Are the "right to carry" laws out of control?

[Joanne98]

Montana Police Release Man Who Shot Co-Worker at Wal-Mart Due to State’s Sweeping “Castle Doctrine” Law
Published 1, August 14, 2009 Criminal law , Politics , Society , Torts 5 Comments

For most prosecutors, it would seem an easy criminal case. Daniel Lira, 32, was working inside Wal-Mart’s loading dock area when he got into an argument with co-worker Craig Schmidt, 49. He ended up hitting Schmidt in the face. Schmidt responded by pulling out a .25-caliber semiautomatic Beretta handgun and shooting Lira in the head from as little as 10 feet away. Yellowstone County Attorney Dennis Paxinos, however, released Schmidt in light of Montana’s “castle doctrine law” which allows citizens to use potentially lethal force in self-defense — despite the escalation in the level of force by Schmidt from a fist fight to a shooting.

The bullet did not kill Lira but grazed his head.

For years, legislators have been passing “castle doctrine” laws or “Make My Day laws” that allow homeowners to use lethal force against anyone who enters their home. While these laws have produced a wide range of controversial shootings (here and here and here and here and here and here), legislators have continued to expand their scope to businesses, cars, and other areas while also expanding the right to carry concealed weapons into churches, bars, schools, school games and workplaces.

Some of these laws are called “Make My Day Better laws,” which allow the use of lethal force outside of the home to repel criminals. Montana’s law has sweeping language to protect the “natural right” to use lethal force.

Montana has various laws authorizing the use of lethal force with few limitations. This year, legislators expanded the law. They expressed great love for the prior Castle Doctrine law, they simply wanted to get rid of the castle part. As State Representative Krayton Kerns (R-Laurel) explained in one news report, “The ‘castle doctrine’ only applied to an occupied structure, one tiny little place, (but) what if you’re not in an occupied structure? What if you’re out in an alfalfa field? What if you’re walking down the street with your wife, your kids and your dog? It’s too restrictive to have it just be the ‘castle doctrine’. You are the castle. Wherever you go, your right to self defense goes with you.” The new Alfalfa Field law leaves the lethal force while dumping the castle. The legislation endorsed the use of lethal force to protect the “lives and liberties” of Montanans. It included the following provision:

Section 1. No duty to summon help or flee. Except as provided in 45-3-105, a person who is lawfully in a place or location and who is threatened with bodily injury or loss of life has no duty to retreat from a threat or summon law enforcement assistance prior to using force. The provisions of this section apply to a person offering evidence of justifiable use of force under 45-3-102, 45-3-103, or 45-3-104.

Note the reference to any “bodily injury.” The legislature went further to put a shot across the bow of prosecutors:

Section 3. Investigation of alleged offense involving claim of justifiable use of force. When an investigation is conducted by a peace officer of an incident that appears to have or is alleged to have involved justifiable use of force, the investigation must be conducted so as to disclose all evidence, including testimony concerning the alleged offense and that might support the apparent or alleged justifiable use of force.

Moreover, in the defense of a dwelling, the legislature removed references to the use of lethal force to stop a violent intruder as opposed to any intruder:

Continued>>>
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/08/14/montana-police-release-man-who-shot-co-worker-at-wal-mart-due-to-states-sweeping-castle-doctrine-law/

[slackmaster]

1. Mr. Lira is not only 17 years younger than Mr. Schmidt, he weighs twice as much

If you don't want get shot, don't hit people in the face.

I don't know of any state that has a duty to summon help or to attempt to flee from danger when you are facing a potentially deadly threat.

[Kaleva]

6. Hopefully, Mr. Lira has or will get some jail time.

[SteppingRazor]

2. I'm a believer in CCW, but I do think this goes too far. n/t

[Kaleva]

3. Don't punch a guy who has a gun lest you make his day better.

[fascisthunter]

4. way out of control... and this "Castle Law" is BS

being punched is one thing, but then shooting someone because you are being punched? What a coward.

[slackmaster]

14. A 150-pound man who uses a weapon after being punched by a 300-pound man is a coward?

Nice Monday-morning quarterbacking.

I hope you are never attacked by a man twice your size.

[galileoreloaded]

44. You must understand that for many, violence has never visited them...

so they have no frame of reference. Experience with violence, especially among the weakest of us (not a put down, just physics), has lasting effects. Often the effect is to take steps so as not to be vulnerable.

But without this experience, you can't blame people for what they don't know. Strangely, American culture has successfully imparted a safe society, relatively speaking, and thus many folks have a VERY skewed view of the human condition in relation to the entirety of the rest of the world (the only caveat being Europe and perhaps Australia, a small population).

So don't be upset, just try to be understanding. Nothing really bad has ever happened to them, and they speak from that experience.

[slackmaster]

47. I had mine at age 15, and have been mostly successful at avoiding it since then

The last person who attacked me physically (with a post-hole digger FWIW) ended up in the hospital with a broken ankle.

[fascisthunter]

70. uh yuh... don't pretend to know if I had the shit kicked out of me or not

I grew up in a tough part of Boston.... never had a gun. Those who did are gone.... Only a fucking coward would pull one out during a fist fight. And by doing so, you'd place a nice target on your back. That shit doesn't wash where I'm from.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

74. Ok tough guy.

[proteus_lives]

115. Wow you're hardcore.

Do you eat nails and piss thumb-tacks?

:eyes:

[slackmaster]

139. I didn't know Boston was such a shithole

:hi:

[RaleighNCDUer]

53. I've been attacked by a guy twice my size. I survived just fine.

And I didn't have to shoot anyone.

And when it comes down to it, what 300 lb man can CATCH a 150 lb man?

Do you arm yourself against your co-workers?

Are you AFRAID of your co-workers?

If so, it says something about the place you work, or about YOU.

[slackmaster]

61. You did once, therefore anyone should be able to do the same every time

Is that what you are trying to say?

[RaleighNCDUer]

69. I'm saying what I'm saying - while YOU are saying 'be afraid'

I'm saying, it's not as bad as you imagine. It seldom is.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

75. I missed the part where he said, "be afraid" can you show me the quote.

[slackmaster]

137. Please point out where I suggested that anyone should "be afraid"

:shrug:

[backwoodsbob]

73. I have a buddy who does the UFC type thing

if he attacks you and you do anything other than take it...because trust me he would win..are you a coward?

[ThomWV]

5. I do not think anyone has a duty to flee

and I believe that if you are being attacked and believe your life to be threatened you have not only a right but a duty to preserve yourself by all means possible - I did not come to this conclusion myself, I have simply adopted the views of two philosophers I respect, Locke and Hobbs.

[creeksneakers2]

166. If you have an option to flee

you have a means possible to preserve yourself.

[quiller4]

169. No duty to flee and a right to defend. I have no problem with so-called castle laws.

[Joe Fields]

7. Per your question: In Missouri, the voters voted down Conceal Carry twice,

and both times by huge margins, but the Missouri state legislature, bought and paid for by the NRA, did an end around and used a legislative loophole to get the bill rammed through anyway.

So much for the will of the people of Missouri. The first time, the conceal carry bill was voted down by a 2 to 1 margin.

[Kaleva]

11. I thought that the margin in the '99 vote was about 4%?

Not exactly huge by any means.

"April 26, 1999
Missouri voters recently rejected a bill to lift a ban on concealed guns.

With 99 percent of votes counted, Proposition B, which would have lifted the ban, failed 52 percent to 48 percent, or 674,378 votes to 625,689 votes.

The vote marked the first time a state put the question of concealed weapons to the voters. Thirty-one other states allow citizens to carry concealed guns, but those measures were enacted by legislators."

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-54727829.html

"Tuesday, July 20, 2004

Recently, in the case of Brooks v. Missouri, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Missouri’s concealed carry statute against a direct challenge that the statute violated Art. I, Sec. 23 of Missouri’s constitution. The court specifically held that there is no constitutional prohibition against the wearing of concealed weapons. The court also stated that the General Assembly, which has the power to enact legislation on any subject in the absence of a constitutional prohibition, has the final say in the use and regulation of concealed weapons."

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=1167

[Viper Mad]

39. Proposition 8

nuff said

[Joanne98]

8. I don't want conservatives carrying guns around me.

NO FUCKING WAY!

[Viper Mad]

45. You probably need to stay away from cops then.

...

[Joanne98]

51. I all ready do. But that's about to change after all the conservatives are FIRED

From the police forces for being terrorists sympathizers.

Welcome to DU!

[Statistical]

84. Is that going to be on the 20th or 21st of never? I need to mark my calender. n/t

[Javaman]

9. Don't bring a fist to a gun fight. nt

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[slackmaster]

17. Mr. Schmidt did not intend to get into a fight

:eyes:

[Kaleva]

24. So a woman who shoots an male attacker would be a coward?

In your view, a hypothetical woman who doesn't punch it out with a bigger, stronger but unarmed assailant is nothing but a pussy?

[RaleighNCDUer]

54. Strawman. That has nothing to do with THIS incident under discussioin. nt

[Kaleva]

59. However, you are ignoring the implications of what you are saying

As neither you or I know either of the two men involved in this incident, our viewpoint is general in nature and we are applying our views to this case.

[Pavulon]

42. All due respect, but this is not high school

once you reach adult hood fighting like kids is not an option. If someone is willing to engage in a fight they are not rational. They have pursued "me" after I have tried to back out, tried to retreat. So being beaten unconscious is not a good option.

Furthermore the Eve Carsons of the world have a right to put up a fight. The only way they can do that is with a gun.

[RaleighNCDUer]

50. With all due respect, Schmidt is NOT Eve Carson. Strawman.

If he is strong enough to be working the loading dock at Wal Mart, he's strong enough to stand up for himself WITHOUT using a gun.

fuck your 'due respect'.

[Viper Mad]

152. My 90 pound neighbor lady works at the local WM loading dock.

She inventories items that come in. So fuck your snide comment.

[Pavulon]

164. I have zero interest in a fight.

I threw guys around in bct and could probably handle myself. I dont care to leave my wife a widow or end up a quadriplegic. I dont get in bar fights, dont look for problems. However if a person pushes me into a situation where after backing down, backing up, and violence still happens chances are they are getting shot.

There are clear laws in NC that cover deadly force. They are common sense.

[sharesunited]

10. Leaves life and death up to subjective and emotional decisionmaking. Bad public policy.

[JonQ]

13. Of course not allowing firearms doesn't remove

the whole life/death emotion based killings, it merely gives the aggressor control of the decision making process. He may have chosen to beat this guy to death, he may have chosen not to. Either way the victim doesn't get any say in the outcome.

[Kaleva]

19. Isn't that the way it usually is?

[Edweird]

23. "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the FELONS?!?!?!"

[slackmaster]

27. There is a good reason that handguns are sometimes called "equalizers"

It sounds like sharesunited is advocating a return to old law of the jungle - The younger, larger, stronger man always gets his way. (Until a younger, bigger, stronger man comes along and takes over the alpha position.)

[Statistical]

36. It is fair....

as long as you are the younger, stronger, larger male.

To everyone else, fuck off and take that ass beating. You deserve it for not being the youngest, strongest, largest male on the block.
Your inferiority is sickening.

[sharesunited]

81. Check the penal code in your own state. Simple assault is not a capital offense.

You propose to vest the shooter with the authority of judge, jury and executioner on the basis of how subjectively afraid he felt. Which is an utter charade when the real emotion is nothing more than Angry In The Moment.

Reconcile that power to administer a death sentence with the punishment for the crime of assault as expressly set forth in your state's penal code.

[Statistical]

82. Intent.

With an execution the intent is to execute. If the prisoner survives they keep doing it until he is dead.

He shot the attacker to STOP THE ATTACK. It is possible the the attacker could have died in the shooting but that wasn't the intent. The intent was to end the attack.

In this case it was a win-win. He stopped the attack and the attacker survived.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

105. Does every case of simple assault end there? Do some escalate to fatal levels?

[sharesunited]

113. Fatalities are assured if there is no duty to retreat and it's open season to shoot.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

114. Who died in the case cited in the OP?

[sharesunited]

119. No one. The bullet grazed his head instead of punching a hole in his skull and wounding his brain.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

121. So not really assured?

[sharesunited]

123. Not in every case. But eventually, inevitably, and with the blessing of the legislature.

[slackmaster]

138. No, but it can be sufficient cause to justify use of deadly force by the victim

From the California Penal Code:

197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.

Underlining added for emphasis to assist the reading-impaired.

sharesunited pulled this out of the air:

You propose to vest the shooter with the authority of judge, jury and executioner on the basis of how subjectively afraid he felt.

I haven't proposed changing anything. Use of force to defend one's self or others against a violent attack invokes moral authority that has been around a lot longer than the criminal justice system, and has long been accepted as valid and right. People already have the "authority" to defend themselves, and to use overwhelming force in their defense.

[winyanstaz]

12. Write us again after some punk beats you in the face for a while....

People have a right to defend their selves from punks that want to beat on them too. Just because they only use their fists to kill and maim you doesn't make it alright and guns wrong.
Perhaps if more people were able to defend their selves from punks that use violence the violence will drop. After all, punks are less likely to beat someone if they realize they might be beating someone that will shoot back.
I know a kid that was "only beaten" with fists. He got his jaw broke and he is just not right now in the head. His mom tried to stop the fight and got beaten herself. If I had been his mom I would have shot those punks myself.

[madeline_con]

92. Fuckin' A! Good points!!!

:bounce:

[fascisthunter]

145. so if someone punches ya, you should be able to kill them?

you jest....

[Pavulon]

165. Once , nope.

continuos beating leads to loss of consciousness. After the second blow, someone is going to get shot.

[JonQ]

15. He shouldn't have started the fight

I'm a big fan of self-defense.

You shouldn't be prosecuted if you defend yourself from a potentially fatal, unprovoked attack.

What should he have done? Called the cops while he was being pummeled? Politely asked Mr. Lira to desist?

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. How about break his nose?

That usually works pretty well.

[JonQ]

20. The attacker was younger and bigger

I don't think getting in to a fist fight would have benefited the victim.

Besides as a general rule telling people who are attacked to "break his nose" isn't going to work out so well. Usually if you are instigating a fight you're pretty sure you are going to win.

[Statistical]

25. If the victim is unable to....

they just deserve to get the shit beaten out of them by someone twice their size and almost 2 decades younger.

Good rule of thumb, don't assault someone with a gun. If you state allows CCW anyone may have a gun.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

107. What about for those physically unable to do so?

[FLyellowdog]

26. He could have held the guy at gunpoint while he or someone else called the police.

I dare say anyone would have stopped the fisticuffs and stepped back if facing a gun. Firing the weapon was way out of line. This is all too subjective. Allowing such behavior opens the door to anybody shooting and killing anybody and then saying "I was afraid for my life." Insane.

[slackmaster]

28. How do you know that he didn't attempt to stop the fight without firing the gun?

It may be that Lira persisted in the attack even after the gun was drawn.

We don't know the details.

[FLyellowdog]

37. Just giving my point of view to JonQ's question...

Discussion is good.:think:

[Statistical]

29. Good way to get the weapon taken away

Weapons aren't for intimidating. If you are in fear of life or bodily injury shoot to stop the attack. If you are not don't draw the weapon.

If you draw a weapon at point blank range you may have seconds to use it before attacker takes it.
If the attacker took the gun and killed him likely you would be saying "see the criminal will take your gun".

[Kaleva]

33. Don't pull your gun unless your going to use it.

This is just my opinion but if the situation is dire enough to arm myself, it's dire enough for me to use the weapon. I don't ever want to take the chance on shooting someone accidentally.

[JonQ]

35. Yes he could have

he could have also taken his beating, he could have pulled it out and shot himself in the head, really he had numerous options.

I don't think he should have been required to shoot this guy, merely that once he chose that course of action he should not be prosecuted for it.

Besides, if you make using a gun in self-defense illegal you would likewise have to make drawing it on someone illegal as well.

[Kaleva]

41. I believe aiming at someone shows intent to kill.

If I pointed a gun at a police officer, even if it was unloaded, I should not be surprised if the same officer shoots me dead in response.

[JonQ]

62. Yep

also it's bad firearms practice to point a gun at anything you don't intend to destroy.

[Statistical]

128. Minor point but.... aiming is construed as intent to use lethal force not to kill.

The purpose of self defense (even self defense with lethal force) is to stop the attack.

The most effective means of stopping the attack is to incapacitate the attacker.
When drawing a firearm (or other device capable of lethal force) the law assumes intent to use lethal force.

Intent is one of those powerful important words.

Intending to kill someone is a crime.
Intending to stop an attack that meets the criteria for lethal self defense is not (even if the attacker subsequently dies from the wounds).

The reason why this latitude in erring on the side of "too much force" is given is due to the fact that firearms are imprecise.
It is not possible to exert exactly enough force to stop the attack but not enough to permanently damage or kill the attacker.
Anyone who draws a weapon in self defense with the intent to kill should likely seek counseling both legal and mental health.

[guitar man]

43. nope

I remember when I got my first pistol, my Dad's advice was "son, if you have to pull it, you better be ready to use it or it's liable to wind up stuck up your ass" ;)

[Tim01]

21. I think it was a fair shoot.

Not as crystal clear as some.
But still, some big young strong guy decides to start pounding some old guy. Should the old guy just accept his beating?

[Statistical]

22. Two rules.... Don't punch someone who has a gun.

1) Don't punch someone who has is armed.
2) You don't know who is armed.

[Tim01]

30. And don't punch old guys. We all know why.

1) Because it is such a piece of shit thing to do.
2) Because old guys are likely to pull out a gun and shoot you because they are too old to fight and too old to care.

[Kaleva]

40. Obama's Death Panel is pretty rough on old folks

Make him wish for death before sending him to meet his Maker.

[RaleighNCDUer]

52. 49 is NOT an 'old guy'.

Geeze.

[Tim01]

56. I am quite a bit less than 49.

Up until 33 I ran 5 miles a day and participated in weapons based martial arts. Now at 43, trust me, I am an old guy. Some of us get old sooner. But lots get old at 40.

[Kaleva]

60. I'm 50 and it tires me out just thinking about fighting someone

[RaleighNCDUer]

68. And I am quite a bit older than 49

but I am not afraid of my neighbors and co-workers. Or strangers on the street.

Life's too short to waste it being a coward.

[Tim01]

101. There is a very long list of victims with your attitude.

Most of them are wiser if they are alive.

Go ahead and be a tough guy.

[spin]

66. Never start a fight with an old man, he may just kill you.

[krispos42]

31. This isn't a competition, it's self-defense

If I'm in a situation like this, I want the odds stacked in my favor as much as possible. If I have the means to keep my precious body (and the bodies of other innocents that my be around me, such as my 4-year-old son) from being injured, maimed, or possibly killed, who is it to tell me, after the fact, that I had to sustain such abuse and risks because the other guy might get hurt as well?

This makes no sense. I have to take a beating because in stopping the beating, I might hurt the aggressor more than he might have hurt me?


Besides, that, with pistols (especially dinky .25-caliber ones) it would be entirely possible for Schmidt to shoot Lira a half dozen times in the chest, and Lira could STILL have beaten and killed Schmidt before sucumbing to his wounds.



Besides, the whole thing is overblown. Something like 200 people a year are justifiably killed a year by civilians.

[slackmaster]

32. This thread brought out plenty of Chairborne Rangers, Couch Commandos, and Wheelchair Generals

:rofl:

[RaleighNCDUer]

55. Of whom you are CIC. nt

[old mark]

34. Mr. Lira - the shootee - should be in prison for assault. My Schmidt

-the shooter - should have used a larger caliber gun. The whold idea of carrying a gun for protection is to use it to protect yourself. Being attacked by a larger stronger person certainly qualifies.. The castle doctrine is a great idea, and I'd like to see it everywhere in the US.

Even Massachusetts.

mark

[Viper Mad]

38. Schmidt was stupid. A .25 is way too small to dispatch a dangerous bully.

...

[guitar man]

57. lol

It wouldn't be my first choice but if you hit them in a tender enough spot it'll do in a pinch. I'd much rather have a .22 than a .25

[Viper Mad]

63. Me too...they penetrate better

:D

[spin]

109. My daughter likes .22 mag in a snub nosed revolver...

The recoil is easy to handle and the rounds from the handgun do a lot of damage to a 2X4.

She carries a S&W Model 351PD Revolver

[Mugu]

111. The .22 mag. in a short barrelled weapon has an amazing bark. n/t

[spin]

131. i agree. If nothing else it would scare the hell out of an attacker...

If she expects that she might actually have a reason to use a weapon, she moves up to a S&W 38+P K-frame revolver.

It amazes me that she can conceal it. She is five foot two and weights just over 100 pounds. I tried to get her to carry a .357, but the trigger pull on the .38 revolver is superior. It was an old police weapon and one of the best gunsmiths in Florida had worked on it before I bought it.

[boppers]

96. You're assuming lethality or knockdown is the point.

If the point is self defense, a boom-stick's caliber isn't always relevant. Often, the first boom noise is enough to change the situation, and freak someone the fuck out.

[armyowalgreens]

141. The point is not to scare the enemy. It's to eliminate the threat...

Almost any caliber gun is capable of doing so. A .25 at close range can be very deadly.

But I would rather have something with more kick. Like a Glock 37.


You don't pull out a gun to scare someone. You pull out a gun to take out whatever is posing a risk to your welfare. You do not stop firing until the threat is alleviated. That is the reality of using lethal force in self-defense.

[boppers]

157. I think I see your point.

An enemy scared into not fighting is a neutralized threat.

An enemy scared into fighting harder, however, is an increased threat.

As far as "kick" goes, that's irrelevant in terms of diminishing a threat, and greater kick can actually reduce accuracy, as it takes more milliseconds to return aim... but that's a minor quibble.

I agree that presentation of force isn't only used to 'scare' opponents, and will also agree that presentation of force shouldn't occur unless the person is willing to use it to its full measure. "Taking out" an opponent sounds like a bit of bravado and bluster, however.

The point of arms in combat is not to take out (in lethal terms) an enemy, but to alleviate the threat, as you said. LEO and military don't draw down because they're inevitably going to fire, they draw down as a warning, to alleviate a threat.

In this case, both presentation, and a single grazing shot, was all that was required to quell the situation. Had he kept firing, he might be facing stiffer charges, as a single shot was all that was needed.

[X_Digger]

46. Size / Age difference = disparate force

Such a difference in size / age / general health would equate to a disparate force, which is one of the standards usually applied in these cases.

[jmg257]

48. What would "most prosecuters" charge Lira with anyway? Assault I assume. Still seems easy enough.

It must have been tough for him Schmidt when decided to defend himself.


"For most prosecutors, it would seem an easy criminal case. Daniel Lira, 32, was working inside Wal-Mart’s loading dock area when he got into an argument with co-worker Craig Schmidt, 49. He ended up hitting Schmidt in the face."

[Kaleva]

49. A rec from me even though I disagree with OPs view

This is a good discussion right to carry and use of force.

[silverback]

58. The most dangerous places in the US...

Are places where carry is outlawed. The most dangerous cities are the ones where it's illegal to defend yourself, the mass shootings seem to always happen in a "gun free zone". Those guys, shooting fish in a barrel, are the real cowards, not the people who go through all the hassle, discomfort, responsibility and liability of carrying arms legally to defend their loved ones, and that's what motivates most CCW, the biggest fear isn't that they'll be assaulted or stolen from but that they'll have to live with having been helpless as innocents were victimized, when they had the choice not to be.

Yeah, guns are scary. But you only disarm the law-abiding by outlawing arms. CCW holders rarely commit crimes. The evidence is pretty overwhelming that legal carry is a net positive for your safety whether you carry or not.

[JerseygirlCT]

64. I'm sorry, but anyone who doesn't think Schmidt ought to be locked

up for that is insane.

Answering angry fists with a gun is precisely why many of us think too many people turn too quickly to guns. Anyone who would behave as this guy did isn't sane enough to own a weapon, IMO.

[Tim01]

65. You are OK with getting beat because you are not big.

So in your perfect world the big guy who chooses to beat you because he can, is ok. He might spend the night in jail and get a small fine. It is ok because he is bigger than you.

My daughter does not agree with you.

[JerseygirlCT]

67. I'm not ok with getting beat

and the guy who took an argument to fists ought to be arrested as well.

But guns is a whole new, and more dangerous level.

And people who would so easily resort to that obviously don't have control of their emotions. Exactly NOT the person you want with a firearm.

[spin]

132. Of course you understand...

that once you end up on the ground, the attacker may decide to stomp your head or kick the shit out of you.

So you end up with a concussion, broken ribs or a broken jaw.

Hope you have really good health insurance.

[armyowalgreens]

142. Moral of the story: Don't physically assault someone...

And you won't get shot.

I have little remorse for the gunshot victim. If you punch somebody, you better be willing to accept the risk that the person might have something substantial that stops you from punching him or her any further.

Sorry, but shooting someone who is assaulting you is perfectly justified.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

76. If you were in a fist fight with a man younger and 2x as heavy as you, would you ever use a weapon?

[JerseygirlCT]

85. No, I'd be running like hell

But then again, I wouldn't have let my temper put me in that spot to begin with.

[Statistical]

87. So 100% of assaults are provoked? Does that apply to sexual assaults also?

There never is a situation where the attacker can by location or force prevent the victim from leaving.

Good to know, just run away. Strange so many people get assaulted or raped every year. Maybe they didn't know they can run away.

We should start a public service announcement.

[JerseygirlCT]

89. The guy started an argument

which then progressed to a fist fight.

What that has to do with sexual assault, I don't know.

I read this as a couple of idiots with out of control tempers. One of the idiots has a handy gun and decides to use it.

At the point where you allow something to escalate toward physical violence, you walk away instead. When the guy starts yelling, you move. You don't get your testosterone-fueled ego all worked up and get into it.

And this was at a workplace, no? The argument is borderline, the fists beyond acceptable there. And the gun? Ridiculous.

[Mugu]

93. Last year we had yet another one punch fight that resulted in one in the morgue

and one in prison for 25 years.

I was blindsided once by a punch that I didn't know was coming and have had over forty years of problems and have spent many thousands of dollars because of it.

The only thing worse than clueless is clueless and judgemental.

[Statistical]

94. Where to start? How about your words....

But then again, I wouldn't have let my temper put me in that spot to begin with.

This implies that all assaults are provoked. Many people are assaulted every day and did nothing to provoke the attacker. Now that may not be the case here but you are the one stating that one should NEVER use a gun to respond to a physical attack and then indicated you don't need to worry about it because "I wouldn't let my temper put me in that spot to begin with".

Of course when we include this gem:

Answering angry fists with a gun is precisely why many of us think too many people turn too quickly to guns. Anyone who would behave as this guy did isn't sane enough to own a weapon

So anyone who gets assaulted it is their fault and once the confrontation gets physical they should simply take an ass beating rather.


An argument doesn't justify someone committing assault. Last time I checked an argument is not against the law. Assault is. If he shot the man over an argument then he would be in jail right now but he didn't, he shot the attacker because the attacker broke the law and presented a risk of death or bodily injury.

What scary is you think he should be locked up. Last time I check we are a country of the rule of law not the "rule of feelings". The only thing that should determine if someone is inprisoned is the law. If you don't like the law then change it but don't lock people up outside the law.

The law in question:

45-3-102. Use of force in defense of person. A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

The only valid question for the Jury would be do EITHER (not both but EITHER) of the conditions apply
1) The shooter had a reasonable belief that the shooting was necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself
OR
2) The shooter had a reasonable belief that the shooting was necessary to prevent a forcible felony (such as assault).

Both conditions apply but he only needed one or the other to be justified.

[Jack_DeLeon]

100. If I disagree with someone about something and they punch me did I start an argument?

If I ask someone not to do something, or tell them I dont agree with how they are doing something and they get offended and try to fight me, then is it my fault for starting an argument? Your logic seems to say that I am?

[slackmaster]

140. What if you were not capable of running faster than your attacker

Or there was no place for you to go?

What would you do? Just take your beating?

[spin]

133. I would...

I'm an old fart with a bad hip and degenerative disk disease. I'm also short and obviously not in top condition.

Should I just let the bastard beat the shit out of me and cause me even more problems than I already have?

Homey don't play dat.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

78. So a woman answers her husbands angry fists with a firearm, you vote to convict her right?

[Viper Mad]

80. You're right. Anybody who is assaulted should just take it like a girl. Or a man.

Or like a Michael Vick puppy.

Whatever.
:eyes:

[Statistical]

86. Thankfully that isn't your call to make.

The funny thing is people say things like that then call gun owners paranoid. "Nobody is trying to get your guns". You just stated anyone who would stop an assault with a firearm shouldn't have a weapon = taking away his/her gun.

Then they wonder why NRA has so many members.... <gasp> because they got this strange idea that some people DO WANT (even if they currently CAN'T) to take guns away.

Just curious what about a robbery? If the attacker is unarmed (or you don't see a weapon yet) that is just assault with the intent to steal. Would your prohibition include robbery?

What about rape? Rape is just a sexual assault. The emotional damage is worse but most rape victims do survive the attack.

What if this guy was prohibited from owning a firearm and the attacker DID beat him to death? What then is it just "oh well" at least there was no gun.

[Jack_DeLeon]

99. Too many people in this world as is...

some of them are assholes who like to get angry and start fights.

Its better for all of us when angry fight starting assholes get shot so the rest of us have less of them to deal with.

[slackmaster]

144. Another amateur Internet psychologist making a broad-brush judgement on everyone who disagrees

How open-minded and progressive of you, JerseygirlCT.

Answering angry fists with a gun is precisely why many of us think too many people turn too quickly to guns.

Keep your angry fists to yourself, and you won't get shot.

[aikoaiko]

71. No, right to carry laws are not out control....

...and neither are the so called "Stand Your Ground Laws" which this is really about.

Really, Mr. Schmidt mostly showed restraint by firing only one shot that apparently stopped the physical assault.


Some of these laws are written to include phrases like "great bodily harm" or specific felony code violations (e.g., aggravated physical assault). This one only said threatened with bodily injury.

Too bad for my Lira, but if you beat someone in Montana you may wind up being shot justifiably.

[-..__...]

72. CCW laws are out of control...

in the 9 "may issue" states (IOW... the issuing authority has wide discretion in granting or denying a carry permit).

I'll agree to some form of licensing requirement in order to carry a concealed (or open carry), firearm, but only if it's "shall issue", and there's a legal requirement that a permit issued in one state, is binding on all the other states that allow CCW.

[Viper Mad]

77. Should be covered by the Constitution's 'full faith and credit' clause, as for same sex marriage

...

[depakid]

102. Yep- that's brilliant. Lower the levels down to the lowest common denominator

Gun nuts propose most anything without regard to consequences.

[Statistical]

83. "may issue" = "may infringe"

humans are fallible.

Are there racist sherrifs? What about homophobic ones, or ones who believe all muslims are dangerous?

Do some of them let their personal opinions cloud their professional judgement? "Married women should stay and work it out instead of leaving and getting a gun permit".

To put that much authority into the hands of a single person is dangerous.

Shall issue is the only acceptable standard. The legislature sets the standard. If you meet the standard your app can't be denied. No personal (potentially biased) judgment calls.

Now I think most sherrifs and Police chiefs, and judges are good honest hard working people but it is naive to think a black person, or homosexual, or separated woman has never been denied a permit based on personal opinions of the approving authority.

[spin]

110. I totally agree...

If I'm friends with the chief and the same race, I get a permit. Otherwise, I'm probably shit out of luck.

In New York City if you're rich famous or influential you can get a concealed carry permit. For example, Don Imus, Howard Stern or Donald Trump.

But then gun control has always been racist and a method of controlling minorities.

[boppers]

159. From a "may issue" state:

A hardcore RW screamer used to show up at anti-abortion protests, losing his temper, repeatedly, while packing.

He lost his permit, because while he had passed all the legal tests, he was obviously a bit of a problem.

"May issue" is a way of making sure there is a human check-and-balance to paper-work.

WRT binding on all states, I'd have no problem with that, as long as all states had the same standards, and revocation in one state applied to all states.

[crazy_vanilla]

79. that surely makes me feel safe

when I go shopping at the Walmart ....NOT!!! Apparently, there are employees running around with guns everywhere. And I thought Walamrt employees were unfriendly before. I am never asking one for directions again.

[Statistical]

88. Yup because this guy shot 1 or 2 Walmart shoppers every day...

a total of 728 before this incident. Most CCW routinely shoot 1 or 2 people a week. It is a constitutional right to shoot at random people didn't you know that?

[crazy_vanilla]

90. no, but thanks for enlightening me on the issue

If this man was carrying a weapon at work, what are the chances that others do also?

btw, I was not 100% serious in case you didn't get that

[Statistical]

95. Well about 5% of the population has a CCW in some "shall issue" states.

So the odds our about one of 20 people you pass are armed. In a Walmart that has about 2000 people (employees & customers) that would be about 100 or so armed people.

[Jack_DeLeon]

103. Chances are that you encounter people everyday carrying weapons...

some of them licensed, probably more of them not, concealed means that you will probably never know.

[madeline_con]

91. The headline is bullshit.

The guy didn't shoot the assailant "Due to State’s Sweeping “Castle Doctrine” Law". He did it because an asshole who was twice his size hit him in the face. He could just as easily have gone home to retrieve the weapon, but in this caes, it just happened to be handy.

[depakid]

97. Gun proliferation perios is out of control in America

and the nation will continue to pay a heavy price for some of its citizens' obsessions.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

104. What is perios?

[Jack_DeLeon]

106. What price is that?

We pay a heavier prices for our war on drugs, our love of cars, and someday for our lack of funding space exploration.

[depakid]

125. Look at your homicide and violent crime rates

and the weekly mass shootings (not to mention the world's largest and most expensive prison system).

All prices that gun proliferater's are more than willing to hoist on society. Every time som little kid gets their hand on a gun and shoot themselves or someone else- that blood on your hands.

[Jack_DeLeon]

129. The war on drugs is more responsible for that...

than anything else.

[spin]

112. Exactly, Florida for example is extremely dangerous since concealed carry

went into effect.

Everyday we have shootouts at every intersection. People walk down the streets and engage in gun fights just like in the TV program Gunsmoke all the time.

People are constantly shooting co-workers. Going into a mall or walking down a major street in a big city is terrifying, so much constant gun fire that you would believe it was the Fourth of July.

The death toll is is bad that the hospitals have to turn away heart attack patients to treat gun wounds.

The only businesses in Florida that are doing well in this recession are funeral homes and casket makers.

It should be obvious but I will add...
(':sarcasm:')

[depakid]

126. Florida is EXACTLY the sort of state that no one in their right mind would emulate

along with Texas, of course.

[spin]

130. And your logic is?

I've lived Florida since 1970.

I have a concealed carry permit and know many people that also have permits. The great majority of my co-workers, before I retired three years ago, owned firearms and a high percentage had concealed carry permits. Many people I know own firearms for self defense, hunting or just target shooting. Most of my daughters female friends carry firearms in their car and are considering getting concealed carry permits. (Thanks to her.)

I see no real problem and if there actually was one, I'm sure Florida would have repealed the law. Many states have followed Florida's example and have passed similar laws. Now of these states have repealed these laws either.

Even your state allows concealed carry. Has it turned into the wild west?

[depakid]

134. My logic is the bizarre stoies coming out of the state and the way that it's government

and "justice" system is run.

Aside from that, owning and carrying around firearms is a generally a stupid thing- it makes you (and household memebers) much more likely to be involved in a tragedy- or the victim of a violent crime. And you pay for the privilege!

More guns is NOT a healthy trend, and in the end, only leads to more senseless violence.

[spin]

147. It is hard to argue about how the government is run in Florida...

the amazing thing is that we manage to run the state without a state income tax.

The statement:

owning and carrying around firearms is a generally a stupid thing- it makes you (and household memebers) much more likely to be involved in a tragedy- or the victim of a violent crime. And you pay for the privilege!

is your opinion.

I differ. My experiences show that statement to be largely false.

Do you plan to work to get your state to change it's concealed carry law?

[Viper Mad]

154. The tragic part is that you probably actually believe that crap.

:eyes:

[Jack_DeLeon]

98. Nope.

They are fine.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

108. Sounds like a righteous shoot to me.

Just for fun.

[proteus_lives]

116. You may be too late in the thread to be jumped on.

But good luck. ;-)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

117. I'm sure the people I want to see it will come across it.

[proteus_lives]

118. No they're not.

Mr. Schmidt defended himself. Lira should be arrested for assault and count himself lucky to alive.

[verdalaven]

120. We're turning into the Wild, Wild West

and East, North, South..........

Next up, gun fights at high noon.

[cali]

135. Vermont has the most lax gun laws in the entire nation. and one of the very lowest rates of gun

violence. Care to explain that?

[TexasObserver]

122. Yes.

[pyoom]

124. nt

[spin]

127. Yes, it would have been far better if the older and smaller guy...

had merely allowed the bigger and younger guy to beat the living shit out of him and possibly stomp and kick him when he went down.

After all, he would have probably only suffered a concussion, a broken jaw or some broken ribs. The chances of the injuries would have only put him in the hospital for a couple of weeks and I'm sure that six months of rehabilitation and physical therapy would have restored his heath.

Of course, he might have not have had insurance or his insurance might not have paid the full costs of his rehab. But he could always claim bankruptcy although he might have lost his house. And he could sue his attacker and if the individual had enough money he might have been able to recover his costs. His attacker would have undoubtedly ended up in prison. That should in itself have made him feel better.

But then too, he might have died from the assault. He was 49 years old and had probably had a good life. What more can anyone ask? We all have to die sometime. He might have been creamed in a car accident that same day. The good point is, of course, that if he died he would not have been a burden to society if he had made it to retirement age. Social Security and Medicare are going broke.

It's sad if he had a family, but I'm sure his wife and children would have been able to move on without him. They can always put flowers on his grave.

No one should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon for self defense and we should definitely repeal the Castle Defense and "Make My Day" laws. Such laws are turning our entire country in the the Wild West. Blood is flowing on our streets. Innocent delivery men and women and solicitors are being killed on a daily basis.

And if nothing else we should allow younger, more physically and bigger men to use their strength to subdue older weaker individuals. It's called survival of the fittest and is one of the most important concepts since the beginning of human history. If fact, it's still very important in the animal kingdom.

Eventually the younger guy will get old and lose his advantage. Some other younger and stronger individual will beat the shit out of him. Sounds fair to me.

In case it is necessary::sarcasm:

[TransitJohn]

136. This is awesome

I can't wait to gun down pigs when they try to detain me illegally. It'd be self defense, right?

[armyowalgreens]

143. Don't assault someone, and you won't be shot.

End of story. The shooting was completely justified.

[Ikonoklast]

146. Why did he carry at his place of employment, WalMart?

They have a strict policy of no firearms on the premises.

Dude most likely lost his job.

[havocmom]

148. They probably have a policy about assault too, but failed to protect a worker from another

Getting threatened or attacked at work seems to indicate all sorts of problems in the workplace.

[slackmaster]

150. Yes, he probably lost his job but got to keep his life and his body intact

No job is worth dying or becoming disfigured over.

[Ikonoklast]

153. He should have retreated, and saved both his life and job.

Sometimes when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.


But even if there was no assault involved, he had no right to carry on private property. If found out, he would have been terminated immediately and most likely had the issue turned over to a prosecutor.

He broke the law by doing so.


This sounds like there was far more to the story than printed; it appears there may have been bad blood between these two for a period of time.

[X_Digger]

155. "had the issue turned over to a prosecutor."?

No, not unless he refused to leave the premises. Then he'd be up for a trespassing charge.

[Ikonoklast]

156. I guess it would depend on the jurisdiction.

In some states where retail establishments post a 'no weapon' sign, it is a misdemeanor if caught doing so.

WalMart can be pretty aggressive taking the legal route when terminating an employee. They want it on record, in case the firing goes to arbitration or any other legal channel, that the employeee was in defiance of their work rules.

Like employee theft, they prosecute to the fullest extant of the law, to make sure your goose is cooked.

[X_Digger]

158. True, I'm speaking of Texas & other states whose laws I know..

In Texas, private property owners can ask you to leave, sign or not, and you don't get in trouble until you refuse to do so.

[slackmaster]

162. You don't really know whether or not a retreat was possible in that situation.

But even if there was no assault involved, he had no right to carry on private property. If found out, he would have been terminated immediately and most likely had the issue turned over to a prosecutor.

He broke the law by doing so.

What law?

(Please provide a link to the actual law you think he broke by violating someone's rule.)

[ensho]

149. cops and security people are the only ones that need to carry guns

tasers should be outlawed too for personal use. and tasers use by cops should be treated like gun use - only in extreme emergency.

[slackmaster]

151. So, you must be OK with people getting beaten up by bigger, stronger, younger people

That philosophy works out fine until you are on the receiving end of the violence.

[Curtland1015]

160. What "getting beat up"? He was punched ONCE.

ONCE... and apparently it wasn't all that hard, because the guy still had the wherewithal to pull a gun and shoot the other guy in the head.

I fail to see why that warrants shooting someone in the head.

That aside, we know nothing about the argument these two people had. Maybe the guy deserved a good old punch in the face. But even if he did NOT, it doesn't warrant a shooting.

...and on top of all THAT, where is all this "serves that bully right!" crap coming from? Bigger and younger? Yes, but the guy with the GUN is the one with total control of the situation. Why? He has a God damn GUN.

[beevul]

161. Thats a mighty large assumption...

"What "getting beat up"? He was punched ONCE. ONCE... and apparently it wasn't all that hard, because the guy still had the wherewithal to pull a gun and shoot the other guy in the head."

The assumption here is crystal clear. That being that he only would have been punched once had the person he punched not defended himself with a firearm. Yes its an assumption, and yes you made it.

"That aside, we know nothing about the argument these two people had."

Case in point - "(assumption) aside, we know nothing about the argument these two people had."


Fail.

[Curtland1015]

167. How does your "fail" not ruin the other side of the argument too?

We know nothing about the argument. I said it and you (apparently) agreed. So then how is it fair to use the assumption to justify that he HAD to shoot another person in the head?

To crassly wrap up my argument in the lamest way possible... Fail.

[beevul]

168. Its really simple.

One side of this exchange - yours - made some assumptions then followed it up by making judgements based on them.

The other side of it - mine - did not.

Pretty strait forward and common sense, no?

[slackmaster]

163. To quote one of my personal heroes who never actually lived and another one who is alive...

"Enough is enough, and enough is too much."

- Popeye the Sailor

When someone punches you once, you have no way of knowing whether or not he'll do it again.

If you draw a gun and the person persists in attacking you, you can be sure he intends to keep punching you.

We don't know exactly what happened, but my point is that any violent attack legally justifies use of overwhelming force to prevent additional damage.

Bigger and younger? Yes, but the guy with the GUN is the one with total control of the situation. Why? He has a God damn GUN.

"Not that there's anything wrong with THAT!"

- Jerry Seinfeld

[napi21]

170. I haven't read EVERY case of use of force, but my guess is

most US citizens would really love the US to return to the days of the wild west where anything goes. Shootout at high noon, walk 10 paces and turn & shoot....may the best man win. There ae times I wonder if things weren't better then.