Page 3 of 4
Re: Man says he shot at four males who attacked him
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:36 pm
by GWC
The rules of engagement in civil life are different . You would be convicted of murder in any state. I think you would be convicted under military law as well.
Re: Man says he shot at four males who attacked him
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:07 pm
by Tourist
scriz,
Thank you for your service.
Be careful, with the current law, you are protected in your home or in your car, anywhere else the burden of proof rests with you. Just because they are on your property, the burden does not shift.
Re: Man says he shot at four males who attacked him
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:14 pm
by scriz
Tourist wrote:scriz,
Thank you for your service.
Be careful, with the current law, you are protected in your home or in your car, anywhere else the burden of proof rests with you. Just because they are on your property, the burden does not shift.
I know what the law is, and no need to thank me for my service. Was just doin' what I was told!
Re: Man says he shot at four males who attacked him
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:27 pm
by northsider
jose45 wrote:Apparently there was time for 3 911 calls after the fact but no time for 1 before he went out? Why not call 911 and prepare to be a good witness.I just can't see arming yourself and going out to defend unoccupied vehicles in a parking lot.I don't fault the man for doing what he did.That was his decision,right or wrong.But I bet he's gonna regret not letting the cops handle it.
I don't doubt that he has regrets. Isn't it a natural tendency, though, to see if what you
think you're seeing is really something to call 911 over? Nobody I know calls 911 over every single suspicious thing, and the few I've heard of who do call all the time are eventually labeled as cranks. Not saying he shouldn't have called first, but I can certainly understand why he might have wanted to check it out the situation before dialing.
Re: Man says he shot at four males who attacked him
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:34 pm
by schmieg
scriz wrote:schmieg wrote:scriz wrote:
Although I would not go straight to shooting anyone just for being on my property, I could see how it would be justified.
And you go to jail. If the kid isn't threatening you, you can't shoot them just because they are rude trespassers. That is an illegal use of deadly force.
You did read that..right? I'm aware of the rules of engagement.
I read that you said it would be justified. It would not be.
Re: Man says he shot at four males who attacked him
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:20 pm
by scriz
I was not, REPEAT was NOT implying that it would be legally justifiable.
Thank you.
Got it?
Re: Man says he shot at four males who attacked him
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 11:06 pm
by schmieg
scriz wrote:I was not, REPEAT was NOT implying that it would be legally justifiable.
Thank you.
Got it?
You've cleared it up. Others probably won't take the wrong impression from your statement now. Thanks.
Re: Man says he shot at four males who attacked him
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:16 am
by jabeatty
scriz wrote:I was not, REPEAT was NOT implying that it would be legally justifiable.
Thank you.
Got it?
Wait one minute!
Are you saying I can
infer than it would be legally justifiable?
(somebody had to...)
Re: Man says he shot at four males who attacked him
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:43 pm
by xtractr
The shooter may have been wrong by going out to check on things, but I think he was definitely wrong by telling the police that.
This is one more example of why to not say anything to police without your lawyer except: "I feared for my life as those four men attacked me, so I protected myself." As far as the police know, you are just a CHL holder who was going out to your car and was attacked, and defended yourself.
The more you tell them....."I was inside and saw these men, grabbed a gun, and went after them......", you are just digging the hole deeper for yourself.
Re: Man says he shot at four males who attacked him
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:09 pm
by jbutler
xtractr wrote:The shooter may have been wrong by going out to check on things, but I think he was definitely wrong by telling the police that.
This is one more example of why to not say anything to police without your lawyer except: "I feared for my life as those four men attacked me, so I protected myself." As far as the police know, you are just a CHL holder who was going out to your car and was attacked, and defended yourself.
The more you tell them....."I was inside and saw these men, grabbed a gun, and went after them......", you are just digging the hole deeper for yourself.
Exactly... why give up your 5th amendment rights while exercising your 2nd amendment right.... We should all work towards becoming well versed on ALL our rights as Americans... and exercise them properly.
Re: Man says he shot at four males who attacked him
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 7:56 pm
by spioi
I would have went out to "check on my car". then if they would have attacked me, well.....
Re: Man says he shot at four males who attacked him
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:36 pm
by LouP305
Sounds like he just worded it wrong or had the wrong motive. It's hard to tell with how liberal the news is.
"Goldsmith got his gun from his home and went out looking for the men."
I know for sure I would of went to check on my car. I am sick of paying for new windows, replacing my stereo, buying a new gps, and waiting 2 hours for police to arrive to take a report on it. There is nothing illegal about walking anywhere, especially out to my car. I would of called and reported their activity though.
Re: Man says he shot at four males who attacked him
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:31 am
by dakota426
Thanks to all of you who have kept an open mind and realize that you can't always believe everything you read. Hopefully, I will be able to give all of you the "rest of the story" (thank you Paul Harvey) in the near future. Thanks also to musatanggal, one of our moderators. If any members know of a 'very reasonable' or gun rights cases pro bono attorney that works in the Lorain County court system, I would appreciate some info. I would like to find out how to get my firearm back.
Thank You again
Re: Man says he shot at four males who attacked him
Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:23 am
by dakota426
Hi Everyone,
Good news this week. A Lt at the EPD called me back earlier this week and the Detective in charge of the investigaton returned my call earlier this morning. Both confirmed that the city prosecutor determined that no crime was committed (by me) and that no charges will be filed.
There were many innaccurracies in the article and yes, the Chronicle Telegram is an anti 2A paper. I plan to post a short novel of the incident on here in the near future to factually explain exactly the events of March 15, 2010. I am troubled by all the negative thoughts and comments about it on this sight and others that i have read, though I can understand the conclusion drawn by so many after reading the "news" article. Remember that "news" does not equal facts. Newspapers are all about circulation which pays the bills and sensationalizing things does sell papers. Thanks again to those open minded individuals who posted and are familiar with the spin that the meda seems to put on stories such as this.
Re: Man says he shot at four males who attacked him
Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:17 am
by schmieg
dakota426 wrote:Hi Everyone,
Good news this week. A Lt at the EPD called me back earlier this week and the Detective in charge of the investigaton returned my call earlier this morning. Both confirmed that the city prosecutor determined that no crime was committed (by me) and that no charges will be filed.
There were many innaccurracies in the article and yes, the Chronicle Telegram is an anti 2A paper. I plan to post a short novel of the incident on here in the near future to factually explain exactly the events of March 15, 2010. I am troubled by all the negative thoughts and comments about it on this sight and others that i have read, though I can understand the conclusion drawn by so many after reading the "news" article. Remember that "news" does not equal facts. Newspapers are all about circulation which pays the bills and sensationalizing things does sell papers. Thanks again to those open minded individuals who posted and are familiar with the spin that the meda seems to put on stories such as this.
Good news, Dakota. And, welcome to the forums. We're looking forward to your report.