Observations on Florida gunman

[patton487]

The story has been posted in another thread. My purpose here is to make some observations and break down the situation from a defensive standpoint. If mods wish to delete or merge, feel free.

1.My first observation is this guy is unfamiliar with his weapon. From what I see this is a single/double action semi auto. Case in point. His first shot (long trigger pull) then has an "accidental/unintentional discharge" into the floor going to double action (short trigger pull)
Swinging the gun around one handed, up and down, side to side. Obviously not an accurate shooter.

2. Looked like there was an easily accessible exit to their left. Maybe they should have ran for it as opposed to sitting there.

3. Older frail woman with purse vs 250+ lb man with a gun?? No idea, she's lucky to be alive.

4. Of course morons like this guy only go after "gun free zones". Unbelievable! Stupid laws making ready victims of law abiding people.... easy, easy, back it down.. OK, Rant suppressed for now.

5. One person with a gun in that room could have taken the guy out

6. More of a question, Say that woman behind the guy way you. And you were carrying a gun on you. (in clear violation of our socialist laws). You shoot the guy in the back and kill him. Considering he has done nothing but brandish a weapon so far. What will you be charged with? How much jail time will you do for saving everyone's life??

 

[kevman65]

Aside from the carrying a firearm on school property there would be no other offense if a person had shot the man. Florida also has castle doctrine and stand your ground statutes. If you feel your life or another persons life is in mortal danger you are permitted to react with deadly force.

Of course that doesn't mean there wouldn't be a long drawn out court battle, but that is the litigious nature of most people now.

 

[patton487]

Aside from the carrying a firearm on school property there would be no other offense if a person had shot the man. Florida also has castle doctrine and stand your ground statutes. If you feel your life or another persons life is in mortal danger you are permitted to react with deadly force.

Of course that doesn't mean there wouldn't be a long drawn out court battle, but that is the litigious nature of most people now.

If a person is brandishing a gun with their back to you, and you shoot and kill him in the back. Is it a good shoot? Just wondering.

 

[lovemachine]

If a person is brandishing a gun with their back to you, and you shoot and kill him in the back. Is it a good shoot? Just wondering.

Yes. Why does it matter if you shoot him in the back? You still stopped the threat, and saved lives.

 

[kevman65]

If a person is brandishing a gun with their back to you, and you shoot and kill him in the back. Is it a good shoot? Just wondering.

The person (see the video) threatened the lives of six other people. Per the way the statutes are written, yes it is a good shoot.

Its not about honor, its about preserving lives.

If the person threatened, then walked away leaving, then no it is not a good shoot. The threat was at this point gone. Keep in mind, we're talking this one instance where video would confirm.

 

[SMiller]

I will let the brandishing comments slide since this was Florida...

Yes that gun was not familiar with that weapon, he simply pointed it in the general direction and hoped for the best (thank god!)

 

[Kirk Freeman]

1.My first observation is this guy is unfamiliar with his weapon. From what I see this is a single/double action semi auto. Case in point. His first shot (long trigger pull) then has an "accidental/unintentional discharge" into the floor going to double action (short trigger pull)
Swinging the gun around one handed, up and down, side to side. Obviously not an accurate shooter.

2. Looked like there was an easily accessible exit to their left. Maybe they should have ran for it as opposed to sitting there.

3. Older frail woman with purse vs 250+ lb man with a gun?? No idea, she's lucky to be alive.

4. Of course morons like this guy only go after "gun free zones". Unbelievable! Stupid laws making ready victims of law abiding people.... easy, easy, back it down.. OK, Rant suppressed for now.

5. One person with a gun in that room could have taken the guy out

6. More of a question, Say that woman behind the guy way you. And you were carrying a gun on you. (in clear violation of our socialist laws). You shoot the guy in the back and kill him. Considering he has done nothing but brandish a weapon so far. What will you be charged with? How much jail time will you do for saving everyone's life??

1. Maybe, but remember Dukes was a convicted felon and thus not likely to get much trigger time.

2. Maybe, maybe the people were afraid of being shot.

3. Maybe, but that woman showed more heart than six men.

4. Yes, gun-free zones are merely governmentally approved slaughter pens but the design is purposeful. Governments want mass murders to transpire (is not the history of government the history of murder) and no better way than to disarm the good guys.

5. Maybe, but if one could legally carry there, then there would have been no incident.

6. Are you asking about defense of a third person?

The standard is that of the reasonable person in that situation. Do you think such a person would have had fear of death or serious bodily injury if you see a gun been waved about (and the gun is not in the hands of a cop in Broad Ripple who is pointing it all over the place)?

No uniform, angry talk, waving a gun. Would a reasonable person be in fear of death or serious bodily injury to another or a forcible felony?

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

IC 35-41-1-11
"Forcible felony" defined
Sec. 11. "Forcible felony" means a felony that involves the use or threat of force against a human being, or in which there is imminent danger of bodily injury to a human being.


So, you walk in behind Dukes. You see a guy waving a gun about and yelling at the board members. You see the following felonies involving imminent danger of bodily injury: Intimidation with a Deadly Weapon, Pointing a Firearm, Criminal Confinement with a Deadly Weapon, perhaps Robbery with a Deadly Weapon, inter alia.

Remember, there is a distinction between what I can do and what I should do. How one asnwers this question is highly subjective.