of 5 stars It is just too Simple for Gun Control People to Understand January 16, 2010
By R. Montgomery
If the general public can protect itself criminals and the possibility of government tyranny like the impending ideas of the current congress and socialist Obama presidency are unlikely to succeed. (Of course now that I think of it, I suppose criminals and the current government in power have very much in common i.e. they both intend to unlawfully redistribute wealth at the expense of the unwilling victim)
This book just proves it is just too simple a principle for "Gun Control People to Understand". If you have a gun thugs and socialists think three times about killing you and taking your money and your liberty. If you are not armed then they just take your money, your life, and tax you and your children into oblivion.
This review is dedicated to Carole Stiller who leads the New Jersey chapter of the Million Mom March Against Fire Arms orgnization and who is an avid supporter of the Brady Gun Control Movement. When I found out she had been fetted by the New Jersey Government for her efforts I went out and bought another fire arm in her honor. She badly needs to read this book but I am sure it is "Just Too Simple" for her to understand. We are unfortunately surrounded by well intended citizens leading us to tyranny with the best of intentions
That's one of your compatriots speaking
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)But here you are commenting on it anyway.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)BecKKK's, Hannity's, or the Washington Times, or Reason Rag. I will leave the fascist propaganda to right wingers like you. The excerpt in my previous post tells me everything I need to know about it.
PLEASE stop calling yourself a Dem. It demeans the rest of us when those who agree with the quoted "book review" associate themselves with us.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)When the union breaks apart the gun nuts can go with the teabaggers to GlenBeckistan. The "no tax" policy will mean there won't be any police, but since everyone's packing auto's there won't really be any need for police.
jpak
(41,758 posts)Why yes they do.
samsingh
(17,599 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Both the story and 80% of the thread about it.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)it's only a matter of time, but those monetarily invested in the gun industry will claim it has nothing to do with this case, nor the Zimmerman's case. I believe it does, and think it's a dangerously stupid law that only promotes the use and purchase of guns. It has nothing to do with safety.
hack89
(39,171 posts)isn't just as likely we have an old man with a history of mental health or substance abuse issues?
Why not wait until the facts are out?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Why do you want people to pass up a perfectly good opportunity for irrelevent immoral poutrage?
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)that he has been charged with murder.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)They lust to be judge, jury, and executioner.
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)suffering partial paralysis after an aneurysm at the age of 23. Despite her disability, people said it never stopped her from being caring, giving and having a positive outlook on life ...
Linda Hunnicutt Mourned By Hundreds At Funeral Service
Cristen Drummond
Story Created: Dec 8, 2012 at 7:34 PM EST
Story Updated: Dec 8, 2012 at 11:17 PM EST
http://www.newscentralga.com/news/local/Linda-Hunnicutt-Mourned-By-Hundreds-At-Funeral-Service-182688441.html