Trayvon Martin Case - A Partially Parallel Shooting In Alabama

Reality generally does not provide the sort of parallel situations that would satisfy the rigors of social science.  However, let's go to Alabama for a shooting case from April 15 with many similarities to the Trayvon Martin shooting.

A local newspaper is covering the story diligently; their index is here.

The gist:

BAY MINETTE, Alabama -- Men at a fish camp on Gravine Island shouted and fired warning shots to stop intruders captured in their spotlight during what their lawyer described as an early Sunday morning break-in at a neighboring camp.

The five-minute encounter with the four teens has led to nightmarish consequences, according to the lawyer, Tom Dassinger of Daphne.

One of the four teens, Summer Moody, is a blond girl's volleyball star. She was shot in the head by either a .22 or a .17 caliber rifle and remains in critical condition with a grim prognosis.

The other three teens were arrested and jailed for attempted burglary; for the benefit of non-link clickers, all are white. One has subsequently posted bail.

The three men who did the shooting have been questioned but not arrested. Two have had previous run-ins with the law. Their race is not mentioned, but I am guessing white, based on I don't know what.

Before we dive into more details, let's make a few points almost at random:

1 - Blond women are normally media catnip, at least when they encounter trouble in Aruba.

2 - It took three weeks for the Trayvon Martin story to break nationally with the release of the 911 tapes; this story may yet find its legs.

3 - Weighing against this story: Zimmerman had a pistol and a concealed carry permit; the weapon used here was a rifle.  Gun controllers don't have sporting rifles on their rader.

4 - Alabama does have something like the castle doctrine for self-defense, so the NY Times can inveigh against that.  However, these shooting fools were defending their neighbors property, so their legal stand is a bit more dubious (sorry, that is in the details).

5 - As to the notion from Florida that the shooter would have been jailed on Day One if Martin had been a white teenager and Zimmerman a black shooter: the Alabama case seems to provide at least a half-answer, since the shooters haven't been jailed.  Yet.

6 - Unlike Trayvon Martin, the teens here were pretty clearly guilty of something. The shooters had probable cause to investigate, whereas Zimmerman's initial interest in Martin is problematic (but not inexplicable; the community had had a rash of break-ins and Martin may have been skipping under covered patios to avoid the rain.)

The details may be troublesome for anyone with a blood pressure problem; this comes from an attorney for the shooters:

On Sunday, in the early morning darkness, the [three] couples who had gone there for the weekend were asleep in their camp house when the generator malfunctioned, shutting off the air conditioning, according to Dassinger.

"Someone got up to fix it, and it happened again, so things were quiet while they were working on it and someone heard a boat motor. Later they heard crashes and people talking. So eventually the men got in a boat and went over," he said.

Dassinger said that the three men had a spotlight, a .22-caliber rifle and a .17-caliber rifle. When they shined the light toward the camp where the noises were coming from, "they saw what they thought were grown men that turned out to be teenagers," he said.

The men yelled at the intruders to stop, but they scattered instead. The men then fired two warning shots, trying "to get them to stop" until law officers could be summoned, Dassinger said.

The men returned to their boat and headed away to alert officers only to hear a young man shouting.

"One of the teens, Summer Moody’s boyfriend, came out carrying Summer to the dock and was screaming for help. The men turned around and went back to help," Dassinger said. They loaded her into their boat and headed for Cloverleaf Landing, across the Tensaw River.

Dassinger said that one of the men "was holding her head and she was bleeding all over, they are trying to get her to talk and raise her hand. This was a nightmare. The events that unfolded couldn’t have gone more wrong. It was the worst case of Murphy’s Law. But what do you do if you are out there?"

Dassinger said the other two teens "split" from the scene.

"I think her boyfriend stayed at the dock and maybe his friends came back and picked him up later," he said.

He described the situation as anguishing for his client and the others who were on the island. "But how can you say they did anything wrong? What do you say to Summer’s family?"

What did they do wrong? Seriously?

Let's start with, if you fire a warning shot, at least try to hit the sky - that would be the dark emptiness over the shooter's head, not the enclosed emptiness inside his still-intact skull. And if the suspects kept running, was gunning down a bunch of scattering kids or adults with a .22 really the plan?

Using deadly force in response to people running away - I can't wait to hear what self-defense doctrine applies there. Maybe a Bizzaro World Duty To Prevent Retreat? [Hmm, it might be permissible use of force in defense of property; see STATUTES below.)

The property owner did find some unclaimed weapons at his cabin:

BAY MINETTE, Alabama --

The owner of one of the two fishing camps burglarized on Gravine Island said the door to his house was kicked in, windows broken and power tools were stolen.

“When we pulled up to the dock, I was in shock,” said Steve Stagner, who arrived on the island Sunday morning not knowing about the burglary and shooting that took place hours earlier.

A second house was also burglarized and a screen around the porch was cut, Stagner said. “We had to sit on the dock for hours” while investigators collected evidence.

A knife was found on the porch, and Stagner also saw a gun lying on the dock. “It looked like a rifle,” he said.

The charges against the three teens were upgraded because they allegedly had a .22 with them. If the shooters want to claim they saw a gun pointed at themselves (they don't seem to be), that would be something to consider.  A knife in the context described is meaningless.

Something I don't know is whether this community has had a rash of break-ins and whether these three teens have earned a reputation as local thugs. I have had some recent experience with that in Vermont, and sometimes the arrest you read about is just the culmination of a lot of earlier problems. We read that authorities are attempting to link these three to a prior incident and expect further charges.

That said, the court record does not seem to explain the $100,000 bail:

Court records show all three suspects had multiple traffic citations in recent years, including speeding, no insurance, no seat belts and driving with suspended licenses. Byrd was charged with failure to appear in court earlier this year, records show.

Both Parnell and Byrd were placed in their fathers’ custody as young children, with case files from 2003 indicating that Parnell’s mother was involved with illegal drugs. Byrd’s mother lost custody and was placed under a restraining order in 2004, court records show.

If I had to speculate (and what are the odds that I won't?) I would wonder about drugs in the backwoods. There might be a backstory here that explains what looks like a high bail for breaking into a couple of empty cabins.

As to the odds of Al Sharpton flying to Alabama to weigh in, or MSNBC going 24/7 after this - unlikely.

STATUTES: Here are the Alabama statutes on self-defense and the use of force; I will emphasize the part that may be keeping these shooters out of jail:

Code of Alabama - Title 13A: Criminal Code - Section 13A-3-23 - Use of force in defense of a person

Section 13A-3-23 - Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if...

I feel like I must be misreading that, because the shooters had no apparent thought of defending themselves, which makes me question the applicability of a section titled "Use of force in defense of a person".

But as I read it, I can imagine it meaning that shooting in defense of a home in order to stop a burgalry in progress is acceptable, even if their is no "self" in the self-defense. Even an unoccupied neighbor's home?  Well, did they know it was unoccupied, and does it matter legally? Over to the lawyers!

Pressing on to a section on defense of premises:

Section 13A-3-25 - Use of force in defense of premises.

(a) A person in lawful possession or control of premises, as defined in Section 13A-3-20, or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon, may use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon such premises.

(b) A person may use deadly physical force under the circumstances set forth in subsection (a) of this section only:

(1) In defense of a person, as provided in Section 13A-3-23; or

(2) When he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of arson in the first or second degree by the trespasser.

Maybe the shooters were qualified to be at the other site? Even if they were, deadly force was not in play.

No help here (I omit everything related to peace officers):

Section 13A-3-27 - Use of force in making an arrest or preventing an escape.

(g) A private person acting on his own account is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person whom he reasonably believes has committed a felony and who in fact has committed that felony, but he is justified in using deadly physical force for the purpose only when he reasonably believes it necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force.

That is not the story they are telling.

Well, I am convinced that the section of defense of premises does not help the shooters but I seem to believe that the section on the defense of other people's property gives them greater latitude. Yes, I recognize that makes no sense.  Either I am wrong about the self-defense section (the money bet) or the legislative history was such that an expansion of the protect-your-property rights got buried in the "self-defense" section. The notes at the bottom do suggest to my untrained eye that the self-defense section was modified in 2006, later than the other sections, which is when Alabama adopted "Stand Your Ground". Well, if these shooters were standing their ground something is deeply amiss. And if I end up on the same side of this as the NY Times editors, well, yike. Let's just hope they are as grim-faced about the prosepect as I am.

WHY NO ARREST? Maybe there has been no arrest because the DA is waiting for clarity and hoping he won't be charging a homicide.

Comments

[Rob Crawford]

Gun controllers don't have sporting rifles on their rader.

The hell they don't.

[Rob Crawford]

Using deadly force in response to people running away - I can't wait to hear what self-defense doctrine applies there.

There isn't one. The shooters were never under any threat, by their own admission. Further, they fired without knowing who or what was down-range.

They should be facing assault with a deadly weapon charges; manslaughter if the girl doesn't survive.

[Captain Hate]

the rigors of social science

That's setting the bar on the ground.

[Danube of Thought]

If the shooters' account is accurate, it's reckless endangerment or involuntary manslaughter at least.

Never heard of a .17 caliber.

[bgates]

Their race is not mentioned, but I am guessing white

Googling "Larry Dean Duncan" got me to a local Fox story about the shooting that had a mug shot of a late-30s white guy. I'd be more confident in it if they had bothered to label it with any descriptive text, though.

[FRONT TOWARD LEFT]

Never heard of a .17 caliber.

Varminting caliber. It shoots flatter than .22 lr.

Oh, and Rob Crawford +1. Firing warning shots to warn people is a great way to find yourself in a world of hurt. The [pretty much valid] theory is that firing a weapon is a use of deadly force, and that firing a warning shot indicates that the shooter was not in sufficient fear for his life or well being to employ deadly force.

[Rob Crawford]

DoT -- .17 caliber is relative new. LUN

[Have Blue]

Is the .22 rifle of the Ruger .22 long rifle variety or the Colt .223 variety?

[Cecil Turner]

Not sure what they were thinking, but an outdoor shooting to protect property is a well-established no no. Actually looks to me like murder (if she dies):

(2) Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, he or she recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to a person other than himself or herself, and thereby causes the death of another person.

Never heard of a .17 caliber.

It's a very accurate flat-shooting little varminter. (Which kinda blows the "warning shot" claim.)

[Have Blue]

DoT - IIRC (have been meaning to look into one) a .17 caliber is a rimfire cartridge which is essentially a .22 caliber knecked down to .17 caliber, which is a common caliber for air rifles. If the powder charge was more or less the same the velocity would be higher and the reulting trajectory flatter.

[Tom Maguire]

That's setting the bar on the ground.

I couldn't find a shallow trench...

[Danube of Thought]

I've never heard of a .223 being described as a .22. but you never know what to expect from the media. Generally they divide all rifles into two categories: .22 and "high-powered."

[Rob Crawford]

Not sure what they were thinking, but an outdoor shooting to protect property is a well-established no no

Depends on the state. I believe it's OK in Texas.

[NK]

RobC-- pretty much sums up the crimes these men committed (if the story is correct). What's taking the police/prosecutor so long?

[Cecil Turner]

There are varieties of .22 (e.g., magnum or K-hornet) that are pretty hot. But calling a .223 a .22 would be journalistic malpractice.

[Cecil Turner]

Depends on the state. I believe it's OK in Texas.

Really? Sounds pretty extreme, even for Texans.

[NK]

RobC-- in Texas you can use deadly force to protect someone else's property, while NOT EVEN on your own property? Someone needs to look that up-- a couple of weeks ago, TomM linked to the Texas man who confronted burglars in his neighbor's house. I beleive he stayed on his own property and shotgunned them as they encroached on to his own property. I am very OK with that -- but blasting away on navigable water to protect someone else's property? I don't think so.

[Clarice]

Failure to appear should certainly affect bond.TM

[Rob Crawford]

What's taking the police/prosecutor so long?

Probably waiting for your input.

[Cecil Turner]

I'll be darned. There are a few other requirements, but basically true:

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and(3) he reasonably believes that:(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Probably waiting for your input.

I wonder if they're sure which rifle did the damage.

[Threadkiller]

With a spotlight they still thought it was a group of men? If they were actually far enough away to not determine what they were shooting at and the targets were scattering, this would be a Hell of a shot from a boat.

The boyfriend may have tried to return fire and shot his girlfriend. Why did he stay at the dock?

[Rob Crawford]

The boyfriend may have tried to return fire and shot his girlfriend.

Except the shooters don't mention shots from the other group.

[Threadkiller]

I read that wrong. I thought they were in the boat when the shot was made.

[Jim Ryan]

It looks like everyone involved was Slightly Screwed Up, a condition which can have sudden and unpredictable consequences such as manslaughter of another or one's own untimely death. Your spidey sense isn't being anal retentive when it tells you to keep away from someone who is Slightly Screwed Up. Teach this to your kids.

[NK]

Well that Texas Penal Code does have conditions on the use of deadly force that probably don't apply to the Alabama shooters, what exactly does the property "can't be protected by any other means" apply to? someone's stealling your horse and riding off with it? Anyway, they value property in Texas I guess. RobC-- given Texas' expansive views of self defense and gun ownership-- how come you haven't decamped Cincinnati and headed to the Loan Star State?

[Cecil Turner]

The other group was armed? In the commission of a burglary? This may not be as cut-and-dried as I thought.

[Threadkiller]

True Rob, but the lawyer is doing all the talking. Just wild speculation on my part, anyways.

[Rob Crawford]

how come you haven't decamped Cincinnati and headed to the Loan Star State?

Because most of my relatives are here, I have a decent job, and I grew up in the area.

[NK]

RobC- it was a rhetorical question. Enjoy the shooting opportunities in the Buckeye State. Hopefully, those Ct. firearms makers Ruger and Colt have treated you well.

[Vermin are squirmin'.]

Heh, DoT's not 'Little Game Hunter'.
==============

[Rob Crawford]

Fuck if I know, "Devil's Advocate", why don't you tell us?

Oh, wait, I get it -- raaaaacism, right?

[Threadkiller]

From the link:

"Dassinger[lawyer for one of the campers] said the men know which of them fired the shot that hit Summer, though that information has not been disclosed."

So much for my stupidity.

[Tom Maguire]

I posted an update with a bit of the Alabama Self-defense statutes. They may look like Texas, in that there is a property defense clause. In other words, "self-defense" really means "self, or property, or a neighbor's property". Not how I would write the law, maybe...

[Danube of Thought]

I saw all the biased MSNBC et al reports too so don't bring them up.

Why not?

[Danube of Thought]

who probably wasn't doin anything but dawdling

Nothing except busting a guy's nose and smashing his head into the pavement.

[NK]

TomM-- ai yai yai. Notice the words in the statute.-- as you point out, this is "Defense of a Person' provision, and moreover, the breakin has to be unlawful AND forceful-- so the implication is that the 'dwelling or residence' forcefully broken into was occupied and you're defending the persons therein. THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO PROTECTING A COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT. BUT WAIT, the next clause has the explicit 'occupied' vehicle, a carjacking. But occupied is NOT expressly in the clause relating to "dwelling or residence". So does that mean you can use deadly force in the case of a 'forceful' break in of a VACANT residence? any case law interpreting this?

[Rob Crawford]

DA -- you have no idea where I've lived or who I've run into over the course of my life. When I was a kid, we visited my grandparents' house in Cincinnati's Over-the-Rhine. The town I grew up in? The police chief was arrested and the police force disbanded for drug trafficking.

And you have no idea what a bigot you are.

[jimmyk]

Devil's advocate, I've had plenty of contact with "urban Negroes" growing up in inner city Detroit, including having a knife pulled, a gun waved, and being on the receiving end of a Trayvon-style sucker punch to the jaw. Nonetheless, my discussions here, as well as those of everyone else here except the trolls bubu, duda, and kk, and now, it would seem, you, have been focused on the law, facts, and evidence.

[jimmyk]

I should add, lest I give the wrong impression, that 99.9% of my interactions with the black population of Detroit were positive, including some long-time friendships, fine neighbors, and very upright, law-abiding people.

[Ignatz]

--DoT - IIRC (have been meaning to look into one) a .17 caliber is a rimfire cartridge which is essentially a .22 caliber knecked down to .17 caliber--

The original .17 caliber was the .17 Remington which is a necked down center fire .223 Remington from the 70's although it had been a wildcat for much longer. It's a rare varmint caliber.
What they're discussing here is no doubt the more recent .17 HMR family of necked down 22 long rifles created by Hornady a few years back.
.17 Rem magnum=4,000fps+
.17 HMR=2500fps+
Incidentally some wildcatters have also experimented with .14 and .12 caliber centerfire varmint rounds for years.

[Extraneus]

The answer is that we knew we were being played with this b.s. story from the get-go. Based on our boy dd's posts, leftists knew this, too, but were more than happy to go along with a good ol'-fashioned lynching. Their lust for it seems to be waning, though.

[Rob Crawford]

I just asked a question knowing what the answers would be.

No, you projected your hatred and ignorance onto other people. You assumed you knew why people took the positions they did based on your prejudices, not on what they said.

[Ignatz]

--It's amazing to me how many think a .177 caliber pellet from an air rifle, or a .22 rimfire are not dangerous like a higher caliber round.--

Well, even a blank can kill you as John Eric Hexum found out the stupid way and Karamojo Bell killed 1000+ elephants with the 7mm Mauser and equivalent rounds, but all in all a .177 caliber pellet gun isn't dangerous like a high caliber round.
If you don't think so test a pellet gun at 50 feet to the chest and a .505 Gibbs.

[Rob Crawford]

Look Rob, I was just messin' with you guys.

Bullshit. You were calling us racists.

I'm sick of it. I won't take that bullshit from anyone anymore, and will call people on it.

[AliceH]

The devil is not indigent. He can afford retain his own advocate.

[AliceH]

I swear I am an excellent typist. This blog eats my prepositions.

[jimmyk]

What I was saying is that one case seems to have struck a completely different chord than the other.

But wait, I thought you were asking a question? It turns out (shocker!) that you were making a statement. And one that was BS, except as applied to the troll-racebaiters bubu, duda, and kaka.

[Ignatz]

--Ig; I saw an elephant gun in the movie Tremors that looked like an 8-gauge and the rounds looked like rifled slugs with rounded tips.

What was it ?--

IIRC it was a massive underlever sxs. Just guessing but it was almost surely a turn of the century thing in 450/500/577 Nitro Express or their black powder equivalents. Maybe I'll see what bing says.

Tremors and Joe Kidd were the two movies that off the top of my head were most obviously made by firearms connoisseurs.

[Vex]

Surprised this wasn't posted, or I missed it.

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/crime/taco-bell-shooting-victim-was-holding-leash-not-weapon-4-4-2012

[Tom Maguire]

The devil won't be coming down to Alabama just now; sorry if the thread has become a bit cryptic.

[Tom Maguire]

TomM-- ai yai yai. Notice the words in the statute.-- as you point out, this is "Defense of a Person' provision, and moreover, the breakin has to be unlawful AND forceful--

Well, I think I was pretty clear that I don't feel great about that reading. Also, I sense a circularity betwwen

Section 13A-3-23 a) ...A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

and the relevant rationale only emerges in section 4:

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence...

However, I am pretty sure these are 2006 revisions.

[Constitution First]

I own property in the north country, and yes, we get regular break-ins. We can pretty much assume it's kids that are doing it. Whether they come by car or boat, registration numbers are all you need to catch a thief. No backcountry judge is going to let you slide on a shooting on your neighbors property.

Saying: 'dumb teenagers' is an oxymoron.
If they were running away, why shoot? Apparently they weren't firing 'warning shots'. Texas or no, someone is going to be doing some jail-time.

It's dumb-ass crap like this that give the Liberal-gun-grubbers all the ammunition they need. That said... Some people really are too stupid to be allowed firearms.

[NK]

TomM@303-- I think someone will explain the deadly force is to protect occupants of the residence from the forceful breakin, like protecting a carjack victim. As opposed to save Aunt Martha's china from being hauled off.

[AliceH]

I am curious now as to timing of the first TM/GZ post here. The shooting was on 2/26, oldest post I found was 3/17 and triggered by NYT story with the headline "Justice Department Investigation Is Sought in Florida Teenager’s Shooting Death ".

So, about 3 weeks. The AL story is of an incident on April 15 - just over 1 week. I say we give the NYT 2 more weeks to write a story on the AL shooting before anyone commences a comparative analysis on "how commenters here react".

[NK]

ConstFirst-- is it safe to say Ala. law allows force to protect people, not Aunt Martha's china? Thanks for helping.

[JS]

"Weighing against this story: Zimmerman had a pistol and a concealed carry permit; the weapon used here was a rifle. Gun controllers don't have sporting rifles on their rader."

Nonsense--gun controllers have ALL privately-owned firearms on their "rader." They've just made so little headway with handguns that they haven't yet turned their attention to rifles. Hell, most so-called "assault rifles," long one of their bugaboos, are functionally identical to sporting rifles, a fact they've overlooked thus far.

[NK]

Can the faux BenF please stifle? one BenF is enough.

[Ignatius J Donnelly]

Many "gun controllers" make a distincion between different types of arms.

[Observer]

There was a fatal shooting near Phoenix AZ (Laveen) earlier this month that was more similar to the Trayvon Martin case than this one. See if you can guess why nobody in the MSM or the racial grievance industry has paid much attention to this shooting:

A guy in a car was going thru the drive-thru at the Laveen Taco Bell. Another guy walked in front of the car, angering the driver. The driver and the walker exchanged words, and the driver shot the walker. The driver claimed that he had acted in self defense when the walker swung a pipe at him. Witnesses said the walker had nothing in his hand but a dog leash (he'd been walking his dog). Police found no pipe or other weapon anywhere near the scene. The family of the (now dead) walker said he was mentally disabled. The shooter had not been arrested at the time the story appeared in the local paper.

Missing a clue? Here you go: the shooter in the car was black, the victim was white (or white hispanic, if you prefer).

[Ignatius J Donnelly]

Well Observer, the Phoenix shooting in my opinion, will remain a local story. not much guilt value.

[NK]

Phoenix? no race hustlers, no narrative, no national story.

[AliceH]

Vex posted a link to the taco bell shooting story upthread. When I first saw the url "..victim holding leash not weapon..." I thought it was going to be about #Obamaeatsdog.

[AliceH]

sorry if the thread has become a bit cryptic. Ha!

On a COMPLETELY unrelated note...where's narcisco?

[gospace]

The doctine I was given on active duty about deadly force was simple, and should apply to everyone. Period.

Deadly force IS authorized to stop a felony from occurring, or to prevent escape from a felony.

Not may be authorized, no need for warning shots, or any of that crap. IS authorized.

Perps should know that in committing a felony, they are betting their lives, and they could lose the bet.

[jimmyk]

off

[wannabe]

No you don't EVER fire a bullet into the air, for any reason unless you own all of the land in that direction for miles and have "no trespassing" posted.

Jeezus, Tom.

[jimmyk]

now?
now?

[Tom Maguire]

Well, as to shooting into the air, it woul dbe better if they had fired at the lake, or the ground.

But here is a recent story:

Investigators also are examining why the men allegedly fired “warning shots” at terrain level rather than into the air or ground.

The Feds are also involved because two of the guys had felony conviction and should not have been "around" guns.

I have a rather cold-blooded guess that the DA wants to let this drift for a day or two until he knows whether he is charging a homicide. Assuming Alabama has any kind of speedy trial law, a delay in starting the clock might make sense.

[bmcburney]

From the description of events, it seems much more likely to me that the girl was shot with the rifle found at the cabin rather than either of the rifles on the boat. Of course, it is possible that a warning shot fired into the air might come down in the wrong place and its possible someone on the boat might have fired into the cabin rather than into the air. More likely is that the boyfriend or another one of the theives paniced and pulled the trigger while the girl was in the wrong place. We'll see.

[Tom Maguire]

Well, as cited above, the two warning shooters allegdly know which of them hit the girl. And they do claim to be devastated, so they don't seem to be hanging their hats on the idea of a third shooter. Nor, as noted, do they claim that shots were fired at them.

Of course, if the rifle left at the scene may have been used that would explain the seemingly high bail.

[xbradtc]

If the teenagers were in the act of committing a felony (B&E?), wouldn't that make them the ones liable for any further felony charges?

For instance, most states have a felony murder statute of some sort, where, if you're committing a felony, and someone dies in the course of that felony, you're liable for murder charges, even if you are not the direct cause of death.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"Their race is not mentioned, but I am guessing white, based on I don't know what."

Based on the fact that their race is not mentioned, obviously.

[Tom Maguire]

For instance, most states have a felony murder statute of some sort, where, if you're committing a felony, and someone dies in the course of that felony...

I have been scratching my head all afternoon wondering which recent movie or TV show had that plot point. Justified? I'm still stumped, but yes, it's a good point.

[Arch]

We live in a dangerous world.

I live in Alabama - was born here.

In 1977 my uncle was locking up his business in Birmingham, when two black guys held him up. After taking his watch, wallet and car keys, they beat him up just for fun, kicked him in the face breaking his jaw.

In 1981 sixty miles east of here, my cousin, his wife and ten year old son were murdered in a home invasion. It took until 2005 to execute one of the murderers. The other is in for life without parole. Both perps were white.

As a pistol permit holder and I'm always armed.

It's better to have a weapon and not need it than the other way around.

[Threadkiller]

After much thought I have concluded they were going to simultaneously snipe the thieves in the ass. One probably aimed high and the dumber of the two did not. There is no fucking way they did not know a direct shot was scored on the girl. That's when they ran like Hell back to their boat.

The basis for my theory is their story on how they knew the kids were on the island. They claim to have heard the motor of the kids boat. They went to investigate in their own boat. Knowing engines are a giveaway they must have paddled, got off the boat in a secluded spot and found a location to ambush the thieves.

Larry: "when I hit the light we should shoot 'em in the ass"

Larry, Darryl, and Darryl:"hee, hee, hee"

Light goes on, Darryl shoots ground, other Darryl shoots kid.

[daniel]

If the protagonists are correct in claiming that they only fired warning shots, then they are probably not guilty. The problem is that what goes up, also comes down. It is conceivable that a warning shot, aimed up in the air, came down on the head of the victim, killing her.
This sounds crazy but crazier things have happened.
They could be lying, of course; but how can one tell?

[Beasts of England]

Cecil@12:17 - It's a very accurate flat-shooting little varminter. (Which kinda blows the "warning shot" claim.)

.17 is news to me. However, my .22-250 varminter shoots with such a lovely arch...

[Ignatz]

--.17 is news to me. However, my .22-250 varminter shoots with such a lovely arch...--

The .17 is pretty bad in crosswinds compared to your .22-250, Beasts, which, despite my affinity for the .220 Swift and nice old archaic rounds like the 218 Bee, is probably the best varmint round ever made.

[Kirk Parker]

Ignatius,

"Many 'gun controllers' make a distinction between different types of arms."

Yes, indeed, they do: those they're coming for now, and those they're coming for later.

[JohnJay60]

Daniel - the angle of the bullet would tell how the shot entered the head.

Jimmyk - I think the use of the word 'sucker punch' to describe our imagined interaction between Martin and Zimmerman is incorrect. Martin had every reason to believe he was being unjustifiably approached and attacked by a burglar or murderer. Indeed, if Martin had a gun, I think "Stand Your Ground" would have applied to his application of force against Zimmerman. Which makes Zimmerman's claim of defense, if he was provoking the attack, illegitimate.

[Rob Crawford]

If the protagonists are correct in claiming that they only fired warning shots, then they are probably not guilty.

EXCEPT that if I were, say, target shooting and missed the target, striking someone down-range, I'd be (rightfully) up on charges.

"Warning shots" are no different than the stupid celebratory gunfire in third-world communities.

[Rob Crawford]

Hell, most so-called "assault rifles," long one of their bugaboos, are functionally identical to sporting rifles, a fact they've overlooked thus far.

Yep. I was surprised to find my rather vanilla-looking Mini-14 classified as an "assault weapon" in recent news stories. Generic stock, no pistol grip, no bayonet lug, standard is a 5-round magazine...

And how about the ATF's never-ending quest to ban shotguns used in 3-gun shooting competitions?

[Arch]

JohnJay:

Zimmerman's account seems to mesh with the physical evidence and the accounts of eye witnesses. The media have set you up with a false narrative. Rather than reporting Who, what, when, where and how have decided on Why and built a story that was factually incorrect.

If George Zimmerman did what NBC, CNN and MSNBC claimed, he would have been arrested the night of the shooting. They had, and still have, no evidence with which to hold him.

America wants justice, not a media narrative, to prevail.

[Matthew Carberry]

IANAL, but police often don't arrest as long as the probable suspect is cooperating, is not a flight risk, and there's any doubt of the facts.

Arrest takes PC, no matter that it is often treated lightly, and unless the cop was standing there you need often need to investigate to reach that standard. Also, arrest triggers certain timelines and legal protections.

The whole "arrest them, then figure out what happened" is a stupid play most of the time, it certainly shouldn't be done to pacify a mob.

[Mannie]

Let's start with, if you fire a warning shot, at least try to hit the sky - that would be the dark emptiness over the shooter's head, not the enclosed emptiness inside his still-intact skull.

The standard advice is to never fire warning shots. What goes up, Murphy, and all that. In most states you'll get arrested for reckless discharge for firing a warning shot.

If you still feel you must, then shoot into the ground at your feet. The other mope will still know you missed his head by an inch.

[Beasts of England]

Ignatz@5:51 - '...is probably the best varmint round ever made.' Especially when fired through a barrel made at my grandfather's factory, I'm proud to say.

Nothing wrong with the .220 Swift - I've seen some great shots with same.

[M. Simon]

I believe a .17 caliber rifle is an air rifle. Can be pumped or powered with a CO2 cartridge. And I believe the exact caliber is .177.

[M. Simon]

Let me add that my post on the "air rifle" is just a guess. I had one of those when I was a kid. Around age 15 IIRC.

I was going on the assumption that the press is ignorant. I note up thread that it may have been an actual rifle. We shall see.

[M. Simon]

JohnJay60 | April 23, 2012 at 05:54 PM,

Attacking because you were "provoked" is still assault.

And no SYG only applies if you are ATTACKED.

So much ignorance. So little time.

[Cecil Turner]

There are various .17's. Here's a couple pictures and .17 HMR test data. (There's a wide range in velocity . . . that HMR tested out at only about 2600fps, the Mach 4 checks in at 3800+fps.)

[William Demot]

I thought that if you are engaged in a crime and someone is killed, you are guilty of killing them even though you didn't pull the trigger.

My understanding is that these teenagers would be responsible for the injury (and possibly death) of their friend, since they were committing a burglary at the time.

[narciso]

It's like Otto from 'Fish called Wanda' isn't M. Simon.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2012/04/23/dont-believe-it-media-arent-beating-barack-obama

[Ignatz]

--Especially when fired through a barrel made at my grandfather's factory, I'm proud to say.--

Can you let me in on the name of said factory?

--Nothing wrong with the .220 Swift - I've seen some great shots with same.--

More noise, more cost and inherently less accurate, but I still prefer it just cause it was the original hypervelocity round.

[Ignatz]

--the Mach 4 checks in at 3800+fps--

The Mach IV, IIRC is based on the old .221 Fireball which Remington made for that cool old pistol the XP 100.
It's like a slightly scaled down version of the .17 Remington which is based on the .223.

[Ignatz]

Well, time to go watch Top Gear and after that Richard Hammond trying to learn how to use logging machinery. Should be good for some laughs.

[Rob Crawford]

Well, time to go watch Top Gear and after that Richard Hammond trying to learn how to use logging machinery. Should be good for some laughs.

Watching the Hamster attempt to drive anything larger than a Mini is amusing.

[Beasts of England]

Ignatz@8:22 - Small Arms Manufacturing Company, Inc. Bridgeville, PA. They were truly innovators: diamond turning, et cetera. Made barrels for Weatherby, Sako, among others. Also, did a lot of custom work.

[Cecil Turner]

My understanding is that these teenagers would be responsible for the injury (and possibly death) of their friend, since they were committing a burglary at the time.

I don't think so. That's a variant of the felony murder concept, but the Alabama murder statute appears to require a "participant" do the killing:

(3) He or she commits or attempts to commit arson in the first degree, burglary in the first or second degree, escape in the first degree, kidnapping in the first degree, rape in the first degree, robbery in any degree, sodomy in the first degree, any other felony clearly dangerous to human life and, in the course of and in furtherance of the crime that he or she is committing or attempting to commit, or in immediate flight therefrom, he or she, or another participant if there be any, causes the death of any person. [emphasis added]

I'd read that as one of the burglars, who in this case didn't kill anyone. IANAL though, and that's pretty technical, so might want to get a real opinion.

[Henry Butler]

Reports are that the girl was hiding in the bushes, far away from the three high school dropouts who were kicking in the doors of the cabins, cutting screens, and toting off power tools...the warning shot to scare them off, hit the young girl, unfortunately. Wonder what she told her parents where she was going at four in the morning?

[Ignatz]

--Ignatz@8:22 - Small Arms Manufacturing Company, Inc. Bridgeville, PA. They were truly innovators: diamond turning, et cetera. Made barrels for Weatherby, Sako, among others. Also, did a lot of custom work.--

Heh. Small world, Beasts.
I just sold my beautiful custom .284 Winchester small ring 98 Mauser with Small Arms Manufacturing 22" barrel last year.
I'll post a picture of it tomorrow when I'm on the other computer with the pics.