[raydan]

andyt andyt:

raydan raydan:

$1:

...shot a 17-year-old in the neck and leg as he tried to run away.

Atlanta police spokeswoman Kim Jones says the driver confronted the teen and fired 10 shots...

10 shots... on someone armed with eggs... as he tried to run away!!!

Sorry guys, I don't think you could say anything that would make me take pity on the poor driver.

Well it was a Mercedes. You know what those cost to detail?

I stand corrected.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Well thanks for clearing that up a bit for me Bart. TBH, the ruling really had me scratching my head when it came to school yards and courthouses.

The ruling on gun free zones did not create a broader right to keep and bear arms. It just said that any gun free zone was legal so long as it extended only to the limits of the property in question. In all 50 states guns can be prohibited from courts, schools, private businesses, and privately owned open ranchland. But in no circumstance can a 'gun free zone' for a school encroach upon public thoroughfares, private homes, private businesses, and etc. merely because they adjoin the school property.

In some states the law says that a person's private vehicle parked on company, court, or school grounds is also beyond the limit of that property limit. Meaning you can legally have a gun in your locked car on company, court, or school property because the confines of your personal vehicle are already determined to be a portion of your private property subject to your Fourth Amendment rights.

Cars can be prohibited from private property, but if they are permitted then they remain the sole concern of their owners. Again, this is as it should be elsewise a precedent is created that allows your car to be searched at will and without warrant whenevr you park it on a private parking lot.

Ahhh ok, so the ruling wasn't "you can carry anywhere you want" but more along the lines of, "you can't be prohibited from owning/carrying based solely on where you live/own a business/drive etc.

[bootlegga]

raydan raydan:

$1:

...shot a 17-year-old in the neck and leg as he tried to run away.

Atlanta police spokeswoman Kim Jones says the driver confronted the teen and fired 10 shots...

10 shots... on someone armed with eggs... as he tried to run away!!!

Sorry guys, I don't think you could say anything that would make me take pity on the poor driver.

I could see firing on the guy if he threw eggs and then drew a gun (making it self-defence), but killing someone for damaging property is ridiculous.

[raydan]

bootlegga bootlegga:

R=UP

I could see firing on the guy if he threw eggs and then drew a gun (making it self-defence), but killing someone for damaging property is ridiculous.

I'd go as far as saying it's criminal and murder.

[Chumley]

raydan raydan:

bootlegga bootlegga:

R=UP

I could see firing on the guy if he threw eggs and then drew a gun (making it self-defence), but killing someone for damaging property is ridiculous.

I'd go as far as saying it's criminal and murder.

I would have to agree. Shot for egging a car.

[BartSimpson]

For the record, this was a teenager who was known to carry guns and there is still an investigation ongoing. Don't be disappointed if it turns out that 1) the shooter is exonerated for reasons of self defense and 2) that the person in custody is not the shooter.

Even if an armed criminal is running away, Georgia's 'Castle Doctrine' does not require a citizen to retreat from a criminal. Under their state law if the driver was assaulted with eggs and then confronted with an armed perpetrator (entirely possible in this case) he would be justified in shooting the criminal even if the criminal were retreating.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

For the record, this was a teenager who was known to carry guns and there is still an investigation ongoing. Don't be disappointed if it turns out that 1) the shooter is exonerated for reasons of self defense and 2) that the person in custody is not the shooter.

2) seems likely the way the story is written. It sounds like a different driver was the one stopped by police. How this will lead to 1), is beyond me. And if the US justice system deems eggs to be sufficient reason for shooting someone in "self defense" then they really are as fucked up as I think. This kid was running away, he wasn't even charging the shooter with those eggs, never mind a pointed stick.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

For the record, this was a teenager who was known to carry guns and there is still an investigation ongoing. Don't be disappointed if it turns out that 1) the shooter is exonerated for reasons of self defense and 2) that the person in custody is not the shooter.

Even if an armed criminal is running away, Georgia's 'Castle Doctrine' does not require a citizen to retreat from a criminal. Under their state law if the driver was assaulted with eggs and then confronted with an armed perpetrator (entirely possible in this case) he would be justified in shooting the criminal even if the criminal were retreating.

And the owner of the Mercedes KNEW that the teenager had a past history of carrying guns how?

Let's call a spade a spade...this is a case of road rage that ended up with one person getting killed. US courts might disagree, but to me this is murder (2nd degree from my rather limited understanding of US laws) pure and simple.

[Public_Domain]

[Choban]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

There is something gravely ill about our times.

I'm with you.

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

And the owner of the Mercedes KNEW that the teenager had a past history of carrying guns how?

If the kid brandished or fired at the driver that would be a good indication he was armed.

I'm not saying this is the case, mind you. I am saying that it is too soon to rush to judgment here because, as noted, the kid in question is hardly a paradigm of innocence.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

And the owner of the Mercedes KNEW that the teenager had a past history of carrying guns how?

If the kid brandished or fired at the driver that would be a good indication he was armed.

I'm not saying this is the case, mind you. I am saying that it is too soon to rush to judgment here because, as noted, the kid in question is hardly a paradigm of innocence.

You're just grasping at straws. If he fired, it would have been reported. If he brandished but then ran away, that's not, or should not be, sufficient reason to shoot him in the back. And again, his gun would have been recovered and that would have been reported by police.

The question is really whether the Merc driver had a legal weapon or not. If yes, it's another case against allows guns to be freely carried. If no, well then that could happen in Canada the same, so doesn't help the anti-gun crowd make an argument.

[Benn]

andyt andyt:

So you shout freeze at someone who may not understand you, who hasn't done anything to you, and that's all it takes to be able to shoot someone? Wow.

Obviously the guy who shot was wrong and an idiot and the kid was unfortunately also stupid, recipe for disaster. [edit: come to think of it maybe the kid just thought the dude with the gun was in character for halloween and therefore did not take him seriously]

As for the egging, even if the kid had hucked rocks and maybe shot at the guy, shooting him in the back was a bad call, someone should not have been allowed to own a gun. BTW is it legal to carry a loaded gun in your glove box out there?

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

If he fired, it would have been reported.

What's been reported is that shots were fired. If all of those shots were fired by the perp then the investigation will conclude that.

andyt andyt:

If he brandished but then ran away, that's not, or should not be, sufficient reason to shoot him in the back.

Might be a good idea for you to avoid going to Georgia and to the other 39 states that have adopted 'Castle Doctrine'.

andyt andyt:

And again, his gun would have been recovered and that would have been reported by police.

Okay, one more time...ongoing investigation. If the shooter did shoot an unarmed kid then he'll pay. But the kid he shot has a record for firearms offenses, thus it stands to reason to me that this kid may have contributed more to his own demise than a mere egg tossing.

andyt andyt:

The question is really whether the Merc driver had a legal weapon or not. If yes, it's another case against allows guns to be freely carried. If no, well then that could happen in Canada the same, so doesn't help the anti-gun crowd make an argument.

Whether or not a weapon is legally possessed is, under US judicial precedent, a separate matter from an act of justifiable self defense. Justifiable self defense can even be a valid reason for a prosecutor or a court to refuse to prosecute even a registered felon for using a firearm in an act of self defense.

[BartSimpson]

Benn Benn:

BTW is it legal to carry a loaded gun in your glove box out there?

In Georgia open carry is legal and concealed carry with a permit is also legal.