Author Topic: CO. Movie House Attack (Read 34010 times)

Uh huh. Negligence = murder now?

Risk and reward. The risk of hitting an innocent might be higher, but the reward of stopping the shooting spree might outweigh that.
Not saying I could, or would take that shot.

Yeah, I was responding specifically to the "eh, if I wing someone to save my rear it'll be worth it".

It's not negligence when you know and accept that you'll hit someone, particularly when your stated goal is to save yourself.

AJ Dual · « **Reply #107 on:** July 22, 2012, 09:33:18 PM »

Quote from: De Selby on July 22, 2012, 08:48:07 PM

Yeah, I was responding specifically to the "eh, if I wing someone to save my rear it'll be worth it".

It's not negligence when you know and accept that you'll hit someone, particularly when your stated goal is to save yourself.

Which is why you say, "I was in fear for my life, and that of my family/friends. I was trying to hit the perpetrator to stop the attack, and never intended, or imagined I would hit anyone else."

And never, ever diverge from that statement.

I also have the card of the criminal law attorney who was also the guy who wrote up my NFA trust in my wallet.

Since he wrote the trust for me, I'm already a client.

Boomhauer · « **Reply #108 on:** July 22, 2012, 09:42:19 PM »

Anybody watch the speech or got a link to a transcript?

lee n. field · « **Reply #109 on:** July 22, 2012, 10:05:56 PM »

Quote from: Avenger29 on July 22, 2012, 09:42:19 PM

Anybody watch the speech or got a link to a transcript?

No. But, someone at Illinoiscarry did, and asked "Did anyone think the speech was weird? He looked like he was out of it or something. " Which means it might be interesting, in a tinfoilhat-ish way, to review it.

AJ Dual · « **Reply #110 on:** July 22, 2012, 10:07:25 PM »

Quote from: Avenger29 on July 22, 2012, 09:42:19 PM

Anybody watch the speech or got a link to a transcript?

Not in his speech, but All I wanted to hear was:

Quote

Press secretary Jay Carney told reporters on Air Force One during the flight to Colorado, “The president’s view is that we can take steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them under existing law.”

Does he mean it? Of course not, but to be hyper-cynical, a spree killing has to happen at just the right point in the legislative calendar. When they engage in buying time in an election year, until Obama can make the "tough calls" to call for, or support bills, or restrict RKBA as much as he can through EO's in his second lame duck term works to our advantage. It allows things to cool off until it just falls by the wayside like all the other shootings have.

Only liberal Representatives have really led the charge calling for more gun control. Where they're insulated by gerrymandred liberal urban districts.

The Senate, where whole states are represented, much less the POTUS who has to do electoral math for the whole U.S. Gun Control is still political plutonium apparently.

Hawkmoon · « **Reply #111 on:** July 22, 2012, 10:56:53 PM »

Quote from: De Selby on July 22, 2012, 08:48:07 PM

Yeah, I was responding specifically to the "eh, if I wing someone to save my rear it'll be worth it".

It's not negligence when you know and accept that you'll hit someone, particularly when your stated goal is to save yourself.

Yes, it is still negligence. It's only murder if you set out with the express intention of killing someone. If your only intention is to save your own self, it can't possibly meet any definition of murder.

If not negligence, than perhaps reckless endangerment. Definitely not murder. Not even second degree murder (if the jurisdiction recognizes such).

gunsmith · « **Reply #112 on:** July 22, 2012, 11:44:13 PM »

Quote from: Avenger29 on July 22, 2012, 06:36:11 PM

Obama will be addressing the nation on the shootings tonight at 7:30pm Eastern.

Oh darn! I had no idea and missed it, Falling Skies episode was on though the title was "Molon Labe"

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #113 on:** July 23, 2012, 12:42:07 AM »

Quote from: gunsmith on July 22, 2012, 11:44:13 PM

Oh darn! I had no idea and missed it, Falling Skies episode was on though the title was "Molon Labe"

It was worth watching, at that.

RocketMan · « **Reply #114 on:** July 23, 2012, 01:03:34 AM »

Quote from: seeker_two on July 22, 2012, 08:38:36 PM

....hope Mitt's campaign people are taking notes....

It would not surprise me if Mitt went full RINO on this, given his history.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #115 on:** July 23, 2012, 01:05:50 AM »

Quote from: De Selby on July 22, 2012, 08:48:07 PM

Yeah, I was responding specifically to the "eh, if I wing someone to save my rear it'll be worth it".

It's not negligence when you know and accept that you'll hit someone, particularly when your stated goal is to save yourself.

The problem is that if you don't take that shot, more innocents will certainly die.

Boomhauer · « **Reply #116 on:** July 23, 2012, 01:17:30 AM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on July 23, 2012, 01:05:50 AM

The problem is that if you don't take that shot, more innocents will certainly die.

This, and possibly you. You don't wait for the perfect shot, you get in there and kill the mofo. You strive for no collateral damage, but the overriding goal is to stop the threat (and a threat like an active shooter, you shoot until he's down, then finish him so he doesn't have a chance to recover)

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #117 on:** July 23, 2012, 09:17:10 AM »

So the media is making all this *expletive deleted*ing racket about his having 6,000 rounds.
This needs to get spread far and wide. Please check my math.
For arguments sake, lets say he only had that ammo in 5.56 for the AR15. We know shotgun ammo weighs and costs more. .40cal probably weighs a little less, but also costs more.
6,000 rounds of NATO 5.56 weighs about 180 pounds.
Low internet pricing before shipping and of course TAXES is about $2,000.
So now you've got 6,000 rounds of ammo to tote to the site of your killing spree.
It would take 60 of those 100 round drum magazines, each weighing 2.2 pounds empty and costing about $130....before shipping and TAXES of course.
So now you've got 312 pounds of ammo and magazines.
Initial killing spree investment of $9800.
So besides the impossibility of carrying around 312 pounds of ammo and magazines, and the amount of space 60 beta mags would carry, it would also cost almost $10,000 just to equip that much ammo to your guns.
*expletive deleted*ing IMPOSSIBLE.
We may never have a total round count from the shooting, but I'd be shocked if it was over 200.

Quote from: De Selby on July 22, 2012, 08:48:07 PM

Yeah, I was responding specifically to the "eh, if I wing someone to save my rear it'll be worth it".

It's not negligence when you know and accept that you'll hit someone, particularly when your stated goal is to save yourself.

Semantics. Knowing you'll hit someone means you actually have your sights lined up and an innocent is in them and you pull the trigger anyway. I think most are referring to the risk being much higher of an innocent being hit.
This isn't someone waving a pistol inside a bank demanding money. This isn't even someone actively shooting one or two people (like say a convience store robbery).
You can pretty much gaurantee that by failing to act he WILL kill more and more people right there, on the spot. Including yourself.
Risk vs. reward.
I've already stated the improbability of being able to make any kind of return shot in this situation. However, I think any human being with a spine and a gun can recognize that the risk of taking a shot when presented with it is far outweighed by the reward of stopping him from continuing to kill.

And what is it if you have the means and opportunity to act, and fail to?
I'm sure cowardice isn't prosecutable by law, though, right?

zxcvbob · « **Reply #118 on:** July 23, 2012, 12:27:12 PM »

I'm getting tired of seeing that bastard's smiling face all over the news.

Q: Why do the news orgs plaster the Internet with photos of the maniac whenever there's a mass murder?
A: Because it's good for business.

(they want to inspire copycats)

BryanP · « **Reply #119 on:** July 23, 2012, 12:33:22 PM »

Quote from: Jamisjockey on July 23, 2012, 09:17:10 AM

So besides the impossibility of carrying around 312 pounds of ammo and magazines, and the amount of space 60 beta mags would carry, it would also cost almost $10,000 just to equip that much ammo to your guns.
*expletive deleted* IMPOSSIBLE.

On the weight side I agree with you, but not the expense. I've seen several people claiming that he had over $20,000 worth of gear (which I think is WILDLY exaggerated) and that is proof he was set up to do this by someone else. Heck, he could have bought all that and more on credit if he knew he had no plans to pay it back. Walk in to Gander Mountain with a shiny new Visa, walk out with a bunch of gear.

TechMan · « **Reply #120 on:** July 23, 2012, 01:12:10 PM »

Quote from: zxcvbob on July 23, 2012, 12:27:12 PM

I'm getting tired of seeing that bastard's smiling face all over the news.

Q: Why do the news orgs plaster the Internet with photos of the maniac whenever there's a mass murder?
A: Because it's good for business. (they want to inspire copycats)

Sorry, but I have to post the picture from the arraignment. He's go some crazy eyes going on.

Balog · « **Reply #121 on:** July 23, 2012, 01:26:38 PM »

On the "no CCW holder could reasonably hope to stop the shooter" thing, it really depends on dozens of variables we can't know, so speculation seems pointless.

On the "It wasn't a real assault rifle" bit, I think that's a bit silly. Technically in the original usage a bullet is the projectile not the entire cartridge, and technically a gun is only smoothbores. But they've passed into common usage and it's highly pedantic to quibble over the semantics of it. I feel the same could be same of assault rifles. The usage has changed, get over it. Unless you still get angry when "gay" is used to mean "homosexual" etc.

Ben · « **Reply #122 on:** July 23, 2012, 01:47:45 PM »

I'm shocked - a reasonable statement from Hollywood:

Quote

As a nation we must be careful before being too reactionary and implementing measures that do more to impinge our personal freedoms than they do to ensure public safety,” he added. “Some things as fast and simple as a bag and coat check might be an acceptable price that patrons are willing to pay to feel more secure, but ultimately moviegoers may be more likely to accept that sometimes the bad things that occur are beyond reason and control, and attempts to guard against them aren’t worth the cost of every day liberties.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/07/23/dark-knight-massacre-could-prompt-massive-expensive-security-changes-at-movie/?intcmp=features#ixzz21T8KCqmb

Which was a response to this coming out of Hollywood:

Quote

Meanwhile, Thelma Adams, Yahoo! Movies contributing editor questioned why all cinema guests can’t be “bag-checked and wanded” the same way critics and the press are prior to advanced screenings.

I generally don't like going to the theater as it is, with what I consider much better options for home viewing as long as you can live without seeing the premier of something. I certainly wouldn't enter any theater where they search and screen me.

ArfinGreebly · « **Reply #123 on:** July 23, 2012, 01:49:07 PM »

A) Funding: it appears he recently received a grant awarded to "only the most brilliant" scientists.

B) "Assault" Rifle: I could have done as much damage with an M1 Carbine and a half dozen 30-round magazines. To the best of my knowledge, the M1 Carbine has never been referred to as an "assault" rifle. The M2 variant, however, qualifies for that appellation. Any lightweight, mag fed, self loading rifle of sufficient caliber could have been used to wreak the same amount of mayhem -- probably more, given some practice and a reasonably maintained weapon.

In the world of small arms, "assault rifle" is a technical designation, and I'm really not ready to simply roll over on that because of some widespread laziness and disinformation.

This isn't some trivial matter. The disarmament and gun control freaks depend on such definitional fuzziness (it is whatever I say it is), and it is very much worth denying them that.

C) Crazy: I still want to know "brilliant scientist" with scholarships & grants and "violent crazy person" -- especially in a field like neuroscience, which is supposed to have a superior understanding of things like "crazy" -- manages to slip through the cracks with all the "expertise" that's supposed to be housed there.

I find such dismissals as "well, you can't predict crazy" to be technical fail.

Especially in light of his mother's observation that "they have the right person."

D) Bag Check: Completely wrong vector. A bag check would have done absolutely nothing to prevent this, and would have disarmed anyone who might have been able to respond.

WTF is wrong with people? Guy comes in shooting through a door that's supposed to be locked to ingress, and you want to scrutinize all the movie attendees? Do you kick the dog after a hard day at the office?

Balog · « **Reply #124 on:** July 23, 2012, 01:51:36 PM »

Which is why they won't do that. Hollywood is all about infringing liberty unless it might hurt their bottom line.

Arfin: the legislature decided what an assault rifle is, whether we like it or not. Observing that this conflicts with the original definition is all well and good, but it looks like (and is) pedantry on par with insisting that bullet and cartridge are not interchangeable terms.

News:

Author Topic: CO. Movie House Attack (Read 34010 times)