Not the best decision...

[Zetsumei]

Seems a very one sided article to me. Hard to tell what really happened when you only get a biased opinion of what happened. I would be interested in seeing how this develops.

[Alaskapopo]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia

I don't know how it works where this guy is, but in my state, pointing a gun at someone in that manner is a crime (reckless endangerment and/or agg assault). It's then on the defendant to show justification as a defense. In my city, the cops don't get into this type of analysis. They arrest and let the DA's office figure out if charges will be filed (which usually takes several days while the guy rots in a holding cell somewhere -- just the way it is and it's all "legal"). So yes, there was PC to believe that a crime was committed, but that doesn't answer the question as to whether the act was actually legally justified. Or to put it another way, even if the act was legally justified, the cops certainly did nothing wrong in arresting him and your trust in your brothers could remain intact. That would generally be their job (again, at least where I am -- maybe it's different in Alaska).

In my mind the fact the the guy was arrested tells us little, other than he did, in fact, point his gun at another person.

And on another note, PC isn't the standard of proof sufficient to string someone up. As I said before, I think witnesses generally throw good samaritans under the bus if the good samaritan has a gun. What I'm getting at with that is maybe the guy is just a reckless yahoo and maybe the situation really did reasonably appear to call for the display of a gun, but we'll never know. The witnesses will all say that the multi-ton car with an out of control driver driving up amongst them to hit a tree was no biggie but all the sudden this crazed gunman came out of nowhere with his gun drawn threatening to shoot for no apparent reason and . . . blah blah blah.

It works the same way where I am even when a cop shoots someone because they were shot at. All the witnesses will say the "victim" was a choirboy on his way to bible study and while perhaps not the perfect angel, absolutely would never have possessed a gun much less shoot one and much, much less shoot one at cops. Where they generally get tripped up are the recovered bullets and shell casings that match the balistics of the gun found on or near their little angel with his prints all over it and his rap sheet being as long as the proverbial phone book. As you know, witness statements need to be looked at with plenty of grains of salt and the investigation really only just begins with those statements.

One thing I'd like to know is how the driver of the car came to drive up on a lawn crowded with people and hit a tree. I saw nothing about why that happened or whether charges were filed against the driver. A car is no less deadly than a gun, but that aspect of the story seems long overlooked and forgotten.

Police are not going to arrest a person who is clearly and legally defending himself or others.
Pat

[JRADGTR]

It's too hard to judge the situation from our perspective. We also shouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt. He is a CCW guy and as such, it's his job to exercise extreme discretion. Too bad. He gives us all a bad name.

[Hedshot]

Originally Posted by Alaskapopo

I hope you are kidding. That is not something to be proud of. Drinking early in the day.
Pat

I usually start drinking about 7:30 AM.....but I get of work at 7AM and I weigh 195lbs and it usually take at least 4 beers for me to start feeling a "buzz", so I think this guy should of been able to make the call depending on the frequency of him having the beers....as of ccw I live Illinois so I know nothing about that (but 3 beers? I would carry)

[Alaskapopo]

Originally Posted by Hedshot

I usually start drinking about 7:30 AM.....but I get of work at 7AM and I weigh 195lbs and it usually take at least 4 beers for me to start feeling a "buzz", so I think this guy should of been able to make the call depending on the frequency of him having the beers....as of ccw I live Illinois so I know nothing about that (but 3 beers? I would carry)

The problem is you are intoxicated way before you feel a buzz. I have arrested plenty of people for DUI who did not yet feel buzzed. Your perception when you are drinking is not reliable. Also if you were carrying after drinking at all you are acting irresponsible. Alcohol and guns don't mix. No way to argue this.
Pat

[Hedshot]

maybe legally intoxicated....but .08 BAC doesnt automatically mean that you are unable to make decisions...it depends on the individual


I have had my dad (which is a LEO) give me a breathalizer one day before I walked down the street to my house and it said that I was legally drunk.....but nobody even could tell that I had been drinking, I just wanted him to let me blow because I have never done it before (I had a few beers before walking down there)

[Alaskapopo]

Originally Posted by Hedshot

maybe legally intoxicated....but .08 BAC doesnt automatically mean that you are unable to make decisions...it depends on the individual


I have had my dad (which is a LEO) give me a breathalizer one day before I walked down the street to my house and it said that I was legally drunk.....but nobody even could tell that I had been drinking, I just wanted him to let me blow because I have never done it before (I had a few beers before walking down there)

Just because no untrained person can tell he is intoxicated does not mean he is not impaired. .08 is the legal limit for a reason. It does not depend on the individual .08 is .08 and it will get you arrested in most states.
Pat

[Terry]

Booze and guns do not mix. Mixed with poor judgment. But a good lawyer will get both of them off. It will end up being the trees fault. It was an unlawful stop and the driver was just trying to LEAVE.

[griz312000]

Originally Posted by Bree

When it comes to drugs and alcohol, I disagree... one size does fit all... ZERO TOLERANCE.

I haven't surveyed the laws to see what the maximum BAC's are by state if any. I know that Michigan has a .02 BAC for CCW. I know that Minnesota had a bill that would have voided a CCW if there was ANY detactable BAC. I don't think it passed but it was on the table. I would have supported that bill if I had been a Minnesotan.

Mind you, I am not talking about WHERE you carry. I live in NY where I can carry in a bar. They prefer that we don't but it is not illegal. Of course they can revoke our licenses at will so it is a good idea not to cross the licensing officers or judges.

I am only talking about actually drinking (or taking controlled substances) and carrying. It this respect, I think any consumption at all should cause you to leave your gun at home. With our rights under assault one of the best ways to keep our rights is to eliminate unforced errors... prevent stupid stuff from causing unnecessary incidents.... and drinking and carrying is an invitation to stupid stuff.

The technical aspect relates to the effect of alcohol on processing multiple inputs simultaneously. Self defense with a handgun requires coordination of fine mental determinations about the nature and degree of threat, danger to innocent bystanders, projected path of your projectile, methods of defense available etc. with the physical motor skills necessary to retrieve your gun from concealment, draw and mount the weapon, aim and fire it.

There is a lot going on at one time. It is just like riding a motorcycle. Multiple inputs combined with multiple judgements and physical actions. Research shows that even a single drink interferes with the proper operation of this processing. With life at stake, there is no room for unnecessary impairment. For that reason, I believe in the zero tolerance policy for all.

OK, then...how about this...you go out to the restaurant for a meal and have a couple drinks, leaving the weapon at home. You go home, go to bed and someone breaks into your house. Are you going to tell him.."Can you come back after my BAC hits 0.00?" Kinda apples and oranges, but you can see my point. I also don't think the article gives nearly enough information to have a valid opinion one way or the other on this one. I certainly have to be suspect of any media report when it has anything to do with guns, especially, OMG!!! a handgun!!!! I'd sure like to know what happened to the driver???

[Modificationvt]

Its hard to say what I would have done in that situation...(I know I wouldn't have been drinking, and maybe that would make a difference in how the story sounded) but If some one drove a car threw a croud of people and hits a tree I would assume they are drunk...and if they started to back up, well thats fleeing the sceene, and puts more people in danger. If he stopped a dangerus f*ck like that from driving any further he saved lives. (we all know cars and especialy DD causes more deaths than guns do)

I have a hatred for drunk drivers (I had 3 friends killed by a DD any the all but walked on it)

That being said I dont carry to be a cop, and not being their I cant say what I would have done.