• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Open Carrier shot in the commission of a crime?

Kirbinator

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
903
Location
Middle of the map, Alabama
This is an argument I frequently hear from those who CC, and push CC:

An open-carrier in the room will immediately be shot by someone committing a crime.

Naturally, this leads to a "CITE!!!" response, hence why I ask today. Has this actually ever happened, anywhere? We've had an open-carrier disarmed and robbed in WI, but we've never had one shot and killed outright as soon as someone entered a room to commit a crime.

I'm beginning to think there is about as much truth to this rumor as there is to elves that make toys or elves that help throw a ring into a volcano.
 

mahkagari

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
1,186
Location
, ,
I'm beginning to think there is about as much truth to this rumor as there is to elves that make toys or elves that help throw a ring into a volcano.

The infomed mind is well aware that it's the hobbits who throw the ring in while the elves stand in arrogant voyeurism, but is there something you're implying about the elves who are making me a new .30-06 die?
 
Last edited:

elixin77

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
591
Location
Greenville, NC, ,
one thing that i've always wondered about LotR, is why didn't the giant eagles fly them to Mordor so the hobbits can throw the ring into the volcano to begin with? Why did they show up at the last minute to rescue them, when they could have just flow there to begin with?
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
one thing that i've always wondered about LotR, is why didn't the giant eagles fly them to Mordor so the hobbits can throw the ring into the volcano to begin with? Why did they show up at the last minute to rescue them, when they could have just flow there to begin with?
But the story would have been MUCH SHORTER!
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA

Bad reference.

Not an OCer.
Not selected by a criminal to be shot because he was carrying.
Not a criminal shooting. A jury of citizens unanimously found that the shooting was justified.

For those unfamiliar with the facts: Scott was acting erratically. He was under the influence of drugs prescribed by several different doctors. He had enough drugs in his system to kill most of us, but had built up a resistance. He was told he could not carry his gun at Costco. He wouldn't leave. Cops were called and the store was evacuated. When Scott came out, he was told to show his hands and get on the ground. Instead, he reached to where the officers knew his gun was, pulled it out, and pointed it at one of the officers. That officer fired. The other officers then fired, killing Scott. It turns out that Scott had pulled the weapon still in its holster. However, the officers and other witnesses (with no dog in the hunt) testified that they believed that he had drawn his gun on the officer.

Here comes the thread hijacking! Oh, well.
 

Nevada carrier

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
1,293
Location
The Epicenter of Freedom
Not an OCer.
when someone saw he was carrying, he was OCing. His firearm was no longer concealed there for it was OC.

Not selected by a criminal to be shot because he was carrying.
he was selected because he was carrying, that's why they were their. The fact that they were not charged or doesn't make their actions any less criminal.

A jury of citizens unanimously found that the shooting was justified.
A jury that was seated without due process to the victim, no preemptive challenge was allowed by anyone other than the prosecutor. The only person allowed to challenge a jurors bias and ask that they be excused was the prosecutor. The procedure of the inquest did not allow them to return any other verdict by design, even before the facts of the case were heard.

Not a criminal shooting.
again, not criminal trial. Even if the jury did return a verdict of criminal, it wouldn't have been a conviction. If a thief steals your car and is never caught and convicted, he's still a thief. If he's caught but not convicted, he's now an emboldened thief. In this case the police are now emboldened murders.

For those unfamiliar with the facts: Scott was acting erratically. He was under the influence of drugs prescribed by several different doctors. He had enough drugs in his system to kill most of us, but had built up a resistance. He was told he could not carry his gun at Costco. He wouldn't leave. Cops were called and the store was evacuated. When Scott came out, he was told to show his hands and get on the ground. Instead, he reached to where the officers knew his gun was, pulled it out, and pointed it at one of the officers. That officer fired. The other officers then fired, killing Scott. It turns out that Scott had pulled the weapon still in its holster. However, the officers and other witnesses (with no dog in the hunt) testified that they believed that he had drawn his gun on the officer.

None of the witnesses were cross examined, none of the evidence scrutinized, no discovery and certainly no justice here. Eric Scott may have been guilty of possession of a firearm while under the influence of prescription drugs, and he may have been behaving oddly, but he was also never outright asked to leave. Nor did he threaten anyone with his firearm. Being told you cannot carry a gun somewhere is not the same as being asked or ordered to leave. The person making the statement ma believe that it is implied, but that's not how the law reads here in the free state of Nevada. The police may have had reason to investigate, but the nut cases at Costco exaggerated the circumstances so severely that the police believe there was a gunman wielding a firearm in a threatening manner. had they been told the truth they would not have had their guns drawn, with their finger on the trigger, ready to fire on a mouse fart.

The police mishandled a situation that was not as dire as they would have liked to believe. Eric Scott may have deserved a charge of unlawful possession of a firearm, but he did not deserve to be murdered.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Hijack complete. Congratulations.

I have carefully and completely related the facts of the case. However, don't take my word for the matter (nor that of the poster straining to make the facts say something else). Instead, read about the testimony for yourself and make up your own mind:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/22/coroners-inquest-erik-scott/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/23/erik-scott-day2/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/24/coroners-inquest-day3/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/25/erik-scott-inquest-day4/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/27/erik-scott-day5/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/28/erik-scott-inquest-day6/

I have no doubt that another post, like the one above, full of left-field propaganda will follow this post. Meh. I won't respond. Folks with open minds will read the testimony and make up their own minds. Bigots will accept one position or the other, without thought. Can't do anything about that, so I won't try.

Anyway, I won't participate in the hijacking of this thread with an unrelated case any longer. Let me just ask one more time for folks to read and judge for themselves, and then I'll move on, back to the original topic.
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
Eye95, I'll admit that I'm biased towards believing your posts, and don't need to read your cites.

There are other idiots out there who's cites can not even be believed.
 

Nevada carrier

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
1,293
Location
The Epicenter of Freedom
Hijack complete. Congratulations.

I have carefully and completely related the facts of the case. However, don't take my word for the matter (nor that of the poster straining to make the facts say something else). Instead, read about the testimony for yourself and make up your own mind:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/22/coroners-inquest-erik-scott/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/23/erik-scott-day2/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/24/coroners-inquest-day3/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/25/erik-scott-inquest-day4/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/27/erik-scott-day5/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/28/erik-scott-inquest-day6/

I have no doubt that another post, like the one above, full of left-field propaganda will follow this post. Meh. I won't respond. Folks with open minds will read the testimony and make up their own minds. Bigots will accept one position or the other, without thought. Can't do anything about that, so I won't try.

Anyway, I won't participate in the hijacking of this thread with an unrelated case any longer. Let me just ask one more time for folks to read and judge for themselves, and then I'll move on, back to the original topic.

Our take on this case clearly differed, but thats the great thing about the free exchange of ideas, we can do so in a civilized manner. please remember, we're on the same team. I actually enjoy the vast majority of your posts, and I find them to be both factually supported, and well thought out, but please don't think I'm a bigot simply because I disagree with you one this one.

My position is that when only one side of the story is told, the truth is somewhere between the lines.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The reason the question keeps coming up is that one argument against civilians OCing is that they will be targeted by the BGs for the open carry, while the same would not happen to CCers, leaving them free to act.

I know of not one single case of a civilian OCer being shot by a BG because he was OCing.

I do know of a case where armed BGs chose NOT to commit a crime because of the presence of OCers: The Waffle House in Kennesaw, GA.
 
Top