Tow company owner claims self-defense in Christmas Eve shooting death (Castle Law suckage)

[jpak]

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/oct/09/castle-doctrine-at-issue-again/

BLUFFTON -- South Carolinians have long upheld a man's right to use deadly force to protect his home and property from intruders. But should a man's "castle" extend to his truck, as well?

Preston Oates thinks so. The embattled tow company owner is betting on the state's so-called castle doctrine law to spring him from manslaughter and weapons charges he's facing after shooting a man dead on Christmas Eve last year.

<snip>

Oates' lawyers, Donald Colongeli and Jared Newman, argue that he should be granted immunity from prosecution because state law gives residents the right to protect themselves from harm in their homes, businesses and vehicles. They contend that Oates defended himself against an attack by a pistol-wielding Olivera and Olivera's brother in the Edgefield neighborhood. Oates was in his tow truck at the time, according to the motion.

<snip>

"We are really mad and sad," she said. "Everyone knows what really happened that night. All this time we have believed justice was going to be served. Now, we have doubts."

Olivera's family tells a much different version of the events of Dec. 24. They say Oates shot Olivera execution-style while Olivera's back was turned. Oates reportedly said "Feliz Navidad" -- Spanish for "Merry Christmas" -- to Olivera's relatives as deputies led him away from the shooting scene, according to the relatives.

<more>

[Iktomiwicasa]

1. Yeah, it really sucks...

...that a victim of a crime used a gun to defend himself from a gun wielding criminal.

:sarcasm:

If someone has a gun on me, I will rightfully assume my life is in imminent danger. Piss on the crook, my life is also my castle.

unrecced.

[Starboard Tack]

17. Who was the gun wielding criminal? Oh, right, the killer.

Olivera, who had a CCW permit, never fired nor, apparently, drew his weapon. The killer had just put a boot on his car, they had an argument, Olivera showed he was armed, Oates shot him six times. Four times in the back. You cheer for this punk? You show your colors.

[beevul]

18. You may wish to get the facts correct on this.

Witnesses said Olivera did not point a weapon at Oates, but a statement from Nelson Olivera indicates Carlos Olivera removed the gun from his waistband, showed it to Oates and put it back, according to Viens.

(note the relative, Nelson Olivera, has changed his story on this)

He told officers Olivera and his brother, Nelson Olivera, began to argue with him and that he heard someone call for a shotgun.

(if true, this sets a tone)

Read more: http://www.islandpacket.com/2011/01/14/1511276/investigators-reveal-video-of.html#ixzz1ayTGdu8V

At one point, Oates handed keys to Nelson Olivera, which Nelson Olivera believed were for removing the boot, Viens said.

(why did he hand him the keys?)

Viens said Olivera's gun was found about 18 feet away from his body. She said it was possible it had been kicked or moved by the large, angry crowd that had gathered.

(what caused a supposedly undrawn gun to be found 18 feet from the body? I think personally, that if anyone in the large angry crowd has gotten their hands on it, there would have been another shooting. For the gun to be kicked away, it would have had to be loose, and not holstered or tucked in the guys pants. What is more likely based on what is known?)

http://www.islandpacket.com/2011/01/14/1511276/investigators-reveal-video-of.html


Me, I would like to see the actual video before labelling either of them, oates or olivera, a murderer or a victim.

[Starboard Tack]

19. Why don't you watch the video?

http://prestonoates.com/

[beevul]

27. I watched it.

I'd like to see the video that shoows the whole event, from beginning to end.

Its a fairly safe assumption that there is such a thing.

[Starboard Tack]

29. Maybe. I didn't notice an angry crowd in the video. Did you?

[beevul]

31. No I really didnt.

Of course, there may have been more to the left that was unseeable, but if there was no angry crowd, how was the gun found 18 feet from the body?

[Starboard Tack]

38. Beats me

[S_B_Jackson]

28. So you're saying that Olivera, who had a CCW and who's class taught otherwise

needlessly escalated the incident by threatening the use of force by "showing he was armed". Sounds like Oates, at that point, had reasonable grounds to feel that he had been threatened with imminent physical harm, which does indeed create the possibility that this was a justified self-defense shooting.

We can only hope that the jury is able to get to the bottom of this matter and apportion culpability where it is due.

[Starboard Tack]

34. Who knows which of these two cowboys exposed his weapon first.

I guess the toting thing didn't work out too well for either of them. As the great prophet Forrest Gump learned from his momma "Stupid is as stupid does!"

[krispos42]

32. But I thought a toter showing a weapon was brandishing and threatening?

Right?

I mean, there are people out there that would leave restaurants and such out of fear if a guy shows up with a pistol strapped to his hip.


So what gives?

[Starboard Tack]

37. What gives? I've got a gun, see it? Me too, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.

Stupid is as stupid does!

[ObamaFTW2012]

50. What a simple way of looking at things

Are all the books in your house of the pop-up variety?

[Starboard Tack]

58. When in Rome, fai come i romani

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[abogado]

3. Good for Mr. Oates.

I wish every gangbanger would get shot by someone defending his domain.

[ObamaFTW2012]

20. Too bad

..the scenario you suggest is not in any way like what transpired between Oates and Olivera. Oates is not and was never a good guy "defending his domain", nor was Olivera a "gangbanger". Oates is a scumbag, and Olivera was a fool.

[ileus]

4. Let's keep our fingers crossed he's found innocent.

[Hoyt]

5. Well if we are going to condemn guy shot, I'll speculate there's good chance SC shooter is a bigot.

?370a03faaa4bde2115f371a02430eb3e6a451be5

Kind of looks like Loughner with the same smirk (since pre-trial speculation appears OK on this thread).

[ObamaFTW2012]

6. Scumbags

I have met Preston Oates on a few occasions, and I know his
background. He is a prick. He's an obnoxious, arrogant,
asshole. He shot at people before, but missed and hit a
trailer nearby. He also used to have an illegal bar/nightclub
where drugs were sold and used, but he got shut down. Somehow,
he wasn't sent to prison for it.

Olivera, OTOH, I know nothing about, except this: he flashed a
firearm in waistband at Oates, with no more provocation than
seeing his vehicle booted by an Oates he assumed to be
unarmed.

Both have received or will receive what they deserve.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

14. welcome to DU

:hi:

[ObamaFTW2012]

25. Thank you NT

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Statements like yours make you out to be an appearance bigot

[ObamaFTW2012]

10. Funny thing is though

He's right.

[Hoyt]

21. You obviously don't know much about SC. Or, maybe you do . . . . . .

[ObamaFTW2012]

23. What do you mean by that?

Please explain

[Hoyt]

26. First off, I was responding to so-called ProgressiveProfessor, who thinks anyone against guns

in public is a "bigot."

Second, I'm willing to bet my ass Oates is a bigot and a big reason the other guy is dead. The "Feliz Navidad" quip by Oates was pretty clear.

But to take it further, I love going to Asheville NC. Unfortunately, I have to drive through a places in SC where confederate flags are fly "proudly." In any event, take a look at politicians popular in SC -- if one doesn't believe most are bigots, then they ain't objective. And, bigots don't get elected unless bigots vote for them.

Besides, I grew up in Georgia and have known a lot of bigots . . . . . . and the majority of them carried guns in furtherance of their bigotry.

[ObamaFTW2012]

47. Not sure

if Oates is a bigot, though based on my interactions with him and his local reputation, I would say it's likely.

I'm not sure why you have an issue with that flag, as I know both black folks and white folks who fly it proudly, but that is a discussion best handled in a separate thread, so I will leave it at that.

Most of the folks I know who carry guns aren't white, and they do so because they simply want to be able to defend their lives against criminals. Some of them hunt deer, boar, and turkey, but with long guns, not carry guns.

I think you have a mild case of broad brush syndrome.

[SteveM]

65. Don't you know? If you're a "liberal" you can broad-brush any bigot. nt

[SteveM]

64. How many other states are on your enemy's list? nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. There may be more to the story than the OP is saying (nothing new there)

Georgia Castle defense laws are broad and pretty clear. Be enlightening to get the good gouge on why the DA is pursuing this.

[ObamaFTW2012]

9. Wrong State

It's in SC, not GA.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. Quite right, coffee had not yet kicked in

[aikoaiko]

11. I'd need to hear more facts of the case & read SC "castle doctrine" before saying good shoot or not

For example, was Oates acting lawfully when towing the car? Was Olivera carrying legally when he confronted Oates? Was Olivera interfereing the Oates lawful work? Was the gun found holstered on Olivera? What is in the video (its grainy and hard to make out)? Is there any evidence that one person acted aggressively before the other?

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c011.htm
ARTICLE 6.
PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY
SECTION 16-11-410. Citation of article.
This article may be cited as the "Protection of Persons and Property Act".

SECTION 16-11-420. Intent and findings of General Assembly.

(A) It is the intent of the General Assembly to codify the common law Castle Doctrine which recognizes that a person's home is his castle and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person's place of business.

(B) The General Assembly finds that it is proper for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others.

(C) The General Assembly finds that Section 20, Article I of the South Carolina Constitution guarantees the right of the people to bear arms, and this right shall not be infringed.

(D) The General Assembly finds that persons residing in or visiting this State have a right to expect to remain unmolested and safe within their homes, businesses, and vehicles.

(E) The General Assembly finds that no person or victim of crime should be required to surrender his personal safety to a criminal, nor should a person or victim be required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack.

SECTION 16-11-430. Definitions.

As used in this article, the term:

(1) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including an attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging there at night.

(2) "Great bodily injury" means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ.

(3) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(4) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

SECTION 16-11-440. Presumption of reasonable fear of imminent peril when using deadly force against another unlawfully entering residence, occupied vehicle or place of business.

(A) A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or another person when using deadly force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to another person if the person:

(1) against whom the deadly force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if he removes or is attempting to remove another person against his will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(2) who uses deadly force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring or has occurred.

(B) The presumption provided in subsection (A) does not apply if the person:

(1) against whom the deadly force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle including, but not limited to, an owner, lessee, or titleholder; or

(2) sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship, of the person against whom the deadly force is used; or

(3) who uses deadly force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(4) against whom the deadly force is used is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle in the performance of his official duties, and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using force knows or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter is a law enforcement officer.

(C) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be, including, but not limited to, his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.

(D) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.

(E) A person who by force enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle in violation of an order of protection, restraining order, or condition of bond is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act regardless of whether the person is a resident of the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle including, but not limited to, an owner, lessee, or titleholder.

SECTION 16-11-450. Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil actions; law enforcement officer exception; costs.

(A) A person who uses deadly force as permitted by the provisions of this article or another applicable provision of law is justified in using deadly force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of deadly force, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known that the person is a law enforcement officer.

(B) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of deadly force as described in subsection (A), but the agency may not arrest the person for using deadly force unless probable cause exists that the deadly force used was unlawful.

(C) The court shall award reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of a civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (A).

[ObamaFTW2012]

13. Answers

Oates was legally carrying a firearm in his vehicle, without a CWP, in accordance with SC law. Olivera was illegally carrying a firearm.

Oates was legally towing Olivera's vehicle under authority granted to him by the HOA, however, the morality in doing so is questionable, given that he was out looking for vehicles to boot/tow on Christmas Eve. He is known for exploiting every opportunity, gouging people for fees whenever he can.

Oates, the scumbag that he is, still has a right to defend himself against an unprovoked threat of violence. Olivera, rightfully upset with Oates' lack of compassion and understanding on Christmas Eve, had no right to brandish a firearm as a means of persuading Oates to unhook his car.

Oates took the situation too far in continuing the fight after Olivera ceased to be a threat. Legally, he did himself no favors by saying "Feliz Navidad" to Olivera's family after killing him.

In my opinion, based on my knowledge of Oates and the situation as told, I hope Oates gets a fair trial and it results in him going to prison for a long time. Olivera already got what he deserved for threatening another man with a gun.

[Starboard Tack]

15. Yep. 2 more toters off the board. Oates looks like a real sweetheart

Not the best way to resolve our differences, is it?
Apparently this asshole Oates shot Olivera 6 times, 4 times in the back. Olivera never fired his gun.

Read all about Toter Oates
http://prestonoates.com/

[Hoyt]

22. 6 times, 4 in the back. Christ, I hope they burn him. Sadly, some here consider it a good shoot.

[ObamaFTW2012]

24. Could be

While I am not going to say it is the case for Preston Oates, as I was not there, it is quite possible to shoot someone in the back in a justified self-defense shooting. If a person threatens another by brandishing a firearm, and the victim draws a weapon and fires at the aggressor, and the aggressor turns to flee while being shot at, the end result could be an aggressor with several gunshot wounds to the back. The threat doesn't cease (and, therefore, remove with it justification for the use of lethal force) simply because an aggressor turns his back to his intended victim. The aggressor could be retreating to a safer firing position, or to call for help in the fight.

It is the victim's perception of "fear of imminent death or serious injury", using the "reasonable man" standard, that justifies self defense. If the victim maintains a reasonable imminent fear of death or serious injury, even as his attacker turns his back on him, he is still justified in defending himself.

Just so we're clear, I do not believe this is the case with Oates and Olivera, though it is possible.

[Straw Man]

30. "off the board"?

Aren't you the person who accuses others of treating defensive shootings as if they were sporting events? Can you spell "hypocrisy"? I knew that you could.

[Starboard Tack]

35. There is nothing defensive about a shootout in the street

In fact, it is highly offensive. Can you spell "stupid"? I knew you could.

[Straw Man]

39. Callousness is callousness.

You get very exercised about other people's supposed indifference to human life, yet your own is apparently above reproach. See "hypocrisy," above, and add "obtuseness."

[Starboard Tack]

40. "You get very exercised about other people's supposed indifference to human life"

Not sure exactly what you mean by "exercised".
I am certainly not indifferent to human life. I am against the death penalty in all it's forms. My pointing out the stupidity of problem solving with firearms, in no way indicates an indifference to human life. Just the opposite.

[Straw Man]

42. Exercised.

Not sure exactly what you mean by "exercised".

1. To absorb the attentions of, especially by worry or anxiety.
2. To stir to anger or alarm; upset: an injustice that exercised the whole community.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/exercise#ixzz1b4lHU07d

My pointing out the stupidity of problem solving with firearms, in no way indicates an indifference to human life.

So what exactly did you mean by "two toters off the board"? It's a sports metaphor, is it not? Are you not the same person who reacted with shock and outrage when another poster referred to "concealed carry for the win"? Your outrage would seem to be rather selective.

[Starboard Tack]

44. There is a huge difference

2 toters off the board means the game they are playing is extremely dangerous and those who engage in it should expect to be eliminated, sooner or later, by one of their fellow toters. There are no winners of that game, only losers, IMO.

"concealed carry for the win" on the other hand, implies that there is a winner and a loser. Do you think that is a healthy attitude?

[Straw Man]

53. I see only indifference.

2 toters off the board means the game they are playing is extremely dangerous and those who engage in it should expect to be eliminated, sooner or later, by one of their fellow toters.

And how do you feel about that? You don't give a shit, do you. They were "toters." What did they expect?

"concealed carry for the win" on the other hand, implies that there is a winner and a loser. Do you think that is a healthy attitude?

When crime victims successfully defend themselves against violent assaults, I call that "winning." What do you call it? You would apparently prefer that they submit to assaults that may very well extend to maiming or death. Do you call THAT a healthy attitude?

[Starboard Tack]

54. I feel saddened by all loss of life and all suffering,

including the suffering of those who may deserve to suffer. I am not indifferent to their loss of life, but it doesn't surprise me. You take my lack of surprise as indifference. Sorry, that's an example of your inability to perceive another's intentions and a good reason for you to reconsider your continued toting. If you have an open mind, you'll actually think about that. If you have a closed mind, you won't, in which case you are wasting your time here.

When whomever you have perceived as the "victim" prevails against whomever you have perceived as the "persecutor", you see it as a win and cheer. "One for our side!" You think the only other way to react is to lie down and take it. You must live in a very black and white world. I feel for you, I'm sorry. Come out and enjoy the sunshine sometime. It really isn't all that bad out here. And there are an infinite number of options in any situation.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

61. It appears we live in two very different worlds....

You seem to live in one where criminals are clear in their intent and will leave you alone if you politely ask them to do so.

I live in one where bad things sometimes come to those who do their best to avoid them, and one should be prepared to deal with such things with force if necessary.

[Starboard Tack]

63. It's all about attitude my friend. We create the world we live in.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

71. That's a nice idea in theory

In real life though, it does not work that well.

Yes, our choices and actions can define much of what occurs, but there are things for which one cannot plan.

[Starboard Tack]

73. There are no guarantees in life except that it will end eventually.

How you live it is up to you. As you say, "There are things for which one cannot plan."

[We_Have_A_Problem]

80. Which is why...

...I choose to be prepared for possible issues. You seem to prefer to restrict the tools available to people based upon an utterly unsubstantiated belief that it will somehow reduce crime.

[Straw Man]

62. So when challenged, you profess sadness.

Before that, it was just "2 toters off the board." You expressed no sadness. That's indifference, my friend. Back-pedal all you want. It's a familiar pattern.

So all who don't agree with you have "closed minds" and live in "black and white worlds"? What arrogant tripe. What makes you think you are the only one in this dialogue who considers options and perceives shades of gray? Or perhaps you don't perceive the shades at all, but merely see the monotone gray of total moral relativism. That may be why you are apparently incapable of holding violent aggressors accountable for their actions.

Forgive me if my Web telepathy is inadequate for determining the true feelings that underlie and perhaps belie your words here on this forum. Maybe it's a problem of the space/time continuum: I am incapable of determining what you are going to mean in the future by what you are saying in the present.

[Starboard Tack]

67. Sadness isn't something one professes. It's a feeling.

My sadness is compounded by the cheering from the sidelines. It is a sadness felt for us all, not the individuals alone. Summary justice is not the way of a progressive society.
Lots of open-minded people disagree with me. That's how we evolve as individuals by listening with an open mind. Keeping it open is always a challenge.
My argument is not based in moral relativism, but practicality and logic.

[Straw Man]

70. And feelings can be expressed.

Or not expressed, which is equally telling. Furthermore, one can profess to have feelings that one does not actually have. It's called "hypocrisy."

Self-defense is not summary justice. To equate the two is a serious error, in both practical and moral terms.

Yes, all human deaths are lamentable. Some are more lamentable than others. You acknowledge as much with your "2 toters off the board" comment. I don't support the "concealed carry for the win" statement, but you have no moral standing to object to it as long as you stand by your comment above.

[Starboard Tack]

74. " Self-defense is not summary justice" I couldn't agree more.

But I don't see the Nussbaumer shooting as self defense. I'm continuing to follow the story and I may be wrong, but so far, it looks more like murder to me than self defense.
Regarding my "2 toters off the board" comment. I'll stand by it, because it obviously touched a nerve. But, it was meant in the vein of "those who play with fire should expect to get burnt". Both are silly games IMO.

[Straw Man]

77. Good.

I don't know who Nussbaumer is. I thought we were discussing Oates and Olivera. It may in fact be murder, but at this point we don't know enough, and IMO it is reckless to speculate.

I question why you would stand by a statement merely because it "touched a nerve." (Did I quote you correctly?) I could make all kinds of inflammatory statements and touch plenty of nerves if my goal were controversy for controversy's sake. It's not. Is it yours?

[Starboard Tack]

78. OK point taken. I'll try to be less inflammatory

Oates and Olivera, right. Don't see that as SD either. Yet. Let's see how it plays out.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

43. Sometimes....

...firearms are the perfect tool for solving certain kinds of problems.


At least in the real world...YMMV in Utopia.

[Starboard Tack]

45. Care to cite an example

[We_Have_A_Problem]

46. I am going to assume...

...you are asking me to give an example of when a firearm would be a useful tool for problem solving. Ok - here's one:

120lb woman against a 250lb rapist.

[Starboard Tack]

55. At which point during the rape would you have her use that gun?

I have met many rape and attempted rape victims and cannot think of one who thought a gun would have helped. In fact most thought it would have been disastrous.
Do you anything to back up your claim?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

59. As soon as she could.

As far as support for my claims, I refer you the FBI's crime reports.

You asked for a situation where a gun would be an excellent tool for solving the problem. You were presented with one. Just because the women you have talked to do not believe so does not change the fact that it is an excellent tool for equalizing the situation.

If you don't want to consider a rape scenario, consider simply a 120lb woman vs. a 200lb mugger...same result.

[Starboard Tack]

68. Do you speak from personal experience?

If not, why don't we ask our fellow duers and see how many of them tote because they are small females afraid of muggers and rapists.
Any of you out there? We're waiting. Hello!

[We_Have_A_Problem]

72. Does it matter if i am or not?

Are you one of those foolish individuals who believes unless one has direct personal experience with an event, one cannot comment on it?

[Starboard Tack]

75. I'd just like to hear from one of your examples or see some proof

[We_Have_A_Problem]

81. You asked for an example...

of when a firearm would be a good self defense tool. I gave you one.

Since you want more to support my statement, even though you seem to believe simple assertions on your part are proof enough, pray tell what do you consider acceptable source material? I do not wish to provide something from SAF or GOA for example and have you dismiss it as nothing but right-wing pro-gun propaganda....

[Starboard Tack]

82. That's OK. We can just wait for all those female members to chime in.

[ObamaFTW2012]

51. Here's another

I came across a very large snake in my front yard. I had a shotgun with me on my way out to the field (I lived on 480 acres out in the country). I shot it. Good thing I did, as it was poisonous and I probably would have died from the snake bite from that monster, as the hospital is an hour's drive.

[Starboard Tack]

56. Sorry, we should have clarified, problem solving between people.

Your use of a shotgun is an excellent example of good firearm use.

[ObamaFTW2012]

52. And then there was the time

when 2 very unsavory looking rednecks came up my driveway (nobody ever comes up my driveway) in a way that made me feel they were casing the house. No truck in the driveway so I think they assumed nobody was home. They got out and started looking around, as if to make sure they were clear to rob my house.

They got a big surprise and took off in a hurry when I stepped out to greet them holding a rifle. I kept it pointed at the ground, away from them, because you never know. They could have been lost, and I didn't want to point a rifle at someone who really didn't deserve to have one pointed at them. They never said anything. They just jumped in the truck and sped away.

My house didn't get robbed, and I didn't have to shoot someone. That was a pretty good outcome in my opinion.

[Starboard Tack]

57. And another good use of a firearm. I would and have done the same

You were protecting your home from possible miscreants. Our focus is on handguns and routinely toting them in public.

[beevul]

60. Who?

"Our focus is on handguns and routinely toting them in public."

The "our" there meaning whom?


Secondly, it would be helpful to make some distinction between the lawful carry of a gun, versus the unlawful carry of a gun.

If you are unwilling or unable to discuss those two things are the two different things they are, why would anyone consider your opinion to be of any significant weight on the issue?

[Starboard Tack]

69. So sorry. I was just trying to avoid confusion in a sub-thread.

It's not always easy for me to remember if it's the same person responding as the last time. I'm much better in person, where I can attach a voice or comment to a face. But I'm trying my best.
Anyway, you bring up a good point regarding the distinction between lawful and unlawful carrying of a gun.
I've thought about this quite a lot and to be honest with you, I make no distinction.
I've come to the point where I would prefer no regulation concerning ownership, because it is arbitrary and elitist. At the same time, the use of handguns as a murder weapon is out of control. So, I would seek a solution there. The only effective one appears to be total eradication, but I'm open to other suggestions.

Regarding attaching weight to my opinion, that's up to others. Apparently, it has some effect, based on the responses. At least it makes some people think and possibly alter their position. Happens to me every day. My opinions are in constant flux.

[ObamaFTW2012]

48. This particular situation

was, IMO, a "mutual combat" scenario where neither party is blameless. Had Oates exercised better judgment after the incident, and if he had not already established a bad reputation locally, he might not be facing a murder case now. But most of us know him to be an asshole, and many believe he carried a firearm looking for an opportunity to shoot someone. That he finally did is no surprise.

[Starboard Tack]

79. Very interesting.

Sounds like a lot of testosterone was flying.
Did you know Olivera too?

[SteveM]

66. You can be a 'hypocrite' as long as you are saturated in self-righteousness.nt

[krispos42]

33. Were the two in the front the first two shots, or the last two?

It would seem to be important.


Also, if Mr. Oats found cause to shoot Mr. Olivera, it's presumably because Mr. Oats felt that Mr. Olivera was a clear, immediate, and grave danger to Mr. Oats. When Mr. Oats subsequently fired his gun at Mr. Olivera, it was with the intention to prevent Mr. Olivera from shooting Mr. Oats.


In short, the goal of Oats pulling his trigger was to keep Olivera from pulling his trigger. Mission accomplished.

:shrug:


It's up to a jury to find out if Oats had reasonable cause to shoot Mr. Olivera.

[Starboard Tack]

36. Bottom line being, 2 toters trying to resolve differences with guns.

Stupid is as stupid does!

[ObamaFTW2012]

49. Criminals

and now both are getting the rewards of crime - prison for one, death for the other.

[rl6214]

76. "Read all about Toter Oates"

Is that something like tater tots or crispy oates?

[SteveM]

16. Since we are quoting family members like footnotes to science projects...

http://www2.wsav.com/news/2011/jan/14/preston-oates-family-statement-ar-1343478/

Noted "pistol-wielding" on the part of the "victim."

[We_Have_A_Problem]

41. Interesting....

Seems to me if Mr. Olivera did brandish a firearm, or reveal one in a threatening manner, then yes, he very much deserved to get shot. That is lethal threat and Mr. Oates had every legal right to act accordingly.


Considering this happened at night and Mr. Oates was outnumbered to begin with, I am inclined to believe this is very possibly what happened. It passes the sniff test.

Without knowing all the details though, its hard to say. However, the idea that he shot Oliver in the back 4 times and then 2 times in the front simply does not make any sense whatsoever. I can see two shots from the front, Olivera turns and catches the last 4 in the back. I can even guess what the pattern of wounds would look like. It would happen simply because the shooter would keep firing until the target was down - and in an adrenaline charged situation, it is very likely that all 6 shots were fired before the image of Mr. Olivera turning could register on Mr. Oates' conscious mind.