9 dead in motorcyle gang gunfight at Texas restaurant

[MadBurgerMaker]

But it is not illegal in and of itself - it migth magically become illegal once the police decide they need to charge someone with something, since in actual society you cannot allow shootouts

But that is pretty much my point. A person can do something that is perfectly legal, but creates in another persons mind a "threat".

?? It doesn't magically become illegal.  The person who thinks theres a threat (and is wrong) isn't a-okay to kill someone else just because.  They can try to claim self defense, but that doesn't always work. 

He didn't flash the gun, it was accidentally shown. He never intended to flash anything. You can replace that with C just knowing he has a gun in some fashion - maybe they talked about previously.

You can't do that.  It seems concealed is concealed.  In your second scenario: C has once again shot a guy who wasn't doing anything to immediately endanger his life, and this time the other guy did absolutely nothing wrong.  You can't just shoot someone for talking about your mom, or whatever he said in this bizarre scenario.

Of course it is - nobody did anything illegal at all, that absent the firefight would get anyone in any trouble. I know this, because I made up the scenario myself.

Okay?  Absent the firefight, you had some dudes talking shit and walking away.  Why do you think it would be okay to kill someone who is just talking shit?

It doesn't really matter HOW the first person finds themselves "threatened". You can't really tell me you cannot imagine a scenario where some person could feel threatened by someone else without that other person committing a crime?

It's your thing, not mine.  The scenario you came up with doesn't work. 

[grumbler]

Berkut, I'd advise letting this one go.  MBM sounds like he is about to go into "you motherfucker!" mode, and that will only end in tears.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Berkut, I'd advise letting this one go.  MBM sounds like he is about to go into "you motherfucker!" mode, and that will only end in tears.

Just because I think YOU are a huge douchebag doesn't mean I apply that to everyone.  Just you.  Because you're a douchebag.

[Berkut]

But it is not illegal in and of itself - it migth magically become illegal once the police decide they need to charge someone with something, since in actual society you cannot allow shootouts

But that is pretty much my point. A person can do something that is perfectly legal, but creates in another persons mind a "threat".

?? It doesn't magically become illegal.  The person who thinks theres a threat (and is wrong) isn't a-okay to kill someone else just because.  They can try to claim self defense, but that doesn't always work.

The legal standard here has nothing to do with a crime being committed. As long as you legitimately believe there is a threat, you have the right, defended vehementl by the NRA in many cases, to shoot someone. There is no legal demand that the person you shoot be engaging in a criminal activity.

He didn't flash the gun, it was accidentally shown. He never intended to flash anything. You can replace that with C just knowing he has a gun in some fashion - maybe they talked about previously.

You can't do that.
[/quote]

You can't do that? What is that supposed to mean?

Are you saying that if I am carrying a concealed weapon, perfectly legally, and some accident occures such that the weapon is revealed, I've committed a crime?

Or if someone who knows me simply is aware that I have a gun, that is a crime as well?

I rather doubt that.

It seems concealed is concealed.  In your second scenario: C has once again shot a guy who wasn't doing anything to immediately endanger his life,

In your opinion. In his own, he felt he was in immediate danger. That guy was known as a loose cannon. Heck, he even had a previous charge of assault with a deadly weapon that person C knew about. He was known to be dangerous, and in fact person C was truly afraid that he was going to pull out that gun and shoot him.

and this time the other guy did absolutely nothing wrong.  You can't just shoot someone for talking about your mom, or whatever he said in this bizarre scenario.

He shot at him because he was in fear of his life, not for talking about his mom, which of course I made perfectly clear at the beginning.

Of course it is - nobody did anything illegal at all, that absent the firefight would get anyone in any trouble. I know this, because I made up the scenario myself.

Okay?  Absent the firefight, you had some dudes talking shit and walking away.  Why do you think it would be okay to kill someone who is just talking shit?

So you agree that absent the firefight, no crime was committed, which proves my point that in fact the firefight resulted from otherwise perfectly legal activity, and the "crime" only exists because we all actually realize that the logical conclusion of the NRA/gun whacko standards is completely untenable in actual society.

*I* don't think it is ok to kill someone for talking shit, and of course my scenario doesn't have anyone doing that. It has someone lawfully exercising their second amendment right to self protection from someone who had just made it clear to them that they were in danger of death or serious bodily harm.

He was wrong of course, but being wrong is not illegal, especially when the other guy is dead and can't say otherwise - see Zimmerman.

It doesn't really matter HOW the first person finds themselves "threatened". You can't really tell me you cannot imagine a scenario where some person could feel threatened by someone else without that other person committing a crime?

It's your thing, not mine.  The scenario you came up with doesn't work. 

Copout.

My scenario works just fine - and it is trivial to come up with some other scenario that addresses the issues you are inventing anyway.

Again, you cannot imagine any scenario where some person feels threatened for their life without another person breaking the law?

[MadBurgerMaker]

The legal standard here has nothing to do with a crime being committed. As long as you legitimately believe there is a threat, you have the right, defended vehementl by the NRA in many cases, to shoot someone. There is no legal demand that the person you shoot be engaging in a criminal activity.

You have to be in reasonable fear for your life.  You can't just shoot someone, say "self defense!" and automatically get away with it. 

You can't do that? What is that supposed to mean?

Are you saying that if I am carrying a concealed weapon, perfectly legally, and some accident occures such that the weapon is revealed, I've committed a crime?

Concealed is concealed.  If the gun is showing while you're doing normal things like having a "conversation" with someone, that isn't properly concealed.  Texas does NOT allow open carry, so that thing needs to be hidden from sight unless you're going to use it.

Or if someone who knows me simply is aware that I have a gun, that is a crime as well?

I rather doubt that.

No, that isn't a crime.  That also isn't a reason to shoot someone.

In your opinion. In his own, he felt he was in immediate danger. That guy was known as a loose cannon. Heck, he even had a previous charge of assault with a deadly weapon that person C knew about. He was known to be dangerous, and in fact person C was truly afraid that he was going to pull out that gun and shoot him.

B is a felon?  B can't have handgun full stop in that case, I don't believe.  Either way, B still didn't do anything.  C can't even see a gun on him, just thinks he has one somehow, then started a fight and shot him without B's gun coming out?  I'm not thinking that is going to go too well for C.  This change means we're back to both of them doing illegal shit.

He shot at him because he was in fear of his life, not for talking about his mom, which of course I made perfectly clear at the beginning.

C is not in reasonable fear for his life.  There's no gun, C and B are just talking.  C is going to go to prison if he does this.

So you agree that absent the firefight, no crime was committed, which proves my point that in fact the firefight resulted from otherwise perfectly legal activity, and the "crime" only exists because we all actually realize that the logical conclusion of the NRA/gun whacko standards is completely untenable in actual society.

There is no crime assuming there aren't any laws against starting fights while carrying (there really might be something about this, but I don't have a CCL or NRA membership vOv) and B doesn't actually flash the gun.  There is also no one trying to kill anyone else, so no reason for the guns to come out in the first place.  Once C offs B because he feels like B might have a gun stashed somewhere, that becomes something really different. 

*I* don't think it is ok to kill someone for talking shit, and of course my scenario doesn't have anyone doing that. It has someone lawfully exercising their second amendment right to self protection from someone who had just made it clear to them that they were in danger of death or serious bodily harm.

In your scenario, B is able to protect himself from C attempting to murder him.  Because that is what C is doing.  C isn't protecting himself from anything because there's nothing happening until C pulls out a gun and shoots at B.

He was wrong of course, but being wrong is not illegal, especially when the other guy is dead and can't say otherwise - see Zimmerman.

Zimmerman was able to say he was directly in danger because his head was getting smashed into the concrete, right?  In your scenario, no one is doing anything except talking shit like weirdos (mom jokes in the parking lot  ). 

Copout.

My scenario works just fine - and it is trivial to come up with some other scenario that addresses the issues you are inventing anyway.

I'm not inventing anything, and it isn't a copout.  Your scenario doesn't work because C is trying to murder someone. 

Again, you cannot imagine any scenario where some person feels threatened for their life without another person breaking the law?

Why would it be up to me to come up with the scenario?

Anyway, you're going to have to think of a way where someone is in imminent danger of severe bodily harm or death and have to protect themselves from someone to save their (or someone else's) life without the person who is threatening their life actually doing something illegal.   

E:  Maybe some sort of car accident type deal?  Where someone thinks someone else is trying to run them over but...er...their tire blew or something?  Not really the same thing, and no firefights, but no one is doing anything illegal there and someone's life is in danger. 

[derspiess]

Oh wow Berkut got someone to argue with him.  HIS ARGUMENT IS NO LONGER PERFECT

[MadBurgerMaker]

He wanted gun nuts though.  I'm not sure my old SKS and Sig 2022 are nearly heavy duty or numerous enough to qualify me for that status. 

I need to take that SKS shooting again sometime.   Haven't gone in at least a couple years now.

[derspiess]

Nope, you're still a gun nut. 

[lustindarkness]

So, what was this thread about? Is it a gun nut thread now? What is the languish definition of a gun nut anyway?

[Razgovory]

You have to be in reasonable fear for your life.  You can't just shoot someone, say "self defense!" and automatically get away with it. 

It seems that "reasonable fear for your life", is pretty vague.  This guy chased a man down and stabbed him to death.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/miami-judge-rules-in-stan_n_1385219.html

This guy shot and killed two guys burglarizing his neighbors house.  He was not indicted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/us/13texas.html?_r=0

[MadBurgerMaker]

They look at each of them individually.  I think they have to see if some or parts of their story allow them to claim self defense/whatever you're claiming.  Crazy shotgun guy got off because he was defending property, or some shit like that.  I think he shot at least one of those dudes in his front yard or something (and another one down the street).  I don't know anything at all about Florida's law, but there's a robbery involved again and apparently dude swung a bag of radios at a guy who was chasing him with a knife?  What a stupid situation.   

Either way, what is your point?  Offing someone in a parking lot who isn't doing anything other than responding to you talking shit is a different deal from crazy old guy blasting two guys who robbed a place and whatever that was in Florida after another robbery. 

I still have no idea why these things are coming up in a thread about the Bandidos apparently ambushing another biker gang and the cops shooting a few on the side. 

[derspiess]

This guy shot and killed two guys burglarizing his neighbors house.  He was not indicted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/us/13texas.html?_r=0

Correction:  He shot two guys who ran through his property after they had burglarized his neighbor's house.  This was the castle doctrine in effect, not Stand Your Ground. 

If a Texas redneck with a gun says "Move and you're dead" while you're on his property, he probably means it.  Alas, these these two fine upstanding men did not heed the warning and we lost them

btw how is the bolded part relevant to the story? 

Moments later, after what the police say was a confrontation on Mr. Horn's front lawn, the two men — both illegal immigrants — lay dead on winding Timberline Drive, leaving behind a pillowcase stuffed with jewelry and about $2,000 in cash.

One of them, identified by the police as Hernando Torres, a k a Miguel Antonio DeJesus, 38, was found across the street beside a sleigh and a Santa cow with a sign, "Have a Moo-ry Christmas," at the house of a Pasadena police officer.

[Habbaku]

Maybe he said "Moo-ve and you're dead"?

[derspiess]

[Admiral Yi]

illegal immigrants

Undocumented crime workers.