Do you own a gun?

[Hostile]

Funny, he always followed the saying with, "Double-tap, center chest."

Heard it too.

 

[theogt]

He had the sword in his hand when confronted.

And charged them with it? That seems a bit silly.

He likely was using the same door the homeowner came in to ferry items out of the house, which would now be behind the victim ie the HOMEOWNER.

I assumed they went in the front door and noticed the back door open. One or the other would have been a good escape. I suspect the owner had the gun in the car, and as he pulled up he was suspicious of a break-in so he got the gun and went in. Once he saw the guy, he shot him a few times. The rest is just CYA.

 

[rkell87]

I'm just going to throw out there that the sword was most likely the homeowners and in the middle of that item being stolen the victim came home, that is the only reason i can think of that the robber had a sword in his hand while also carrying a gun

 

[CliffnDallas]

And charged them with it? That seems a bit silly.

I assumed they went in the front door and noticed the back door open. One or the other would have been a good escape. I suspect the owner had the gun in the car, and as he pulled up he was suspicious of a break-in so he got the gun and went in. Once he saw the guy, he shot him a few times. The rest is just CYA.

Possibaly CYA. But with modern forensics and wound study the truth would show. It's a pity the perp forfeted his life by being there in the first place.

 

[theogt]

Possibaly CYA. But with modern forensics and wound study the truth would show. It's a pity the perp forfeted his life by being there in the first place.

The truth would show what? As long as he didn't shoot him in the back, they're going to take his story at face value and that's that.

I'm not saying the homeowner did anything wrong, or did anything I wouldn't do; I'm just saying I read the story and thought it was funny.

 

[CliffnDallas]

The truth would show what? As long as he didn't shoot him in the back, they're going to take his story at face value and that's that.

I'm not saying the homeowner did anything wrong, or did anything I wouldn't do; I'm just saying I read the story and thought it was funny.

Well. with the study of the body you can tell what position the defunct was in when he was shot. You can tell for instance if he was bent over, or the position of his arm by studying the wound as it relates to the tissue damage from the bullets path through the body.

The shooter may tell the police that the perp had a gun pointing at him. later at the medical examiners they see that the perps arms were over his head when he was shot. Ooops.

 

[theogt]

Well. with the study of the body you can tell what position the defunct was in when he was shot. You can tell for instance if he was bent over, or the position of his arm by studying the wound as it relates to the tissue damage from the bullets path through the body.

The shooter may tell the police that the perp had a gun pointing at him. later at the medical examiners they see that the perps arms were over his head when he was shot. Ooops.

This ain't CSI.

 

[CliffnDallas]

This ain't CSI.

You don't have a medical examinor office where you live? I would complain to the city if I were you. Which I'm not.

 

[theogt]

You don't have a medical examinor office where you live? I would complain to the city if I were you. Which I'm not.

Sure, but they're not going to take the time to substantiate or refute the homeowner's story. As long as there aren't any obvious discrepancies, it'll go through the normal processes and that's it. Like I said, this ain't CSI.

 

[CliffnDallas]

Sure, but they're not going to take the time to substantiate or refute the homeowner's story. As long as there aren't any obvious discrepancies, it'll go through the normal processes and that's it. Like I said, this ain't CSI.

So you are saying it's okay to shoot a burgler to death as he's begging for his life as long as you lie to the cops afterward?





















Just kidding. I understand what you are saying.

 

[bbgun]

Exciting news from the Land of Hos


Concealed guns with no permits nearly OK

BILL AWAITS GOV'S LIKELY SIGNATURE; AZ WOULD BE JUST THE THIRD STATE

Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services


PHOENIX - Arizona is on the verge of becoming the third state to let just about any adult carry a concealed weapon.

Without a word of debate, the House voted 36-19 on Wednesday to eliminate the criminal penalties that now exist if someone has a hidden gun without the necessary state permit. The Senate already has approved the measure.

That leaves only the anticipated signature of Gov. Jan Brewer on SB 1108. The change would become official 91 days after the legislative session ends, which at the current projection would put the new law on the books at the end of July.

Gubernatorial press aide Paul Senseman said she wants to review the final version before making a decision. But he indicated that, barring something unexpected in the bill, it will get her signature.

"Governor Brewer has been a longtime supporter of and vigorous protector of Second Amendment rights," he said. And Brewer herself, talking about Arizona history last year to the National Rifle Association, cited what she said was this state's long tradition of people with guns, often not visible.

"You know, a saloon girl or two were even known to keep a derringer in their garter belt, just in case," she said.

Only Vermont and Alaska permit any adult to carry a concealed weapon.
Under current Arizona law, any qualified adult - meaning not a convicted felon or someone mentally incapacitated - can openly carry a gun. But Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, one of the main proponents of the change, said that right, while perhaps sufficient in territorial days, is meaningless for many people today.

He said it effectively disarms a woman who would want to have a gun in a purse or anyone who would like a gun on the hip but also wants to wear a jacket.

Supporters also argued those who do not want to carry openly should not have to get permission from the state.

Getting a permit currently requires attending an eight-hour, state-approved class. Subjects include the legality of the use of deadly force, marksmanship and judgmental shooting. And applicants must undergo a criminal background check.

Arizonans who want will still be able to get a state-issued concealed-weapon permit even after the new law takes effect. One of the main benefits is that other states with their own permitting systems routinely honor licenses issued in Arizona; an Arizonan with a concealed gun but without a permit going to another state would remain subject to arrest.

The legislation actually would make it easier to get a state permit.

Instead of having to complete a state-approved course, applicants could qualify by completing any NRA firearms safety or training course, any special course offered for security guards and investigators, or any hunter-education or safety course approved by the Arizona Game and Fish Department.
Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, one of the foes of the measure, said the change will make life more difficult for police officers.

Right now, she said, officers who find people with concealed weapons can arrest them for that reason alone if they don't have a permit.

Sinema said the change in law leaves officers without options when encountering gang members and others who are committing no other crime.
by the numbers

Concealed-weapon permit holders in Arizona since 2000:
• 2000: 61,228
• 2001: 65,276
• 2002: 67,692
• 2003: 66,677
• 2004: 68,856
• 2005: 74,161
• 2006: 85,404
• 2007: 99,370
• 2008: 117,684
• 2009: 147,121
• Latest count: 153,209
SOURCE: Arizona Department of Public Safety