Rodderick Scott trial: what is wrong with NY?

**tgace** · Posted On: 6/05/2010 5:21pm

BTW these larcenies from vehicles have become a major problem as of late (they have ALWAYS happened..just more often). For gods sake, lock your cars and don't leave valuables visible in your car. Ipods, GPS, Laptops, Cash, and even laptops, WALLETS?? and PURSES?? have been left in unlocked cars overnight around here and then the victims cry and complain when they are stolen.

**It is Fake** · Posted On: 6/05/2010 5:54pm

Originally Posted by Lampa

At the risk of heading off on a tangent, this case and what you brought up above is a good example of why I'm not keen on the idea of carrying around a gun for self defense even though I'm not a stranger to them or even a bad shot.*

*I mean for me, personally. Hold your horses Coach Tripp.

While the gun may make you safer in a situation where you are outnumbered and you don't know if potential aggressors may be armed, it also lowers the amount of control you have in your own response to a situation.

We now know in retrospect that the teenagers were unarmed. The defendant didn't know at the time. He just knew there were a bunch of guys and one rushed him. Because he had the gun, he had to shoot. He couldn't leave it tucked in his pants or otherwise hesitate to use it because as soon as the gun is in play and the gun holder is not willing to use it someone else could easily be willing to use it against him.

Now take a panzy, long haired, atheist, ******, liberal like myself who would not carry a gun into that situation. Sure, if the kids were armed or even sober enough to be organized I would be in deeper water than an armed man if it came to a confrontation. However, if it was just one drunk teenager tackling me (as it turned out to be) I could also fairly easily wrestle him to the ground without having to worry about the presence of my non-existent firearm upping the stakes.

Of course the other two could have just tried to stomp me and then it's do or die for ol' Lampa, I'd just have to do whatever I had to to survive the encounter. But, nothing that I willingly brought into the equation would force my hand as to the situation being life or death.

Given that the majority of violent conflict in my life has been "hold this asshole down before someone gets hurt" I'm much more concerned about being able to control that part of the outcome.

Then don't carry. My comment has nothing to do with the story. SQ made a comment that many uniformed, at one time myself, people say about cops and people who carry guns in general. Shoot to wound is not an option. The gun classes I have taken, the Leos and Lawyers I know say that is about the dumbest thing you can do.

**tgace** · Posted On: 6/05/2010 6:08pm

Bingo!

Tell it to the dumbass politicians though:

http://www.policeone.com/legal/artic...or-tactically/

The New York Post has just reported that Brooklyn Assembly Members Annette Robinson [D.-Bedford Stuyvesant] and Darryl Towns [D.-East New York] have introduced a “minimum force” bill that would require officers to “shoot a suspect in the arm or the leg” and to use firearms “with the intent to stop, rather than kill.”

**It is Fake** · Posted On: 6/05/2010 7:07pm

Originally Posted by tgace

Bingo!

Tell it to the dumbass politicians though:

http://www.policeone.com/legal/artic...or-tactically/

Yeah, when I was looking for articles to back up what I heard I saw that BS.

**Alucard619** · Posted On: 6/05/2010 8:11pm

Originally Posted by CrackFox

For **** sake. Their kid was shot dead over a car radio, what the **** do you expect them to do?

Yes we can argue that they were lousy parents to raise a kid that gets wasted and goes out stealing ****, but that's not really the point. You want them to stoically sit there and say "Yeah, he sure was a bad one, guess he had it coming and boy was he dumb to charge at a guy holding a gun"?

Mourn his death? Yes

Try to play the victim card by pretending their son was just some innocent kid? No

That is the **** that annoys me.

**Rivington** · Posted On: 6/05/2010 11:53pm

Originally Posted by judoist

From "The Martialist", June 5th, 2010.

I wish this bit was at the top of the article rather than at the bottom, then I would have known not to bother. "Due to Communist gun-haters, man is put on trial for manslaughter and is completely exonerated...so the Communist gun-hating culture wins again!" Uh...what?

I do wonder how Elmore will respond to his entire article (from 12/09) being copied here, since like many Randroid wackos he considers his copyrights on par stealing TVs from his house or something.

**Mtripp** · Posted On: 6/06/2010 6:31am

Originally Posted by Snake Plissken

Simply put, he should have dragged the kid into the house after he shot him

I hope you are kidding as that is the WORST thing you could do.

Those CSI people will catch that EVERY time.

**Mtripp** · Posted On: 6/06/2010 6:37am

Originally Posted by Lampa

At the risk of heading off on a tangent, this case and what you brought up above is a good example of why I'm not keen on the idea of carrying around a gun for self defense even though I'm not a stranger to them or even a bad shot.*

*I mean for me, personally. Hold your horses Coach Tripp.

While the gun may make you safer in a situation where you are outnumbered and you don't know if potential aggressors may be armed, it also lowers the amount of control you have in your own response to a situation.

We now know in retrospect that the teenagers were unarmed. The defendant didn't know at the time. He just knew there were a bunch of guys and one rushed him. Because he had the gun, he had to shoot. He couldn't leave it tucked in his pants or otherwise hesitate to use it because as soon as the gun is in play and the gun holder is not willing to use it someone else could easily be willing to use it against him.

Now take a panzy, long haired, atheist, ******, liberal like myself who would not carry a gun into that situation. Sure, if the kids were armed or even sober enough to be organized I would be in deeper water than an armed man if it came to a confrontation. However, if it was just one drunk teenager tackling me (as it turned out to be) I could also fairly easily wrestle him to the ground without having to worry about the presence of my non-existent firearm upping the stakes.

Of course the other two could have just tried to stomp me and then it's do or die for ol' Lampa, I'd just have to do whatever I had to to survive the encounter. But, nothing that I willingly brought into the equation would force my hand as to the situation being life or death.

Given that the majority of violent conflict in my life has been "hold this asshole down before someone gets hurt" I'm much more concerned about being able to control that part of the outcome.

Nope, not going to hold anything, and that is the point.

We know from Klecks work that simply showing you are armed ends the problem over 2 million times a year. So its really not such a bad idea.

The flaw in your logic comes down to the issue of "control." Let me give you a classic example, the cops controlled Rodney King, right?

A beat down is not professional and does not fall under the context of "control." You need to be VASTLY superior to control someone, rather than beating the crap out of them. You have to be EVEN MORE vastly superior to do so without injury to the other person. NO ONE is going to control three people, unarmed. Not going to happen. Kick the crap out of them, possible, but again, in the vast number of cases "Oh look, he has a gun" stops things very quickly.

In this ONE case it did not, in 2 million others it did.

**Mtripp** · Posted On: 6/06/2010 6:39am

Originally Posted by Alucard619

Cartman: "Butters! What did I say about shooting guys in the dick!"

More serious I am surprised this didn't turn out into "Angry black man kills white teens because black people don't like white people."

I'm not. However had the kids been black and the shooter been white....

**Mtripp** · Posted On: 6/06/2010 6:45am

Originally Posted by CrackFox

For **** sake. Their kid was shot dead over a car radio, what the **** do you expect them to do?

Yes we can argue that they were lousy parents to raise a kid that gets wasted and goes out stealing ****, but that's not really the point. You want them to stoically sit there and say "Yeah, he sure was a bad one, guess he had it coming and boy was he dumb to charge at a guy holding a gun"?

No sir, that is not why he was shot...

First, he decided it was ok to steal from another what they had earned with the sweat of his own brow. Without due process of law. I always find it amusing when someone now wants to talk about the punks rights, when he himself FREELY CHOSE to live outside of those rights. He was in the very act of denying those rights to others. Simply put, "Thou shall not steal."

Having made a lifestyle choice to live outside the rules of our republic, he finally got caught by someone who was not going to put up with it. Now, did he run away? Did he wait for cops to fight the good fight later? Nope, the charged the guy with the gun. Do you think he was running up there for a group hug?

At this point, after years of bad choices, the biggest one to NOT live inside the law, Darwin took over and the law of the jungle took effect.

His choice, his life. I have no tears for him.