Who needs a gun at a school board meeting? (Amazing Video)

[hogeaterf6]

Why is it ileagal to carry on school property?

 

[Citizen]

Why is it ileagal to carry on school property?

Because Brady Bunchers lobbied sympathetic federal legislators who had enough support in both houses to pass the bill. And, probably traded votes on other bills with legislators who didn't give a damn about self-defense rights, and thought they would look "concerned for the kids" at home.

Just read the "legislative intent" of the GFSZ act. But, first wrap your head in duct tape so it can't explode.

 

[papa bear]

Media bias

what realy bothers me is the media bias in the way it is reported. i first seen it on fox news and it was pretty start forward,nut shoots at school board, brought down by armed security former board member. even showing interviews with members praising the GG with saving their lives by shooting the nut. then as the day went on the other networks made no reference to the nut being stopped by armed response. then they started praising the dummy with the purse. the clip i first seen the BG went down and then fired into the ceiling toward the back where the cops were, it looked like to me he emptied the gun with no way to shoot his self. and that's all you heard from the media is how he took his own life. i would like to see the few more minutes after he went down

 

[eye95]

...i would like to see the few more minutes after he went down

Whoever has this video is just not making it available, and I don't know why. CNN played the audio of the gunfight after the perp went down, but the video went still. It was a lot of gunfire. I have asked others who might have found it to post it, but no one has.

 

[Meatbag79]

He had caps?!

I wonder how it misses at that range???

If you listen to what they say in the video, you hear someone say he had caps! (Blanks)

I wonder if that was the truth or if it was on the tape to make it sound good?

It wasn't the truth. They thought he had caps, because he didn't hit anyone. If you notice his second shot (the mistaken shot when he had the gun down) you will see a hole appear in the floor where he shot it.

Those were real bullets.

 

[palerider116]

Citizen,

To explain my position, and this is of course my perception, the facts that would believe me there is intent:

1) Irrational behavior (spraying a V on the wall is not only illegal but irrational for somebody in a school board meeting.)
2) The location of the meeting - though we both think the GFSZ law is stupid and unconstitutional, this is a location where weapons are banned outside of on duty LE (or armed security, sigh).
3) The activities taking place (its a meeting, not a trip to the gun range)
4) The absence of a lawful reason to display a firearm in the hand (there existed no conditions where anyone could lawfully draw a firearm and claim self defense) Without a self defense situation existing, these actions would make him the belligerent.
5) After he sprayed the V and as he drew the firearm, it was pointed at the female blonde, and the board in general.
6) A lack of verbal threat or lack of discharging the firearm does negate intent after the weapon has been drawn and pointed.

All of these actions/factors are coming together to form the AOI triangle. Ability and opportunity are clearly present. For intent, the totality of the circumstances would come together to lead a reasonable person to believe that this man intended to do harm (its now just a question of when he fire, or if someone will take him out).

While considering this is Florida, and their self defense rules are different from VA (as far as I have read through the VA code for homicide, self defense in VA has been primarily determined through case law.) Perception is going to vary from each individual, and that also must be factored in.

This would factor into my articulation of intent, as having watched a video and not being there in person.

Here is the Florida link for the concealed weapons/self defense laws:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

In my opinion of reading Florida's guidelines, and the totality of the actions of the criminal,
Ability, Opportunity, and Intent are satisfied, and a innocent third party or a school board member would have been justified in shooting the suspect the moment the gun was drawn.

 

[since9]

His whole manner and handling of the weapon stunk of learning how to use a firearm by watching action TV shows.

Yet when you read the news you find out he was prior military. As for his second shot surprise, it's a common reaction for shooters when it's either their first time with semi-autos, or they're rusty.

6) A lack of verbal threat or lack of discharging the firearm does negate intent after the weapon has been drawn and pointed.

That plus 1-5 spells "intent" in my book.

In my opinion of reading Florida's guidelines, and the totality of the actions of the criminal,
Ability, Opportunity, and Intent are satisfied, and a innocent third party or a school board member would have been justified in shooting the suspect the moment the gun was drawn.

I'm not very familiar with the self-defense laws in Florida, but from the reasonable, rational man point of view, you're batting 1,000. If he hesitated at all, it was probably because what was going through his mind as he revealed during the news interview the next day, that he was scared of losing his job, or going to jail.

This is why it pays to know, without hesitation, when we can and cannot, as well as should and should not, use deadly force.

 

[eye95]

since9: I thought I was the lone member of your ignore list.

I have prior military experience. 20 years. The rounds I put through military firearms are a fraction of those I put through my personal guns. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in military training unless we knew more specifics of what that training was.

His behavior with the firearm betrays a lack of proficiency with the particular piece of hardware in his hand.

 

[since9]

since9: I thought I was the lone member of your ignore list.

Yes, but, "eye95 has chosen not to receive private messages or may not be allowed to receive private messages,"

So, on with life.

 

[palerider116]

snip...
I'm not very familiar with the self-defense laws in Florida, but from the reasonable, rational man point of view, you're batting 1,000.

Thanks!

The major lesson to be gleaned that its not just ONE factor that establishes intent. The totality of the circumstance determines the legality of a self defense situation. In this situation, I counted 5 different things that were coming together to paint a picture of intent. Somebody may find more or see different ones that would lead them to the self determination that there was intent.

Situational awareness is key. Self defense doesn't start when you pull the trigger. What leads up to it is just as important as the final irrevocable act of pulling the trigger. Keep your head on a swivel and scrutinize everyone and everything in your zone of influence.

 

[palerider116]

Since9 and Eye95,

I enjoy reading the posts from both of you because they are always rational and based on fact.

Just thought I'd pass that on along to you both.

 

[Citizen]

Since9 and Eye95,

I enjoy reading the posts from both of you because they are always rational and based on fact.

Just thought I'd pass that on along to you both.

I saw that! Leave me out of the compliment will you? OK. I was being nice. Now, I'm gonna haveta tighten the screws a little. Serves me right for thinkin' you was a nice cop 'cause you talked all pro-freedom and so forth.

 

[Citizen]

Unfortunately waiting for that triad to present itself clearly squanders time that could be used to eliminate a clear threat. In this instance, considering the location and the type of meeting, somebody drawing a weapon would cover the AOI triangle.

(Now, see. I was being all polite earlier. I didn't point this out then; guess I got to now. )


Huh!?! Isn't that a little self-contradictory? How can the triad not be present clearly, but the threat be present clearly? The triad is the threat. If the threat is clear, then the triad is clear, too, and vice versa.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP The major lesson to be gleaned that its not just ONE factor that establishes intent. The totality of the circumstance determines the legality of a self defense situation. In this situation, I counted 5 different things that were coming together to paint a picture of intent.

(the "poking" below is being done playfully )

You mean that list earlier? Painting the "V", in a school board meeting, with no lawful reason to draw a gun?

That's your reasoning? Wait. First let me thank you for explaining your rationale, that which I have been asking all posters for while now. Thank you.

Now. That's your reasoning? There is nothing there that makes drawing the gun Jeopardy/Intent. At most we have brandishing, which is not a lethal force situation under AOJ/I. It could very easily have been that such a brandisher did not intend to use it.

This is not a situation that is already recognized by the common law such as a robber brandishing a gun. Many robbers have shot their victim after brandishing and robbing, or while robbing, and the gun provides the forcible element for an already-recognized forcible felony. Same for rape. Brandishing is not even a felony, at least in VA. And, I'm betting intimidating a school board is not recognized as a forcible felony by the common law on self-defense. Plenty of brandishers have not shot or stabbed anybody. That's why brandishing, or an equivalent, is its own charge.

You might be pioneering the law here; but, until I see common-law recognition of intimidating school boards with a gun as a forcible felony like robbery and rape, I think you're rationale leaks water from a legal standpoint. Also, I still don't see that the first three circumstances on your list genuinely provide a reasonable person the idea that the gun-drawer is actually going to start shooting. AOJ/I doesn't say "there is some chance he might begin a deadly or grave injury assault." It says "objective indication that would give a reasonable person reason to believe that the brandisher is, or is literally about to, actually do it" or words to that effect.

Now, a jury may still let you off, possibly being disinclined to convict just based on them thinking to themselves that they would be scared and probably shoot, too. But, that is different from meeting the elements of AOJ/I. And, a grateful prosecutor, backed up by a grateful school board, may decide not to prosecute; still different from meeting all the elements of AOJ/I. The jury or prosecutor might just as easily not let you off.

 

[palerider116]

I saw that! Leave me out of the compliment will you? OK. I was being nice. Now, I'm gonna haveta tighten the screws a little. Serves me right for thinkin' you was a nice cop 'cause you talked all pro-freedom and so forth.

<3 Citizen too

 

[Sc0tt]

Heres what pisses me off. Why does the school board have armed security, when everyone else at the meeting has to be disarmed and there are no armed guards in our schools while teachers and student have to pray the police are quick to respond to a school shooting in a "gun free zone"

 

[palerider116]

snip...x3
(the "poking" below is being done playfully )

That's your reasoning? Wait. First let me thank you for explaining your rationale, that which I have been asking all posters for while now. Thank you.

Now. That's your reasoning? There is nothing there that makes drawing the gun Jeopardy/Intent. At most we have brandishing, which is not a lethal force situation under AOJ/I. It could very easily have been that such a brandisher did not intend to use it.

I appreciate you too Citizen.

I differ in my understanding in regards to brandishing. A sane person could and would reasonably believe that the person brandishing the weapon intends to do them harm. The overt act of brandishing would satisfy intent. A verbal threat is not needed to convey intent, though it would only strengthen the claim of self defense. The question is what does a reasonable and prudent person believe to be happening.

The Florida laws that apply to this situation:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

776.08 Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; car-jacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

Brandishing a firearm would lead a reasonable and prudent person to believe that imminent death or great bodily harm was present, and an active threat. Jeopardy/Intent is satisfied by brandishing a weapon at someone. Actions convey intent.

I respectfully submit this back for your consideration.

One of the best write ups I have seen is on this website:
http://www.useofforce.us/3aojp/

 

[brboyer]

I appreciate you too Citizen.

I differ in my understanding in regards to brandishing. A sane person could and would reasonably believe that the person brandishing the weapon intends to do them harm. The overt act of brandishing would satisfy intent. A verbal threat is not needed to convey intent, though it would only strengthen the claim of self defense. The question is what does a reasonable and prudent person believe to be happening.

The Florida laws that apply to this situation:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

776.08 Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; car-jacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

Brandishing a firearm would lead a reasonable and prudent person to believe that imminent death or great bodily harm was present, and an active threat. Jeopardy/Intent is satisfied by brandishing a weapon at someone. Actions convey intent.

I respectfully submit this back for your consideration.

One of the best write ups I have seen is on this website:
http://www.useofforce.us/3aojp/

I'll jump in here...please excuse me for offering my two cents!

'Brandishing' a firearm (Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.) in Florida in and of itself would not warrant shooting the offender. If the weapon was pointed at you, that MAY provide the reasonable fear required, based on the circumstances. In this situation (especially since it was filmed) would easily support the victim's reasonable fear. An opposite example would be getting swept at the range - you may not be able to establish the reasonable fear requirement.

In the absence of any spoken/implied threat, the situation may not rise to the level of Aggravated Assault, which is a Forcible Felony in Florida.

It all boils down to the totality of the circumstances.

 

[palerider116]

I'll jump in here...please excuse me for offering my two cents!

'Brandishing' a firearm (Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.) in Florida in and of itself would not warrant shooting the offender. If the weapon was pointed at you, that MAY provide the reasonable fear required, based on the circumstances. In this situation (especially since it was filmed) would easily support the victim's reasonable fear. An opposite example would be getting swept at the range - you may not be able to establish the reasonable fear requirement.

In the absence of any spoken/implied threat, the situation may not rise to the level of Aggravated Assault, which is a Forcible Felony in Florida.

It all boils down to the totality of the circumstances.

No need to apologize! I am not a lawyer, and am trying to muddle through FL law with a VA mind. Citizen offers extremely valid points, and can't be casually dismissed with a wave of the hand. Using a firearm in self defense allows no margin for error.

You are right about the totality of the circumstances. Self defense is not one answer satisfies all cases. I think the issue we are trying to iron out does a threat need to be verbalized to establish intent, or does the action itself in a proper context satisfy jeopardy/intent.

Getting muzzle swept at the range may anger you, but shooting someone wouldn't be justified. Walking into a school board meeting and pointing a weapon at someone is completely different. Pointing a gun at one person and then pointing it at different people without a verbal threat - does that satisfy jeopardy/intent?

As Citizen pointed out, shooting someone in that situation may end up being prosecuted. At this point, we are just trying to iron out jeopardy/intent.

Thanks for the input!!!

 

[1245A Defender]

and,,,

after the spray painting,,,
after brandishing the gun,,, first time ive used that word, but so far thats all it is.
the gun man tells the observers to leave,,
at this point the board members are the "hostages"!
these people have been selected to remain at the "point of a gun"!
that is a much more a direct threat, than simply being in a room with the gun man!


side thought;
if im walking, out in the world?
out of nowhere,
a man sticks a gun in my face,
ability! opportunity! jeopardy!