Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Gym Shooting in Knoxville.

  1. #1
    Regular Member Fallguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    McKenzie Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    705

    Post imported post

    From Knoxnews.com




    Gym shooter won't be charged; police say victim started fight
    By Don Jacobs
    Originally published 10:15 a.m., November 29, 2007
    Updated 10:15 a.m., November 29, 2007


    Authorities this morning said a man who fired a pistol into his assailant's stomach at an Northeast Knoxville fitness center does not face a criminal charge, but the wounded man might.

    Knoxville Police Department spokesman Darrell DeBusk said no charges are expected against Kristopher Kitts, 29, who shot Erik Knight, also 29, once in the stomach with a .22-calber pistol.

    Knight was taken to the University of Tennessee Medical Center with the non-life threatening wound, DeBusk said. Knight was listed this morning in critical condition.

    DeBusk said Knight attacked Kitts about 6:30 p.m. Wednesday in the Rush Fitness Complex, 3001 Knoxville Center. Knight knocked Kitts down and was choking Kitts, DeBusk said, when Kitts reached into his pocket and pulled out a pistol.

    DeBusk said Kitts has a carry permit for the weapon.

    While DeBusk said prosecutors in the Knox County district attorney's office deemed no charges would be filed against Kitts, the spokesman said Knight may face a criminal offense because of the incident.

    DeBusk declined to discuss what prompted the attack at the gym.

    More details as they develop online and in Friday's News Sentinel.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  2. #2
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Fallguy wrote:
    DeBusk said Knight attacked Kitts about 6:30 p.m. Wednesday in the Rush Fitness Complex, 3001 Knoxville Center. Knight knocked Kitts down and was choking Kitts, DeBusk said, when Kitts reached into his pocket and pulled out a pistol.

    DeBusk said Kitts has a carry permit for the weapon.

    While DeBusk said prosecutors in the Knox County district attorney's office deemed no charges would be filed against Kitts, the spokesman said Knight may face a criminal offense because of the incident.

    DeBusk declined to discuss what prompted the attack at the gym.

    Sounds like a clear case of self-defense. Knight is lucky that Kitts wasn't carrying a more normal/recommendedcarry gun, I think.

    I wonder why DeBusk would not inform on the reason for theattack.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    The perp was choking the CCer, he pulled his gun and shot the perp in the stomach. Why does the media label the perp a "victim" in the title of the article?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Fallguy wrote:
    DeBusk said Knight attacked Kitts about 6:30 p.m. Wednesday in the Rush Fitness Complex, 3001 Knoxville Center. Knight knocked Kitts down and was choking Kitts, DeBusk said, when Kitts reached into his pocket and pulled out a pistol.

    DeBusk said Kitts has a carry permit for the weapon.

    While DeBusk said prosecutors in the Knox County district attorney's office deemed no charges would be filed against Kitts, the spokesman said Knight may face a criminal offense because of the incident.

    DeBusk declined to discuss what prompted the attack at the gym.

    Sounds like a clear case of self-defense. Knight is lucky that Kitts wasn't carrying a more normal/recommendedcarry gun, I think.

    I wonder why DeBusk would not inform on the reason for theattack.
    Probably because it's none of the media's business. Besides, there is no good reason to be choking some guy at the gym, no matter what started it. Even if the incident spawned from the real victim saying something about the size of the perp's genitals, and perverted things about his sister, he still wasn't justified in reacting by choking him.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    edit: doubletap.

  6. #6
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    expvideo wrote:
    The perp was choking the CCer, he pulled his gun and shot the perp in the stomach. Why does the media label the perp a "victim" in the title of the article?
    Another reason why I just LOVE the media!

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Sounds like a clear case of self-defense. Knight is lucky that Kitts wasn't carrying a more normal/recommendedcarry gun, I think.

    I wonder why DeBusk would not inform on the reason for theattack.
    So, would you say shooting his unarmed attacker was a good strategy in this situation? (I know you won't admit it, but I had to ask...)

    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Fallguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    McKenzie Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    705

    Post imported post

    YES!!

    As long as he felt his life was in danger and if someone was choking me and I couldn't get them off me....I'd shoot them!!
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    For the first time in a while in this forum, sounds like a clear-cut and justifiable (not just "legal") self-defense case.

    Makes me think, though, about carrying while at the gym. Normally I don't have anything on me because I can't have objects digging into me while lifting.

    Maybe the reason the shooter only had a .22 on him was because it was the only gun comfortable enough to wear while exercising? I'm sorry, I love my .44 and all, but I'm not gonna wear it while bench pressing...

  10. #10
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    Sounds like a clear case of self-defense. Knight is lucky that Kitts wasn't carrying a more normal/recommendedcarry gun, I think.

    I wonder why DeBusk would not inform on the reason for theattack.
    So, would you say shooting his unarmed attacker was a good strategy in this situation? (I know you won't admit it, but I had to ask...)

    HankT's renowned Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense:

    It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.©

    remains unscathed. Based on the information reported so far, though, it was a good thing for the chokee to have shot the choker if he was in reasonable fear of his life or servious injury. Shooting him wasa good tactic. I'm with Falllguy's point: if a guy is choking me and I can't get him off and I am in reasonable feer of death or severe injury I would shoot the chap if I could.

    And not with a measly .22.

    I'm pretty sure I would be able to get the guy off me. I would try very hard because I would hate to shoot an unarmed man. It's a bad strategy to do so.




  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    So, would you say shooting his unarmed attacker was a good strategy in this situation? (I know you won't admit it, but I had to ask...)

    HankT's renowned Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense:

    It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.©

    remains unscathed. Based on the information reported so far, though, it was a good thing for the chokee to have shot the choker if he was in reasonable fear of his life or servious injury. Shooting him wasa good tactic. I'm with Falllguy's point: if a guy is choking me and I can't get him off and I am in reasonable feer of death or severe injury I would shoot the chap if I could.

    And not with a measly .22.

    I'm pretty sure I would be able to get the guy off me. I would try very hard because I would hate to shoot an unarmed man. It's a bad strategy to do so.


    So, how can something be a good tactic, and yet a bad strategy at the same time?

    The point I'm making is that unarmed people can pose threat to life and limb. There are exceptions to your rule, and this is one of them.

    Like I said, I don't expect you to be capable to admit it. Thanks for being a good sport and proving me right.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844

    Post imported post

    Therenowned Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense:
    Plays both sides of the fence.

    If the shooter is acquitted of wrong doing it is good tactics or an accident,however if he is found to be guilty or if the accident was avoidable he is a goof with a gun.


    it isn't a good idea to shoot unarmed people but sometimes it is necessary
    most people will regret shooting anyone armed or not (media andlegal system):P

    they will hang you out there to be whipped
    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Going to have to agree with Hank here.

    It's kind of like: Killing civilian non-combatants in war is bad strategy.

    However, if you have 10 high value enemy combatants battened down in a house with 2 civilians blowing the heck out of you with heavy small arms fire, it may be a tactical necessity to call in an air strike and destroy the house, thereby killing everyone, including the 2 civilians.

    Strategically we continue the policy of Killing civilian non-combatants in war is bad strategy, and recognize the tactical reality that sometimes it is necessary to violate that strategic tenet.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  14. #14
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    It's kind of like: Killing civilian non-combatants in war is bad strategy.

    However, if you have 10 high value enemy combatants battened down in a house with 2 civilians blowing the heck out of you with heavy small arms fire, it may be a tactical necessity to call in an air strike and destroy the house, thereby killing everyone, including the 2 civilians.

    Strategically we continue the policy of Killing civilian non-combatants in war is bad strategy, and recognize the tactical reality that sometimes it is necessary to violate that strategic tenet.
    It's very much like that.

    Thank you, sir, for your apt analogy.




  15. #15
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Agent19 wrote:
    Therenowned Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense:
    ...


    it isn't a good idea to shoot unarmed people but sometimes it is necessary
    most people will regret shooting anyone armed or not (media andlegal system)...
    Yah, that's pretty good too, A19.

    As shown above, deepdiver understands it too.

    Not too hard to do....with an open mind.


    Understanding the different levels of strategy and tactics is a must. Once having that, it's pretty straightforward.

    Remember, it's been over two years sinceHPCSD© was finalized and brought into this world, exclusively at OCDO. It has never, not by anyone, sane or nutty, been successfully challenged.

    Thanks A19. Thanks deepdiver. We owe you guys a debt. Hopefully, we canpreventsome unfortunate outcomes/tragedies to armed law abiding ciitizens...

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona, U.S.
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    I have routinely seen you quote your postulate but I have never seen it in entirety. Do you have a link to the entire postulate? Thanks.



  17. #17
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    protector84 wrote:
    I have routinely seen you quote your postulate but I have never seen it in entirety. Do you have a link to the entire postulate? Thanks.
    Sure thing, P84.

    Here, try this:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum60/30638.html

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hodgenville, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,261

    Post imported post

    I'm just wondering how a non life threatening woundcan put one in critical condition. "Right On Top Of It" news papers???

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona, U.S.
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    Ok, I thought your postulate actually consisted of some detailed information at least the length of an essay. Unfortunately, it appears your postulate is nothing more than the mere statement "It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person" where you have quoted various news articles to support your postulate. That is similar to me going around advertising some famous postulate as "It is a bad strategy to stand close to a cliff while intoxicated." Next, please.



  20. #20
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    protector84 wrote:
    Ok, I thought your postulate actually consisted of some detailed information at least the length of an essay. Unfortunately, it appears your postulate is nothing more than the mere statement "It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person" where you have quoted various news articles to support your postulate. That is similar to me going around advertising some famous postulate as "It is a bad strategy to stand close to a cliff while intoxicated." Next, please.

    Here's another one: It is a bad strategy to be a lazy reader.



  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    Hypocrite.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County VA, ,
    Posts
    207

    Post imported post

    Can I not read dates correctly, or did you just bring a 2 year old post back from the dead just to get your jollys off that someone seemingly agreed with you about your dumbass postulate? That was a nice, easy +3 to your post count. Trying to catch up to Mr. Huffman?



  23. #23
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Wangmuf wrote:
    That was a nice, easy +3 to your post count. Trying to catch up to Mr. Huffman?

    It's not Mister Huffman, Wangmuf.

    It's MASTER Huffman.

    :P

    But, no, I'm not trying to catch Doug. As of today, he has 7,039 posts on OCDO. Too high a number to get to.

    Doug very well could catch Citizen, however, as Citizen has 7,385 posts. Less than 350 more than Doug....

    It's gonna be a horse race between those two thoroughbreds....



  24. #24
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    bohdi wrote:
    Hypocrite.

    Why do you say that, bohdi?

    What points have I made that cause you to make that allegation?




  25. #25
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    expvideo wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    Fallguy wrote:
    DeBusk said Knight attacked Kitts about 6:30 p.m. Wednesday in the Rush Fitness Complex, 3001 Knoxville Center. Knight knocked Kitts down and was choking Kitts, DeBusk said, when Kitts reached into his pocket and pulled out a pistol.

    DeBusk said Kitts has a carry permit for the weapon.

    While DeBusk said prosecutors in the Knox County district attorney's office deemed no charges would be filed against Kitts, the spokesman said Knight may face a criminal offense because of the incident.

    DeBusk declined to discuss what prompted the attack at the gym.

    Sounds like a clear case of self-defense. Knight is lucky that Kitts wasn't carrying a more normal/recommendedcarry gun, I think.

    I wonder why DeBusk would not inform on the reason for theattack.
    Probably because it's none of the media's business. Besides, there is no good reason to be choking some guy at the gym, no matter what started it. Even if the incident spawned from the real victim saying something about the size of the perp's genitals, and perverted things about his sister, he still wasn't justified in reacting by choking him.
    Would choking be OK if he talked about your sister's genitals?
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •