-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
self defense shooting in Spokane
- Thread starter cynicist
- Start date
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
erps wrote:
erps wrote:
Wouldn't that be the detective's job? Still good advice, never talk to the police, when they are "investigating" you.
kwiebe
Regular Member
imported post
He needs a good defense atty for sure, but also I'd be concerned about the eventual civil suit(s). This is going to enrich a few attorneys...
Edit: Wow I guess the civil suit is already upon him:
http://www.kxly.com/news/22106921/detail.html
He needs a good defense atty for sure, but also I'd be concerned about the eventual civil suit(s). This is going to enrich a few attorneys...
Edit: Wow I guess the civil suit is already upon him:
http://www.kxly.com/news/22106921/detail.html
FunkTrooper
Regular Member
imported post
erps wrote:
erps wrote:
And that investigation could end with someone behind bars, the point is whether your innocent or not don't talk to the police.
Vandal
Regular Member
imported post
The civil suit will financially ruin him, unless it is determined by the prosecutor to be a SD shoot and charges are dropped then under ID law he is immune from civil liability. There is a lot of info the public hasn't seen yet, as is typical of cases like this. Based on the very limited info released, I am going to withhold judgement as to whether or not it was a good shoot. I would like it to be a good shoot though, 8+ people vs. 1 is disparity of force if I have ever seen it. I highly doubt 8 people in Downtown CdA would jump a shooter with his gun drawn.
Assuming he was drinking in the bar, then he is already guilty of a misdemeanor in ID, can't carry a concealed weapon while intoxicated. When I go out, the gun stays home, even if I am not drinking. It is never a good idea to take a gun to a bar.
The civil suit will financially ruin him, unless it is determined by the prosecutor to be a SD shoot and charges are dropped then under ID law he is immune from civil liability. There is a lot of info the public hasn't seen yet, as is typical of cases like this. Based on the very limited info released, I am going to withhold judgement as to whether or not it was a good shoot. I would like it to be a good shoot though, 8+ people vs. 1 is disparity of force if I have ever seen it. I highly doubt 8 people in Downtown CdA would jump a shooter with his gun drawn.
Assuming he was drinking in the bar, then he is already guilty of a misdemeanor in ID, can't carry a concealed weapon while intoxicated. When I go out, the gun stays home, even if I am not drinking. It is never a good idea to take a gun to a bar.
kwiebe
Regular Member
imported post
Vandal wrote:
Vandal wrote:
I hate to nitpick, but it seems to me that proof of intoxication would not necessarily be satisfied by establishing that someone had merely been in a bar, drinking.
Vandal
Regular Member
imported post
You hate to nit-pick yet you do. hmm... I used the word "assuming" for a reason. Reading comprehension is a cool thing.
I am sure they did a tox screen on the shooter as part of the investigation; blood draw at the hospital or jail. He also admitted to drinking in the bar. When it comes back, he will most likely be cited for the misdemeanor.
You hate to nit-pick yet you do. hmm... I used the word "assuming" for a reason. Reading comprehension is a cool thing.
I am sure they did a tox screen on the shooter as part of the investigation; blood draw at the hospital or jail. He also admitted to drinking in the bar. When it comes back, he will most likely be cited for the misdemeanor.
kwiebe
Regular Member
imported post
Vandal wrote:
You also said "I am sure (followed by a few assumptions). Maybe they did the things you assumed, but we don't know the results. Your post indicated intoxication was a foregone conclusion.
My point was there is a difference between drinking and intoxication. A legal distinction. Legal proceedings do not allow sweeping generalizations and assumptions.
Vandal wrote:
You said "assuming he was drinking" - not "assuming he was intoxicated."
You also said "I am sure (followed by a few assumptions). Maybe they did the things you assumed, but we don't know the results. Your post indicated intoxication was a foregone conclusion.
My point was there is a difference between drinking and intoxication. A legal distinction. Legal proceedings do not allow sweeping generalizations and assumptions.
Vandal
Regular Member
imported post
Last I checked OCDO wasn't a court of law. Intoxication is at .08 in all states. It doesn't take long for a person to get there. It is a safe assumption that a person, drinking in a bar, can easily reach .08. If you want to get picky about assumptions and legalities, this entire thread is an assumption that the shooting was actually in self-defense.
Last I checked OCDO wasn't a court of law. Intoxication is at .08 in all states. It doesn't take long for a person to get there. It is a safe assumption that a person, drinking in a bar, can easily reach .08. If you want to get picky about assumptions and legalities, this entire thread is an assumption that the shooting was actually in self-defense.
kwiebe
Regular Member
imported post
Vandal wrote:
See, I reading-comprehended that all by myself.
Even though this isn't a court of law, and we're just discussing, it's still nice to keep track of assumptions and facts, and to keep them separated from each other.
(by the way, I drink and then drive all the time - but it's OK because I know how to keep from getting "intoxicated" --- or even "impaired")
http://dui.drivinglaws.org/drink-table.php
Vandal wrote:
That seems rather obvious, and is quite a retreat from your original statement ("can reach" being the operative phrase).
See, I reading-comprehended that all by myself.
Even though this isn't a court of law, and we're just discussing, it's still nice to keep track of assumptions and facts, and to keep them separated from each other.
(by the way, I drink and then drive all the time - but it's OK because I know how to keep from getting "intoxicated" --- or even "impaired")
http://dui.drivinglaws.org/drink-table.php
amzbrady
Regular Member
imported post
kwiebe wrote:
kwiebe wrote:
I'm glad to see such responsible people here, I feel much better knowing I'm on the road next to people that have been drinking but are not intoxicated or even impaired. Whew, too bad others dont know their limit, so they could minimize their drinking before getting behind the wheel.
Trigger Dr
Regular Member
imported post
Kwiebe said (by the way, I drink and then drive all the time - but it's OK because I know how to keep from getting "intoxicated" --- or even "impaired")
PLEASE share this valuable information It would be nice if everyone had this unique abilty:what:
Kwiebe said (by the way, I drink and then drive all the time - but it's OK because I know how to keep from getting "intoxicated" --- or even "impaired")
PLEASE share this valuable information It would be nice if everyone had this unique abilty:what:
OrangeIsTrouble
Regular Member
imported post
Get the f*** off the road if you have any drinks, being impaired is BEING IMPAIRED, and you might think you are below intoxicated when actually you are f***ed up. I lost two friends in a car accident and got screwed up myself because one of them fell asleep at the wheel. You think I am going to put up with knowing there are some "responsible" drinkers who think they can drink a bit and drive safe? No way in hell.
kwiebe, if you ever go to a meet, please let me know, so I get a 2 hour headstart on the road before you are on it.
Get the f*** off the road if you have any drinks, being impaired is BEING IMPAIRED, and you might think you are below intoxicated when actually you are f***ed up. I lost two friends in a car accident and got screwed up myself because one of them fell asleep at the wheel. You think I am going to put up with knowing there are some "responsible" drinkers who think they can drink a bit and drive safe? No way in hell.
kwiebe, if you ever go to a meet, please let me know, so I get a 2 hour headstart on the road before you are on it.
massivedesign
Regular Member
imported post
Poosharker wrote:
Poosharker wrote:
I have a feeling that having alcohol at any opencarry event where we are all openly armed would do a little more harm than good... So I would think that you are probably safe Poosharker.
OrangeIsTrouble
Regular Member
imported post
massivedesign wrote:
massivedesign wrote:
I hope so massivedesign, I already got enough titanium in me as it is.
amzbrady
Regular Member
imported post
Poosharker wrote:
are youthe pooinator, or Robopoo?
Poosharker wrote:
are youthe pooinator, or Robopoo?
Kildars
Regular Member
imported post
kwiebe wrote:
kwiebe wrote:
Please stop doing this. Please.
Kildars
Regular Member
imported post
I have a hard time believing that a legal gun owner just decided to escalate a situation (even if they were arguing) and use lethal force (attempted lethal force). I have an easier time believing that a group of 8 men got mad and decided 8v1 was an easy fight and attacked him.
I have a hard time believing that a legal gun owner just decided to escalate a situation (even if they were arguing) and use lethal force (attempted lethal force). I have an easier time believing that a group of 8 men got mad and decided 8v1 was an easy fight and attacked him.
OrangeIsTrouble
Regular Member
imported post
amzbrady wrote:
but "Pootanium" might work.
amzbrady wrote:
I was branded the name "Titanium Man",
but "Pootanium" might work.
amzbrady
Regular Member
imported post
absolutley not poontain for short tho, right.
absolutley not poontain for short tho, right.