Epiphany 4
Feb07
So this is definitely happening in the comic. I planned this before I even started drawing it. I’ve been through businesses changing hands while I was employed there. It usually sucks.
We’ll see!
This story got emailed to me a couple times today. Sorry, I’m not okay with it, and I usually root for people who act in ways that can be described as “mercenary.” But this? This is horseshit. Yeah, there were three dipshits driving around firing a gun, and a resident of the area stopped it. But I maintain that he stopped it by acting rashly, even dangerously. Don’t be that guy. This could have gone very, very poorly for all involved, including him.
Can’t we all just get along? *sniffle*
Well… on one hand, the people in the car were putting a lot of people in danger by firing into the air, so for them to be shot would seem justifiable.
On the other hand, the homeowner didn’t know that at the time, so maybe it wasn’t justified.
It would seem justified with all the facts being discovered after the fact. But not so much during the situation.
In the end, I’m glad the idiots were stopped. But do the ends justify the means?
This, I think, will be the key question.
The problem is that the jury will be told to base their decision on what the guy knew or reasonably believed, at the time he pulled the trigger.
Don’t lose Omar!
Well, he’s obviously York self insert…
Not a “good shoot” in my opinion. Without even considering legalities or lack thereof,
it doesn’t meet MY criteria for a justified use of deadly force purely from ethical and logical standpoints.
————————————————————————————————————————————
A)No clear threat. Did the homeowner actually SEE the weapon being fired prior to shooting?
From the story, it sounds like he did not. How then could he be certain a weapon was even involved?
I’ve heard backfires that made me seek cover before I realized what they were.
B)Three people + one gun = one target, not three. It could have been a criminal with two hostages.
Until one of the other people goes for the gun or produces one of their own, they are NOT targets.
I expect that kind of bad judgement from bad cops. I hold armed citizens to a higher standard,
and so do the courts.
C)Shooting into a car is shooting at a target you cannot see clearly.
Being as there were just foolish revelers out making noise, THANK GOODNESS,
that there was not one or more small children in the vehicle not visible to the homeowner.
Any time a male and female are in a car the chances a child are with them leaps dramatically.
D)Justified shoots are centric on justified threat. Ask George Zimmerman.
I bring up some picky points here, and ask some difficult questions from a purely ethical point of view.
The prosecutor is going to being up some picky points and ask some difficult questions from a legal
point of view that make mine seem quite simple by comparison.
———————————————————————————————————————————
The only thing the homeowner has going in his favor in this situation, is that none of the wounds he inflicted are fatal.
Tough call. The thing is, at the time he pulled the trigger, he could easily have been justified. The story indicates that he claims they pointed a gun at him. Of course, it happened because he went into the street armed. He put himself in a bad place. But having people fire out of a car in his neighborhood seems to me to be justification to do SOMETHING. Bullets go through walls into houses all the time. I’m not saying this is a “good” or “bad” shoot because we don’t know all the details from a brief story. But I can see it going either way. It COULD be good. It COULD be bad.
IRT the linked story: I wasn’t there, so I’ll decline to judge this case.
In general, however, I feel you should err on the side of conservatism – Only shoot when you’re certain of a threat. Once you squeeze the trigger, that bullet is *not* coming back.
Regret is forever, so be sure.
Hmm… Just had a thought. Alex will now have even more money. I can see her spending it to buy the shop.
The music’s ok, but I like the Boyd Rice original.
+
Regarding today’s news story, in this case since the folks in the vehicle were going around negligently discharging a firearm, can’t the homeowner just be no-billed for this one, and told to be more careful next time?
+
Bidding war between Alex and Heidi over who wants the shop (and by some extent Mick)? I can’t see Heidi buying into this polyamory/sharing Mick thing.
And yes, Omar’s epiphany will wear off.
Kinda violates gun safety rule 4.
4) Know your target and what is behind it.
Also violates MY rule of, IF there is gunfire, seek cover. Fire from cover if it is safe to do so. If not, find better cover.
I’d have to see a sketch of the crime scene to ascertain if the homeowner broke Rule #4. However, we know the folks shooting from the car sure did.
I’m glad the homeowner didn’t shoot the wrong vehicle.
That’s #5 on my list. Not saying you’re wrong or anything, just curious how your list goes.
1) Never point it where you don’t want to shoot. (Actually always point it in the direction in which you would be least unhappy about shooting, because sometimes you’re in a house.)
2) Never shoot at anything you don’t want to destroy. (The places you can hit someone with a .22LR and be sure you’re not endangering life are all very close to places you can one-shot-kill someone with a .22LR, and none of them will stop the bullet from continuing its journey and hitting something else.)
3) Assume it’s got ammunition in it everywhere it possibly could have until you have personally satisfied yourself otherwise. (Exception: when already under fire, just make damn sure it has ammo in it.)
4) The trigger guard, body and grip enclose a space that contains one control: the trigger. The trigger does one thing: drops the hammer. You can’t do anything else with a finger through the trigger guard. Unless you want to drop the hammer, your finger should not be through the trigger guard. (For “drop the hammer,” substitute “release the striker,” “release the bolt,” “discharge the weapon,” or equivalent for projectile weapons that work in other ways.)
5) Know what your target is and what is behind it. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ABGIJwiGBc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPZyBLv0ijc )
6) Cover from sight does not guarantee cover from fire. (In military terms, if he knows you’re behind that bush he can shoot you through it. In civilian terms, the fact you can’t see anyone doesn’t mean you can’t hit anyone.)
7) A clear line of sight does not guarantee a clear line of fire. (This is mostly relevant when using a telescopic sight, which makes it easy to have a clear view out of the window while your muzzle is pointing at the wall below the window.)
A case of someone getting it so wrong that there are actually more mistakes reported than made in the article. Yes, folks, the police over here get things even more wrong than the Daily Hate Mail aka Daily Fail.
From pretty much every training program I’ve had or heard of:
#1 Treat every firearm as if it is loaded until you have verified it is not.
#2 Do not point the weapon at anything you do not wish to destroy. This include clearing the area behind your target.
#3 Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
#4 Keep safety on until ready to fire.
1) All guns are ALWAYS loaded. Treat them as such. A lot of people have been shot with guns that were “not loaded.”
2) Never let the muzzle cover anything you don’t want gone. I really liked that toe….
3) BOOGER HOOK OFF THE BANG SWITCH until you are ready to fire. I had an itch I scratched with my left hand, and an empty shell casing from my right hand.
4) Know your target and what is beyond it. Had a buddy accidentally put a hole in his truck while hunting… And to make matters worse, he didn’t get the deer.
This is what I know: I am too ignorant of tactics and the situation to make a good ruling. But if I ever find myself in this situation, I probably should just call 911.
There really isn’t enough information in the story posted to decide if the homeowner acted rashly or not.
If a bunch of asshats are driving around shooting randomly, that *could* put me in reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily injury, if I see them doing such, and if some innocent (me, or someone else) is possibly in their line of fire.
Does anyone have any additional information here?
Well, he hit all three suspected targets in a moving vehicle…mighty fine shootin’ Tex! Unfortunately I think this will end badly for him.
If Mick was just a bit more articulate, I’d picture him saying:
“Uncle Omar,
I’ve got zero percentage of problem with this decision – I’ve got a MAJOR problem about the SPEED with which the decision was made!
Also, while my boss has little-or-no obligation to keep me in the loop, I’d have hoped that my family would treat me better than that, & let me have a chance to offer some non-majority-vote-type of feedback into the decision-making process.”
Good point. In Mick’s place, my second question for Omar (after “Are you sure you’ve thought this thing through?”) would be, “Do you have a plan for what you’re going to do next? People who retire and just relax and don’t really do anything usually die. Quickly. Like, in a year and a half, or less.”
and?
http://www.gastongazette.com/spotlight/3-year-old-shoots-17-month-old-sibling-updated-1.273619
I’m sorry. I’ve been over the top in my comments out of the blue. I’ve read your comic for almost 2 years and like it. However, the occasional rants about ANY form of gun control just got to be too much. So I have to ask. When do you say “enough”? Or is any amount of innocent blood spilled justified for the privilege of no gun control?
I grew up around guns. I took gun safety classes at 10, and got my first gun (a 12 ga SS) at 12. We hunt in the middle of kansas. I’ve shot deer and elk, as well as most game birds. I’ve also seen first hand what gun violence can do.
As a country, we need to do something. I would say a couple of things.
1. better gun safety education
2. better controls on gun sales
3. gun insurance.
““We’re compiling the case and will present the case to the D.A. to determine if any charges will be filed for failure to secure a firearm,” Shores said.”
And right there you have all the gun control you should need to prevent this kind of incident: the legal requirement to secure firearms.
More concerning to me is that the three year old clearly knew where this ‘secret compartment’ was and what was in it, and was for whatever reason interested in shooting his brother.
We have tons of gun control, and as evidenced by your article, IT DON’T WORK. None of the three things you mentioned would have made any difference in this case.
Instead, we have retarded gun laws on capacity and cosmetic features and inordinate taxes and restrictions on firearm safety features. Show me lawmaker that exhibit any reasonable understanding on the subject of firearms, and I will entertain the notion of having “a reasonable discussion” about gun control.
I do agree with better gun education, how about adding firearms training to the mandatory phys ed requirements in high school? I got to use a bow and arrows when I was in school, and that is arguably more dangerous than a .22 bolt action/pistol.
I want insurance and education for my third and fourth amendment rights.
And better control on the sale of bedroom furniture. Maybe a week long wait or something, or one bed a month. And who even NEEDS a full size dresser anyway…
Some people have four empty bedrooms, and no accountability.
If those bedrooms were registered with the Army, things would be better. They would never use the information to say… house soldiers… but I’d feel safer without all those empty rooms just sitting there.
People need to be educated about house size. In a large city, having an empty bedroom means society is in danger. Things are already too cramped. A mandatory 18 hour class before getting a house permit will change this.
*claps* Winner, one Internet.
I’d propose something related to our driver licensing system here.
Divide weapons into categories. We have computers, so we can handle a lot of categories. Division is to be by how the weapon is operated, so a .22LR semi-auto AR15-type carbine, a 9x19mm semi-auto AR15-type carbine, a 5.56x45mm semi-auto AR15-type carbine and a 7.62x51mm semi-auto AR15-type carbine are all the same type of weapon, and AK47, AKM, AK74, AK101, AK102, AK105, AK107, AK108 are all the same type of weapon. If the way you use it is the same, it’s the same type.
Single-or-double-action revolvers
Single-action-only revolvers
Double-action-only revolvers
Semi-automatic pistols
HK-33, HK-53, HK MP5, HK G3, HK G3-SG1, …
M16
AR15
AR18, L22, L85, L86 and L98A2
L98A1
AK-almost-anything selective fire
AK-almost-anything semi-auto only
Rifle, Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield Mk III and its thousand and one relatives
P90
PS90
Semi-auto shotguns
Pump-action shotguns
Break-action shotguns
… and more for the other types. That’s not meant to be a comprehensive list. Some types can be subordinate to others, so if you’re qualified on “Single-or-double-action revolvers” you get the next two types free and if you can handle an M16 you can handle an AR15.
Start licensing. Everybody starts off unqualified on everything, obviously. Equally obviously, you’ll have to get some qualified instructors and examiners right away to start training and qualifying people. Licenses come with three levels:
Provisional: may have and use the firearm under supervision of someone who’s qualified as an instructor on that firearm.
Qualified: may have and use the firearm.
Instructor: may instruct holders of provisional licenses in the use of the firearm.
I’d add some requirements for examiners, like background checks maybe.
Now you can have offences of having the weapon while not qualified and of supplying a weapon to someone not qualified or allowing someone in your care as a minor and not qualified to acquire that weapon, to both of which any valid defence in a shooting case will be an absolute defence, so the fact you only have a provisional license for the shotgun and standard license for the AR15 is not going to be an issue when you grab them, hand the AR15 to your 14-y-o daughter and persuade the man in the ski mask, rubber gloves and utility belt with three rolls of duct tape and a big knife that he ought to break back out again won’t be a firearms offence. If you could legally have shot him under those circumstances or circumstances very close to those with a gun you were qualified to use, it’s okay that you picked up a gun. Hell, under those circumstances, grab an M60 if you’ve got one handy.
Nothing in this is meant to impinge on a state’s right to choose when they issue the licence, be it at birth, at age 10, at age 18, at age 21 or whatever, nor on whether they allow “anyone qualified” to carry open or concealed on the streets. What it does is establish a basis of “Know what you’re doing with that thing!”
Note that there’s no requirement for anyone to actually have the weapon or have access to the weapon outside the training facility (which can be any quarter-acre of desert with an uninhabited two mile square into which to point the guns if you don’t fancy having to go to a designated building). You can get yourself qualified on every single category and not own any of them. Data on who’s qualified with what won’t be a gun register.
I have one very short, pungent answer to your proposal: Washington, D.C.
I wonder whether the rest of the USA could declare independence from Washington, D.C., and what would happen next if they did.
The basic problem with comparing driver licensing and weapon licensing is that driving on public roads is a privilege and weapon ownership is a right. If you begin requiring special permission (licensing) for a right it is no longer a right. From there it is easy to prevent anyone or everyone from exercising that right. The best proof of this is Concealed Carry permits, until the passage of “Shall Issue” laws it was nearly impossible for anyone to get one. This was tantamount to preventing the exercise of the second amendment rights of a majority of the population. That was the major argument that got “Shall Issue” passed.
“Shall not be infringed.”
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”
Thank you. “Well-regulated” was kind of what I was hoping that could achieve.
So you’re in favour of letting minors, convicted felons and those deemed mentally deficient, or whatever the term is, carry? Right now, someone who’s just got out of jail after serving two thirds of his sentence for a few gun-point rapes isn’t allowed to wander around with a gun, and neither is someone considered to be nine years old whether it’s because they never developed past that point or because they haven’t actually been alive ten years yet. Would you overturn all three of those, or do you accept that there are people unfit to have a gun?
Sure, hundreds of kilograms of steel, aluminium, plastic, rubber, copper, glass, concentrated acid and flammable liquids travelling at a few dozen metres per second is a more dangerous item than a few grams of lead and copper travelling at a few hundred metres per second, but it’s fitted with an “oh shit don’t go much further in that direction please” device and an “oops not that way a bit further to the right please” mechanism too and you get to go with it and see where it’s going to go second by second and we still insist on people being 17 years old, attending courses and passing a theory test before they can even have a practical lesson. Unless you’re going to say that under-18s aren’t people or that guns should be sold over the counter with no questions, background checks, ID checks or age checks involved, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is infringed and you accept that.
I’m not really in favor of letting mental deficients in congress tell ME whether I can carry, does that clarify anything? I don’t “accept” much of your argument, having a grandfather who drove the dynamite truck in 1922, when he was 12, and seeing oh so many children who were raised to respect and operate firearms regularly outshine Barney Fifes in both operation and practice.
That said, it’s been beaten to death in here that we WISH guns were regulated like cars: It doesn’t even seem to matter if you purposefully punched it and ran over a guy you hated in broad daylight, only your license will be rescinded, NOT your ownership of the vehicle. In fact, unless you park in an undesirable location, government will practically NEVER take your car. Exceptions exist, of course, for RICO crap, legitimate and illegitimate, but it strikes me that the likes of killers Laura Bush and Ted Kennedy probably continued to not only own their vehicles, but were probably allowed to continue driving. Chauffeurs? Possibly. I don’t actually know.
So Omar is going to sell the shop and retire to become a stoner? All off of one bong hit?
I wonder if Maria is actually an agent provocateur of HCI, sent to take the “gun nuts” out of play one at a time? 😀
One bong hit that *you* saw. Who knows what else happened..?
Wasn’t the bong hit, was the sammich that did it!
I’m betting on the boobs, myself.
Always bet on boobs! ( Apologies to Wesley Snipes. )
“Change is always the great discomfort in life.”
It is. Ask any diaper-wearing baby.
It is clear that Sableeagle doesn’t “get it” when it comes to unalienable rights such as second amendment etc.