It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Remember the Former Marine Who Opened Fire After an Arizona Couple Pulled a Gun on a Sears Employee?

page: 2
26
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


Ignorant statement? You practice standing at 75 feet as have I. The best practice is moving, both myself and the target. I live out in the Country and we play with our guns pretty often so I am not going to come on here and talk smack about how good I am with a pistol. Nor am I gonna run out and call a stranger ignorant. ATS could do without losers that have to call names to have a discussion. You are on personal ignore for having the debating skills of a school child. The only thing that scares me about guns is people like you having them.





posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   

edit on 9-1-2014 by swimmer15 because: Double post



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   
I know it wasnt adressed to me but ill chime in .

When he stands by and does nothing. Trying to help other people is not the act of a criminal by any stretch.


At what point do we consider his actions to be reckless?


edit on 9-1-2014 by swimmer15 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 


Concealed carry laws differ from state to state. Most say something along these lines:

A. The ABILITY to inflict serious bodily injury. He is armed or reasonably appears to be armed.

B. The OPPORTUNITY to inflict serious bodily harm. He is positioned to harm you with his weapon, and,

C. His INTENT (hostile actions or words) indicates that he means to place you in jeopardy - to do you serious or fatal physical harm.

D. IF YOU CAN RUN AWAY SAFELY- RUN!

E. DISPLAY YOUR WEAPON, GO TO JAIL.

In Illinois, our conceal carry class very clearly pointed out that carrying a weapon does not give you the right to pull your weapon out and start shooing if you see someone else with a gun pointed at someone other than yourself.

The DA is well within their right to press charges or not. Personally, I think the guy will end up having charges dropped against him, but anytime you draw your weapon, you should expect to go through this. Texas may be an exception, but for most states, draw your weapon...prepare to go to court and/or jail.
edit on 9-1-2014 by Freenrgy2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Id look for a LOT more of this stuff ,thugs can be rugs.If that is your relative,my relative, too bad.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Freenrgy2
 


Thanks


Sometimes these gun laws just leave me scratching my head.

If I saw someone in trouble- and I had the ability to help save a life- I would do so.

The same reason Police Officers are able to be Police officers- to protect other people.

Of course the cops werent there in time when they are needed most- so in my opinion that person with that weapon
had the responsibility to his fellow citicen as a concealed carrier to help protect their lives.

Lets also remember- that laws - are up for change considering the circumstances.

Thanks again.

Lets just hope they do drop the charges.

edit on 9-1-2014 by Common Good because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Mamatus
 


Now this one just pisses me off to no end. This man sees robbers pulling a gun on innocent people and does what a MAN should do and took action. He fired four shots (all missed) at the robbers before they escaped on a motorcycle.
Don’t let this one piss you off. We should take into consideration what really happened and that is difficult at best since we don’t have all the facts.

I wouldn’t claim this to be justified or reckless without knowing what actually took place. That is why there is an investigation going on, to find out what happened. I would assume filing charges is conducive to an investigation and does not indicate guilt.

My questions are when did this man fire his weapon and in what manner. Was he firing after the woman dropped her toy gun, while they were running away and into a parking lot full of cars? Or was he firing as a direct response to what de perceived as a threat to his wife and a Sears employee? One scenario appears reckless while the other justified.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Mamatus
 


I'm sure that couple is going to think twice before trying to rob somebody else. It's getting to the point that victims or people who step in to help, are being subjected to laws and arrests that are meant for the criminals. If we keep on letting criminals get the upper hand, they will only become more confident in committing their crime. Victims and good Samaritans should automatically have immunity to prosecution when a life or lives are threatened by a criminal using deadly force.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Mamatus
reply to post by Superabound
 

Shoot pistols much? They are about useless outside of 25 ft. Especially in a pinch with moving targets. There is a reason police are trained to dump the entire clip.....


I would question your skills with a pistol. If you think they are useless beyond 25ft then you don't know how to use one. Unless you mean 25 yards which most snub nose pistols aren't that accurate beyond that distance.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Mamatus


Remember the Former Marine Who Opened Fire After an Arizona Couple Pulled a Gun on a Sears Employee? Police Have Submitted Charges…Against Him.

Maricopa County, Arizona, may be infamous because of its sheriff, Joe Arpaio, but it could gain another reputation with concealed-carry supporters after it’s now been revealed police officers in the city of Glendale have submitted charges to the county attorney against a former Marine who intervened in an armed robbery last Friday.

Remember the Former Marine Who Opened Fire After an Arizona Couple Pulled a Gun on a Sears Employee?

Now this one just pisses me off to no end. This man sees robbers pulling a gun on innocent people and does what a MAN should do and took action. He fired four shots (all missed) at the robbers before they escaped on a motorcycle.
The article says the robbers used a toy gun with the orange tip painted over. This former marine now faces a felony charge of unlawful discharge of a firearm.\

IMO had it been a ten police officers that had been there this couple would have had over 100 rounds fired at them and certainly be dead. If this story does not expose a serious and egregious double standard noting does.

I guess if TPTB can't just take our guns they will make us afraid to use them. This is such a load of excrement I have a hard time writing this. HE was prtecting others from violence as he was trained to do. Being a Marine I imagine he was also trained far better than the people charging him.


My guess is that the cops took a pretty dim view of what the Marine did, and treated him like crap from the word go, once they got involved. I bet this Marine was pretty ticked off, too, and responded in kind. This is all just guesswork, by me...but I can see this being the outcome of such a situation. If you tick some cops off with an attitude, they are most likely going to get back at you any way they can.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Mamatus
reply to post by TorqueyThePig
 

The Blaze is the double standard central. Their readers all hate Obama so much they stopped thinking clearly a long time ago. Maybe if we get a white president they will shut the heck up. .



We already have a white president.. Maybe you didn't know that he is half and half white and black. What this means is race is not the issue that you wish it to be, since he is equally representing both races.

Using the race card for anything Obama related is just
and trolling.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Catacomb
 


I'm glad you state that this is just your guess (i.e. opinion), but why present the last statement as a presumed fact?

The fact is that the police followed the law for Arizona and gave the case to the DA. My personal belief is ANYTIME someone brandishes a weapon, there should be an investigation and the decision to bring charges should be based on this.

The problem with going John Wayne in these types of situations is the potential to inflict harm to someone not involved or further incite the aggressors. When your adrenaline kicks in and you get tunnel vision, and unless you're a crack shot each and every time, there is a very great potential that your bullet is going to miss every time and possible harm someone else.

We just don't know from the story where the marine was, if anyone else was in the line of sight. After all, he missed FOUR times! Intentional? Adrenaline? Not proficient with his weapon?



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Mamatus
 

I say you can't give Americans the Right to Bear Arms and then say they can't be fired to save lives and support other law abiding citizens without it being a felony. The Right to Bear Arms is the right not only to keep government from getting too out of hand in how it treats its own citizens, but also to help keep law and order; the laws that are supported by the people, as the government should have the support of the people and not make laws that do NOT have the support of the people, which government most certainly does in many cases these days.... secret laws that protect tyranny by corporations and government over the citizens. Good law enforcement officers cannot be everywhere all the time. Sometimes a decision must be made immediately with regards to saving human life. The reason we have the right to make a citizen's arrest is reflected in this, and we all know that not all arrests can be made without a gun coming into the situation in one way or another. This man was trying to do the right thing for the right reason. I wonder what will happen in the end.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 11:48 PM
link   

jaxnmarko
reply to post by Mamatus
 

I say you can't give Americans the Right to Bear Arms and then say they can't be fired to save lives and support other law abiding citizens without it being a felony. The Right to Bear Arms is the right not only to keep government from getting too out of hand in how it treats its own citizens, but also to help keep law and order; the laws that are supported by the people, as the government should have the support of the people and not make laws that do NOT have the support of the people, which government most certainly does in many cases these days.... secret laws that protect tyranny by corporations and government over the citizens. Good law enforcement officers cannot be everywhere all the time. Sometimes a decision must be made immediately with regards to saving human life. The reason we have the right to make a citizen's arrest is reflected in this, and we all know that not all arrests can be made without a gun coming into the situation in one way or another. This man was trying to do the right thing for the right reason. I wonder what will happen in the end.


So, would be for quartering of troops as well?

The 2nd amendment makes no such provision as to what you are suggesting! Your interpretation is one of the reasons that so many law-abiding gun owners have been given such a hard time.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Superabound
"He fired four shots (all missed)"


LOL some Marine


I would hazard a guess at intentionally missed.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Appearently they will let us keep our guns for now, pretending like you can use it to defend yourself...But things are different as soon a shot is fired.

It's almost as though law enforcement and the judiciary system is thinking, if they are going to have guns, better make them too scared to use them (even in self defense).



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Infinitis
 


That ain't working for some of us.We see bad, we will fix it. All the whinning in the world won't stop bad now will it?



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Mamatus
 


All four shots missed? What kind of marine was he? Sounds to me like he was acting a little rash and wasn't collected enough to handle the situation. He put others in danger by firing wildly like that.

To be clear, he tried to do the right thing and I support gun rights and acting, but i think he should probably be charged with something minimum.
It was reckless endangerment.
edit on 10-1-2014 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Yeah he should be charged for a crime for hurting nobody and trying to help somebody. That makes perfect sense

You ARE exactly whats wrong with people these days.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 07:58 AM
link   
AZ law on self defense: www.azleg.gov...

13-404. Justification; self-defense

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:

1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or

2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or

3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:

(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and

(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.

13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force

A. A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:

1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and

2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.

B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force pursuant to this section if the person is in a place where the person may legally be and is not engaged in an unlawful act.

13-406. Justification; defense of a third person

A person is justified in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force against another to protect a third person if, under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, such person would be justified under section 13-404 or 13-405 in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force to protect himself against the unlawful physical force or deadly physical force a reasonable person would believe is threatening the third person he seeks to protect.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join