z31maniac

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would like you to elucidate on why you think that.

Gee Emm

Pretty bloody obvious I would have thought.

Mind you, there are some weird rules around guns over there, so my starting point is what our rules are. And that video is hardly clear about how or whether the robber was armed.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

Side note... Twitter link is gone and I cannot find the video anywhere now...

Stuff like this is complicated and I'm not a lawyer, but any DA who was blind to the politics behind (Asian shoots Black Guy) will take this video straight to a Grand Jury and look for Murder-2. A GJ will absolutely recommend charges. So... before a judge or jury, in order to fight a murder charge and claim self-defense/use of deadly force, it's up to the defendant (shooter) usually to prove 3 things:
1. In immediate threat of death or great bodily harm.
2. There are no other options.
3. The use of force you choose is reasonable under the circumstances.

Although each state is different, and I don't know which state this is, there is zero justification for use of deadly force here. A tug-of-war over a cash register, where the "bad guy" had both hands on the register and was in no way attempting to harm anybody, no weapon involved, and a physical barrier between the bad guy and the other two... basically the kid played too much GTA and thought that the way you handle these things... dance around for a minute while you fish your handgun out of your sweatpants, chamber a round, and shoot a dude point-blank in the face one-handed with innocent bystanders directly in the the line of fire.

You'll note that instantly after the "kid" shoots, the Dad reaches back and tries to smack the gun away. This was an execution, and the GJ, Judge, and Jury will see it that way too.

Somebody will probably bring up Castle Doctrine at a business or SYG... which is also tricky. In order to claim those, the defendant must give up any other kind of defense. You can't go with "insanity" or "crime of passion" AND CD/SYG. With CD/SYG, you don't argue the fact that you shot and killed somebody, in fact, you msut admit that you did it intentionally BUT MUST PROVE that the death was justified. You also still need to prove the 3 things above... CD makes it a bit easier inside a home, but during daylight business hours I'm not sure it even applies.

Honestly, the only way to do this would be to have the kid say he didn't mean to pull the trigger... that he just started to shove the gun in the guys face and "it went off"... and the defense try for negligent homicide vice Murder-2.

z31maniac

Thanks for the response, everything you said makes perfect sense.

I will admit, there is still a part of me that thinks, "If you don't want to be shot in the face, maybe don't commit felonies."

stratosteve

iTrader: (1)

Going with Sam on this one. Had to watch several times to see if the perp had a weapon of any kind. Not sure where this occurred and their self defense laws. This wont go well for the shooter.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

I get it, but I carry a lot, so I have to stick up for the guy who got murdered here because I take my responsibility as a gun-carrying citizen very seriously. The law makes it fairly clear the circumstances under which you can use deadly force, and if you're going to draw in anger rather than fear, you're probably going to jail for a long time.

Gee Emm

Thanks for that explanation Sam. Good point about the bystanders.

z31maniac

Again, makes total sense. I've never carried. I grew up working in neighborhoods that most are afraid to drive through, so I never felt the need. But I'm starting to change my mind. Just read something that happened in our neighborhood maybe 1/4 mile away last night. Guy breaks into an elderly woman's house, beats her nearly to death to steal some inconsequential stuff from her house.

I really dislike our neighbors to my east, but it has me wondering now if when I hear their dogs bark super late or super early, if that means there is someone screwing around in one of our, or our other neighbors yards.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

next time, use a bong.

xturner

There’s an article about the shooting in today’s NY Post. Apparently the robbery/shooting was in a Philadelphia pizza shop. Shooter is 14, shootee is apparently still alive but in the hospital in bad shape. Because the kid is a juvenile, it’s pretty unlikely that we’ll hear about any consequences for him. I guess I’m naive, but am surprised by a 14-y.o. carrying in his family’s restaurant.

I carry only occasionally - usually out in the woods - but have taken a few concealed-carry courses, one of which dealt heavily with legal responsibilities and liabilities you assume if you unholster your weapon. It is pretty much as Sam described, daunting stuff. A cop friend once told me that if you pull your gun, be prepared to spend some time in jail whether you use it or not, but never pull it unless you’re prepared to shoot first and face the consequences.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

OK, it's his Mom at the register, and the guy is still alive... WOW!

I guarantee you the kids Mom did not know hers kid was carrying, which may be a good thing. But for the sake of discussion...

It's illegal in PA for a kid to possess a firearm UNLESS under the supervision of an adult and engaging in lawful acts... intended to mean hunting and target shooting.

Kids can't concealed or open carry in public. BUT, can the son of a business owner concealed carry on private property if the owner (Parents) allow? The only reason for that would be self-defense... in which case the Parents would need to admit they allowed their son to carry specifically to shoot somebody someday. What if the Parents reveal they didn't know the kid was armed (might be a good idea for the defense since then the whole thing would be on the kid if they intend not to charge him). But if the Parents admit they allowed his kid to carry, they can be an accomplice to murder. Where did he get the gun? Did the parents provide or was it stolen? Did the kid "steal" it from the parents? It's a felony to "furnish" a kid with a firearm in PA.

BUT SAM, WHAT ABOUT WHEN A KID IS HOME ALONE, SOMEBODY BREAKS IN, THE KID GRABS DADS PISTOL AND BLAM! Inside a home is different and Castle Doctrine applies. When a person breaks into your home, the law makes the assumption for you that the person is expressly there to do you harm. The act of breaking in is "deadly intent" or whatever a state calls it and you can almost always use deadly force immediately upon that person. The only time you can really get in trouble is if you "lie in wait"... ie, you know somebody is going to break in to your home, so leave a door unlocked to help them out while you hide behind a couch, wait for them to enter, and then execute them. Where people get caught doing this is usually because they tell the police that's what they did.

Under certain circumstances, Castle Doctrine can apply to a place of business (or a vehicle)... but usually the business needs to be closed and/either/maybe the owner needs to reside at the business, and it varies state to state.

The above is only important as a secondary means to potentially charge the Parents and/or for evidence in civil proceedings when the victim (guy who was shot) goes after the insurance money. There are no "safe storage" or "child access prevention" laws on the books in PA.

Best case scenario... the kid pleads guilty to attempted murder and gets whatever the min sentence is for an asian vs. a black guy. The guys sues for millions from insurance but never sees a press conference because nobody cares unless the Asians are Trump supporters.

Regardless, the kid is guilty of attempted murder IMHO. If the Parents knew their kid had a gun, then they are an accessory, just like the Crumbleys.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

Props for the quick reaction, but the store owner got lucky... perp was looking out the front window (might have been talking to someone in the doorway) and the owner saw the opportunity to draw. He's quick, but fires and misses, and his left thumb is over the slide (looks like a G19) and has a failure. He missed because the perp sees him draw at the last second and ducks... and somehow doesn't get shot off himself. The perp actually looks like his finger is on the trigger and might have attempted to shoot... up until the point he ducks. Maybe his gun wasn't loaded or chambered. The store owners slide is at half-battery after he fires and he jerks his left hand away from the gun... double feed on a Glock? It then looks like he tries to fire again as the perp runs out the door, but the gun is jammed... perps gun looks like a small single-shot... .22lr in the guts is problematic. In any case, the store owner missed the guys face by inches...

Store owner is also quoted... "I just wanted to teach him a lesson that it's not OK to steal.".. Imagine if the race of these two men had been switched... would a CBS affiliate station be trying to make a white guy a hero for shooting at a minority? If the store owner actually had manage to shoot the guy in the face and then made the "teach him a lesson" comment... that could be a Murder2 charge. Even with Castle Doctrine for business owners, you can't shoot somebody as a punishment... what an idiotic thing to say. Or imagine if the gun hadn't jammed and he squeezed off another round as the dude was running out the door... and hit him in the back of the head... dead in the doorway with his back to the owner and his brains all over the sidewalk... shooting somebody fleeing?

Again, props to the store owner, but damned lucky.

Socals14

I did not read this fairly long thread...however, in this discussion the one thing that I did not see discussed is a) rights are not absolute, b) the rights afforded to us are minimums at best, and c) sometimes we must decide what to value when the exercise of our rights infringe on the rights of others. The Federal Constitution provides the minimum standard for our liberties, and Congress or states can always go beyond and provide greater protections. So can you own an RPG? Well, just as I can't "say whatever I want" (e.g. defamation), I probably can't "own whatever weapon I want", (i.e. risk of harm to others, etc.). Therefore, it seems perfectly reasonable that our right to bear arms is a minimum standard (see b above), and that's why we get to own Barrett 50cals, but not nukes. The risk to other's rights is too great with respect to the latter. Second, Congress and States can obviously regulate our rights, and the judiciary's role is to determine whether that minimum is violated.

For me, the question turns on the dangers of owning RPG's to others. How stable are these explosive devices? What is the risk of an accident? If I can't use it somewhere safely, is it still safe to own? Can we expect a reasonable person to own, secure, and operate such a weapon? These would all be questions I would be asking.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

I didn't read your post. Don't comment if you aren't willing to read ours. Your ideas aren't the most important ones in the thread.

Socals14

I read some comments...but with all the discussion back and forth, it becomes hard to follow at some points. With all the tangents, bickering, and in some cases, BS, you can argue the thread loses sight of the central question at some points. And you're right, my ideas may not be the "most important", whatever that means on an relatively obscure internet car forum discussing the legality of RPGs.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

You should send a resume to the ATF.

Socals14

"Thinking" is a handy job skill.

Roda

So it looks like the ATF has just ended Form 1 suppressors, by fiat.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2022...1-applications

Their logic is that anything intended to become a suppressor part is already a suppressor part and is therefore a suppressor, so it's illegal to possess before receiving approval. The result is that they flat denied almost 1000 Form 1 applications, even though you don't have to possess any of these parts to submit the application, and no information about the parts or your planned method of construction was required on the form.

Ironically, they are now asking applicants to provide pictures of the parts they intend to use to build a suppressor with their application!

What a complete **** show.

Edit to add:

Looks like they are already going after Diversified Machine customers retroactively, claiming their products were "unregistered suppressors" and the Form 1s that customers completed in good faith, and got approval for are void because you can't register a contraband suppressor. I would expect they will follow suit with every manufacturer of Form 1 'kits' and solvent traps, and be seizing every customer list they can get.

https://blog.princelaw.com/2022/02/2...hine-products/