Hes got a gun! ... A bb gun...
- Thread starter Got Lead?
- Start date
- Status
That's just an absurd statement.
If the law says that you are justified in shooting (using deadly physical force, that is) when confronted with actions that a reasonable person believes may cause grievous physical injury (having an eye destroyed with a bb would count) or death (which could happen, too), then a jury would be instructed to make a finding of not-guilty if that area of the law had been met.
It's that simple.
You can make all the juvenile allusions to "an official Red Ryder carbine-action 200 shot range model air rifle with a compass in the stock and this thing that tells time" all you want, but you are just robbing yourself of more and more credibility here, Joab.
This is about the potential for modern air rifles and air pistols to cause grievous bodily harm; and the fact that in most jurisdictions, it is legal to meet such threat of harm with deadly force in order to stop it.
-azurefly
If the law says that you are justified in shooting (using deadly physical force, that is) when confronted with actions that a reasonable person believes may cause grievous physical injury (having an eye destroyed with a bb would count) or death (which could happen, too), then a jury would be instructed to make a finding of not-guilty if that area of the law had been met.
It's that simple.
You can make all the juvenile allusions to "an official Red Ryder carbine-action 200 shot range model air rifle with a compass in the stock and this thing that tells time" all you want, but you are just robbing yourself of more and more credibility here, Joab.
This is about the potential for modern air rifles and air pistols to cause grievous bodily harm; and the fact that in most jurisdictions, it is legal to meet such threat of harm with deadly force in order to stop it.
-azurefly
I would not draw on a bb-gun wielding person, if I knew for a fact that it was a bb gun. The power level of any gun that shoots bbs is ridiculously low and would be unlikely to penetrate your clothes, much less do serious damage to you. Even the pellet rifles which advertise shooting 1000fps, only do so with a tiny superlight pellet with less than a tiny fraction of what a .22lr bullet weighs, weighing about 4-5 grains. A rock thrown by hand is much more dangerous and powerful. A 1000fps .177 air rifle's power compares to even a lowly .22lr like a 9mm pistol compares to a .300winchester magnum rifle.
When I was a teen, I had air rifles which are considered "magnum" class by the airgun community. A .22 cal MAC-1 Steroid 392 launching 14 gr pellets at 900+ fps and a rws 94 advertised at 1000fps in .177 and 850 in .22. Both failed to penetrate 1" of cheap composite wood plank. I measured it out at just over 1/2" of penetration in wood.
I do not care that authorities will charge someone with "deadly weapon" when threatening others with a bb gun. They may also consider fingernail clippers on a plane to be a "deadly weapon", but for me, that does not justify me drawing on Granny Maple for waving one around and threatening to pinch me with one.
As for dreadnought's pics, the one on the right is easily ID'd as a bb gun because of that silly little rod thing on the bottom, and the rifle is obviously a pellet gun because of the huge break barrel/spring compressing mechanism at the end of the stock. Non-gun people get scared when they see a black squirt gun. However, if I could not easily id something as an air gun, I would definately draw. Otherwise, it's cover my face-break toy gun-kick butt time.
When I was a teen, I had air rifles which are considered "magnum" class by the airgun community. A .22 cal MAC-1 Steroid 392 launching 14 gr pellets at 900+ fps and a rws 94 advertised at 1000fps in .177 and 850 in .22. Both failed to penetrate 1" of cheap composite wood plank. I measured it out at just over 1/2" of penetration in wood.
I do not care that authorities will charge someone with "deadly weapon" when threatening others with a bb gun. They may also consider fingernail clippers on a plane to be a "deadly weapon", but for me, that does not justify me drawing on Granny Maple for waving one around and threatening to pinch me with one.
As for dreadnought's pics, the one on the right is easily ID'd as a bb gun because of that silly little rod thing on the bottom, and the rifle is obviously a pellet gun because of the huge break barrel/spring compressing mechanism at the end of the stock. Non-gun people get scared when they see a black squirt gun. However, if I could not easily id something as an air gun, I would definately draw. Otherwise, it's cover my face-break toy gun-kick butt time.
razorburn said:
It has been made clear that this very thing may be impossible to determine. Do you have Superman vision?
razorburn said:
Honestly, what planet are people from who argue that "any gun that shoots BBs" can't do any damage to you?!
Do you realize how absurd that hyper-generalization is??I'd like you to maybe indicate your willingness to stand five feet away while I aim even one of those crappy spring-loaded Marksman "1911s" at your eye. You don't think that even a BB at, say, 200 fps could damage your eye?! Now take a Daisy 881 pumped 10 or so times, alleged to make over 800 fps. Do you honestly think that this is all about whether it can go through your shirt, sweatshirt, and leather winter jacket?! How in the world do you know that the shot won't be at your throat, mouth, eye? And you believe that there is NO gun that fires BBs that could do more than make an annoying little welt?
So, it failed to penetrate 1" of wood, so that means it's just totally incapable of rupturing an eyeball, yeah?
The fact that they have slapped "prohibited" onto nail clippers does not mean that your hyperbole is a valid argument. The one has nothing to do with the other, unless you want to conveniently ignore that people HAVE lost eyes to BB guns, and they HAVE even caused death!
Is this more of the Superman vision?
What about if the gun is held in a hand with a really big sleeve, like on a winter jacket (similar to the BB-proof one you'll be wearing), or if it's a low-light situation?
Really, I just don't understand why so many people are just disavowing the notion that a BB gun can cause substantial enough injury to warrant deadly force. C'mon, people, the law puts you in the clear with the wording "grievous physical harm." Other laws talk about "lasting injury or loss of function of a body part or organ."
How many of you would want to be blinded because you did not want to meet force with force, because you thought it was unseemly to shoot someone who had "only" a BB gun? I am not saying you have to necessarily shoot, even -- but some are saying they would not even draw! I'm sorry, but I am a pilot and a skydiver and I am NOT going to leave myself open to losing the ability to do those things just because "it's only a BB gun." I may not know that it's "only" a BB gun, first of all; and even if I did know, I'd give the attacker (he IS an attacker, after all) ONE SHORT CHANCE to give it up (and I'm going home with the BB gun, or to the police, btw) with my weapon drawn. And the funny thing is, no one would ever have to know if I really did know it was a BB gun or not. A fool would admit, "Yeah, I drew knowing it was a BB gun." A wise person would say, "How would you like to be in that situation and not be sure, and then have someone second-guess you, officer? I couldn't be sure, and I thought it sure looked like a real gun, so I protected myself."
-azurefly
-azurefly
Tell you what azurefly
You try to convince a jury that you had to shoot a kid with what you knew was a BB gun (check the original post, if you can see to read it from your high horse) because you thought he could put an eye out and see who comes up sounding juvenile.
Right now you sound like a hundred other pseudo he-men desperately seeking a reason to shoot someone.
You try to convince a jury that you had to shoot a kid with what you knew was a BB gun (check the original post, if you can see to read it from your high horse) because you thought he could put an eye out and see who comes up sounding juvenile.
Right now you sound like a hundred other pseudo he-men desperately seeking a reason to shoot someone.
Deadly force is authorized when there is an immediate and unavoidable threat of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent. Loss of an eye constitutes grave bodily harm in pretty much every jurisdiction, so you should be able to get a jury instruction on the point and in your favor.
Or maybe you can tell the jury that the impact of a high velocity projectile (to wit, a BB) onto one of the few unarmored portions of a human skull can actually cause death. But let's not let facts get in the way of a tirade, right?
And lets not let common sense get in the way of a good excuse for your blood lust.
Either this thread is full of youngsters that can't remember pre- paintbal BB gun wars, old pansies who were always on the losing side of those wars or macho men looking for a reason to shoot someone.
Either this thread is full of youngsters that can't remember pre- paintbal BB gun wars, old pansies who were always on the losing side of those wars or macho men looking for a reason to shoot someone.
Well now...
If I somehow KNEW the person had a BB gun? Depends, if it's a kid I'll shield myself and try to take it away from the little punk and call the cops. If I'm walking at night and the "kid" is just some idiot high schooler or 20 something year old drawing on me, I'd be more inclined to shoot first and ask questions later if I didn't know it was a BB gun. I have played with airsofts and such before, fun when you're with friends and everyone KNOWS they are not real however many of them do LOOK, FEEL, AND MOVE JUST LIKE THEIR REAL COUNTERPARTS!! This thread reminds me of a shooting that happened in the middle school I went to years ago, for those who don't know there was a kid recently who took an airsoft gun to Millwee Middle and the airsoft looked like a real gun. The kid was holed up in a restroom, and officers shot the boy. There was huge public outcry, some defending the officer's decision, and others condemning the shooting.
Epyon
P.S: I've got a thread posted in reaction to this thread.
If I somehow KNEW the person had a BB gun? Depends, if it's a kid I'll shield myself and try to take it away from the little punk and call the cops. If I'm walking at night and the "kid" is just some idiot high schooler or 20 something year old drawing on me, I'd be more inclined to shoot first and ask questions later if I didn't know it was a BB gun. I have played with airsofts and such before, fun when you're with friends and everyone KNOWS they are not real however many of them do LOOK, FEEL, AND MOVE JUST LIKE THEIR REAL COUNTERPARTS!! This thread reminds me of a shooting that happened in the middle school I went to years ago, for those who don't know there was a kid recently who took an airsoft gun to Millwee Middle and the airsoft looked like a real gun. The kid was holed up in a restroom, and officers shot the boy. There was huge public outcry, some defending the officer's decision, and others condemning the shooting.
Epyon
P.S: I've got a thread posted in reaction to this thread.
I am very familiar with that story, my father knew the kid's family and my BIL was on the scene that day.
The officer that day was justified in shooting at what he had no way of knowing was not a real deadly threat, as any one of us would have been justified.
But shooting at what you know is a BB gun and trying to justify it be using your grandmother's warning, that you didn't take seriously back then and no thinking person will take seriously in a courtroom, is just asinine.
And anyone that doesn't think that a Ralphie reference will not be brought up in the jury room in response to such a defense has not been around people much
Capt. Charlie
Moderator Emeritus
This has gotten completely out of hand.
Closed, for a total lack of civility
.
Closed, for a total lack of civility
.- Status