Negligent Discharges...x20...across the street...advice?

[Jizzzle]

imported post

Notso wrote:

If it were me, I'd try to talk to them and educate them. If you can talk with them in a non-confrontational neighborly way, explain that it's against the law and dangerous.

I was waiting for someone to say that. Hey, always handle stuff at the lowest level. I would have talked to them before I talked to any cops. Cops are useless. Just say hi, introduce yourself and explain the issue. They don't seem very gun savy. Don't turn yourself in to "that guy" and don't turn them into "those people". You know what i mean? It doens't need to be blown out of proportion, yet. Handle it like grown ups.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

imported post

Driving a carisn't the same as negligent discharge.

It might be close if I drove my car through the air at wellover 1000 fps in random directions to fall at an uncontrollable and unknown location with lethal force, but most certainly not on my own property where it would be legal.

Driving my caris more like shooting at a gun range. Ifyou shoot somewhere other than the bullet stop where you are supposed to, than you're endangering other people. Otherwise, at least most of the time, the only people that are in danger are endangering themselves, by being on the range when they shouldn't. People know cars go on roads.

IMHO, the biggest issue is where the bullets went. If they were contained to his own property, the issue is merely that he was being annoying or frightening. If they weren't, and I'm betting that they weren't, then he was clearly well outside the scope of his rights.

But as far as what to do, I'd agree talking civilly and trying to educate would be my first action. I mean, at least try to figure out what actually happened, where he was aiming, was he drunk, etc.. Do we even know for sure they weren't blanks? There's just too many unknown details to come to a firm conclusion on anything.

 

[t3rmin]

imported post

It has to be noted driving a car is to wield *way* more physical force than a gun. Cars are used much more frequently by many more people every day than guns. Many more people are killed or injured in any given time period by cars. In a sense, they're much more dangerous. Now back to your regularly-scheduled programming...

(I'm not disagreeing with the above poster at all. Just sayin'. ;-))

 

[marshaul]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

t3rmin wrote:

If anybody did they oughta nail the idiot to a wall. Freedom doesn't mean no consequences.

 

Perfect.  I can endanger as many unknowing or unwilling people as I want, just as long as no one actually gets hurt.  I love this place.

That's how you encourage responsibility rather than compliance with the abstract. In the long run this is a more beneficial approach, even though it terrifies you.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

stealthyeliminator wrote:

Driving a car isn't the same as negligent discharge.

Statistically driving a car kills more people than (what you assume to be) negligent discharge. The simple fact is, as I said above, the way you encourage responsibility rather than abstract compliance is with result-oriented criminal and tort-based liability rather than "preventative" cause-oriented regulation.

AWDstylez is terrified of peoples' irresponsibility, but what he doesn't realize is that nanny-stating leads to more irresponsibility, and together they form a vicious cycle.

The way out is result-oriented liability, as I've said. Preemptive cause-oriented regulation is NOT value-adding.

 

[JoeSparky]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

stealthyeliminator wrote:

Driving a carisn't the same as negligent discharge.

Statistically driving a car kills more people than (what you assume to be) negligent discharge. The simple fact is, as I said above, the way you encourage responsibility rather than abstract compliance is with result-oriented criminal and tort-based liability rather than "preventative" cause-oriented regulation.

AWDstylez is terrified of peoples' irresponsibility, but what he doesn't realize is that nanny-stating leads to more irresponsibility, and together they form a vicious cycle.

The way out is result-oriented liability, as I've said. Preemptive cause-oriented regulation is NOT value-adding.

The way I look at many of these types of laws is...

When I was young I may have sped in my car and taken some (many) chances but IF I KNEW THE COPS WERE AROUND, I would be on my good behavior so I could minimize the chances of getting a ticket!

As I became more mature (some may argue this point) my driving habits changed somewhat toward an increased safety vantage point rather that avoidance of the ticket!

The immature method is "oh, the LEO is there so I won't speed RIGHT NOW!

The mature method is, "I am safer as is the rest of society if drive more carefully and follow the speed laws!.

I hope SOME on this forum can make the jump from cars and driving to Gun ownership and RESPONSIBLE gun handling!

JoeSparky

 

[marshaul]

imported post

You don't need arbitrary regulation to make kids drive better when cops are around. Result-based reckless driving laws are sufficient to achieve this end.

 

[t3rmin]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Statistically driving a car kills more people than (what you assume to be) negligent discharge. The simple fact is, as I said above, the way you encourage responsibility rather than abstract compliance is with result-oriented criminal and tort-based liability rather than "preventative" cause-oriented regulation.

AWDstylez is terrified of peoples' irresponsibility, but what he doesn't realize is that nanny-stating leads to more irresponsibility, and together they form a vicious cycle.

The way out is result-oriented liability, as I've said. Preemptive cause-oriented regulation is NOT value-adding.

+1776

 

[t3rmin]

imported post

marshaul: can I ask what's on your reading list?

 

[sraacke]

imported post

t3rmin wrote:

As somebody already said, it's quite a different thing to shoot into the ground versus into the air or in somebody's direction.

Shooting into the ground is not any safer than firing into the air. The bullet could glance off a rock, concrete or under ground utilities.

From http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/police/37032159.html?showAll=y&c=y

Across the street at 3818 Dalton St., officers saw water shooting up from the front yard of the residence there and several shell casings, Kelly said.

A man at the residence, Travis London, 29, admitted to firing a gun and hitting a water line in the yard, Kelly said. Officers issued him a misdemeanor summons for illegal discharge of a firearm.

Celbrating by shooting guns is Dangerous and illegal.
As for confronting my "neighbors"and discussing their unsafe activities.... Uuhhh, no. I'm not going to knock on their door and try to be their new gun buddy.They will be lucky if, while popping caps in their front yard, they don't see me aiming a militia rifle at them while I call the cops.

If I see someone driving drunk I don't try to buddy up to them and show off my car. I call the cops and tell them to get that dangerous person off the roads I drive on.

If I see my neighbor beating the hell out of his wife I don't show up the next day and introduce him to my lady.

Maybe the OP has a nice neighborhood where all the neighbors smile and wave and know each others names. I don't live in a nice place like that. My neighbors have pitbulls and abusive relationships and get into fistfights and cussing matches in their yards. They sell drugs to pay their rent and get arrested for doing things like robbing a hair salon with a knife. My neighbors are more like these guys-

Police responded to a call of shots fired in the 3800 block of Dalton Street at 12:28 a.m. Friday, Kelly said. When police arrived, two men at 3817 Dalton St. fled and one man remained at the residence, Kelly said.

Officers caught the two men who fled and found 20 spent rounds, two live rounds and eight weapons — one of which was stolen — under the house and in the yard, Kelly said. All eight weapons had been fired, he said.

Darryl Keith Travis Jr., 23, 3817 Dalton St.; Ronald James Carmena Jr., 26, 3132 Ontario St.; and Theopolies Darson, 21, 209 Taft St., were booked into Parish Prison on one count each of illegal use of a weapon, felon in possession of a firearm and illegal carrying of a weapon.

They were criminals and had no business with the guns much less to be out shooting them into the air in the middle of their neighborhood. The way to deal with this is to CALL THE COPS.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

t3rmin wrote:

marshaul: can I ask what's on your reading list?

Classically Liberal

Praxeology.net (essays)

Praxeology.net (blog)

Not PC

And of course I spend time at Reason, and read pretty much anything else that comes my way. But those are a few of my favorites at this present point in time.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

yale wrote:

From http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/police/37032159.html?showAll=y&c=y 

Across the street at 3818 Dalton St., officers saw water shooting up from the front yard of the residence there and several shell casings, Kelly said.

A man at the residence, Travis London, 29, admitted to firing a gun and hitting a water line in the yard, Kelly said. Officers issued him a misdemeanor summons for illegal discharge of a firearm.

Officers caught the two men who fled and found 20 spent rounds, two live rounds and eight weapons — one of which was stolen — under the house and in the yard, Kelly said. All eight weapons had been fired, he said.

Darryl Keith Travis Jr., 23, 3817 Dalton St.; Ronald James Carmena Jr., 26, 3132 Ontario St.; and Theopolies Darson, 21, 209 Taft St., were booked into Parish Prison on one count each of illegal use of a weapon, felon in possession of a firearm and illegal carrying of a weapon.

 
They were criminals and had no business with the guns much less to be out shooting them into the air in the middle of their neighborhood.   The way to deal with this is to CALL THE COPS. 

Those are all (except for the discharge) malum prohibitum offenses. It doesn't demonstrate that they were criminals before the state declared them thus.

As for discharge being so uber dangerous, I don't do it and I don't recommend it, but can you find some statistics for how many people are killed by falling bullets and ricochets on New Year's?

I don't have the numbers but I happen to know that a lot of admittedly very stupid people fire a lot of bullets at something that doesn't qualify as a target, and as dangerous as it may be the vast majority of the time nobody is hurt.

The simple fact is that it's hard enough to hit something you're aiming at. As anybody whose been in a gunfight can tell you, all those bullets that don't hit their target don't magically hit children, but almost always end up embedded in a wall or the ground.

 

[Gordie]

imported post

I don't have the numbers but I happen to know that a lot of admittedly very stupid people fire a lot of bullets at something that doesn't qualify as a target, and as dangerous as it may be the vast majority of the time nobody is hurt.

It only takes one time for it to become too often, especially if it's you that gets hit.

How often do any of us become the victim of violent crime, yet we prepare and carry weapons for our self defense. The vast majority of the time, nobody triesto rob, injure, or kill me, but I'm not counting on statistical probability to ensure my safety.:celebrate

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Fair enough. I think my point is that a little conversation with the neighbors after the shooting is over might be a better approach than CALLING TEH LAWR!

It's dangerous enough to react to, not dangerous enough to freak out over.

 

[t3rmin]

imported post

We spend entirely too much time thinking about what *might* happen. It's not a very worthwhile society or life that's governed by paranoia. What about what did happen, or what's likely to happen?

Shooting into the ground is unlikely to injure your neighbor. If it does, you'll be punished severely (hopefully). Potential ground-shooters have to take that liability into account, just like any other deterrent to crime. That's why most folks don't do it.

Killing or hurting people is already illegal, malum in se. You don't need a special "pre-crime" law for every possible method. It would be impossible to implement such a system without tyranny.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

t3rmin wrote:

We spend entirely too much time thinking about what *might* happen. It's not a very worthwhile society or life that's governed by paranoia. What about what did happen, or what's likely to happen?

Shooting into the ground is unlikely to injure your neighbor. If it does, you'll be punished severely (hopefully). Potential ground-shooters have to take that liability into account, just like any other deterrent to crime. That's why most folks don't do it.

Killing or hurting people is already illegal, malum in se. You don't need a special "pre-crime" law for every possible method. It would be impossible to implement such a system without tyranny.

Excellent point. This is what I was getting at a couple posts above.

 

[Gordie]

imported post

t3rmin wrote:

We spend entirely too much time thinking about what *might* happen. It's not a very worthwhile society or life that's governed by paranoia. What about what did happen, or what's likely to happen?

Shooting into the ground is unlikely to injure your neighbor. If it does, you'll be punished severely (hopefully). Potential ground-shooters have to take that liability into account, just like any other deterrent to crime. That's why most folks don't do it.

Killing or hurting people is already illegal, malum in se. You don't need a special "pre-crime" law for every possible method. It would be impossible to implement such a system without tyranny.

Yes, but firing into the air can cause death or injury.These cases are well documented and known. It is little comfort to the victim and their family if the person responsible is punished, it won't bring your loved one back. This is why it is illegal to fire into the air. It is a risky behavior that has no real purpose to justify it.What is one legitimate purpose of firing into the air that would justify the risk to others? Banning bad behavior is not tyranny, banning the tools that may be used by some for the purpose of bad behavior, is.

 

[mrbiggles]

imported post

t3rmin wrote:

Killing or hurting people is already illegal, malum in se. You don't need a special "pre-crime" law for every possible method. It would be impossible to implement such a system without tyranny.

very well put

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Gordie wrote:

Yes, but firing into the air can cause death or injury.These cases are well documented and known. It is little comfort to the victim and their family if the person responsible is punished, it won't bring your loved one back. This is why it is illegal to fire into the air. It is a risky behavior that has no real purpose to justify it.What is one legitimate purpose of firing into the air that would justify the risk to others? Banning bad behavior is not tyranny, banning the tools that may be used by some for the purpose of bad behavior, is.

Wow, I'm glad someone gets it.

 

[mrbiggles]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Gordie wrote:

Yes, but firing into the air can cause death or injury.These cases are well documented and known. It is little comfort to the victim and their family if the person responsible is punished, it won't bring your loved one back. This is why it is illegal to fire into the air. It is a risky behavior that has no real purpose to justify it.What is one legitimate purpose of firing into the air that would justify the risk to others? Banning bad behavior is not tyranny, banning the tools that may be used by some for the purpose of bad behavior, is.

Wow, I'm glad someone gets it.

:uhoh:

t3rmin wrote:

Killing or hurting people is already illegal, malum in se. You don't need a special "pre-crime" law for every possible method. It would be impossible to implement such a system without tyranny.