Man Pulls Gun on Sam’s Club Customer.
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
- Status
That's covered above. Pierce had no right or justification to beat the guy up and take away the gun as phillips was peacefully walking away. If he had gone to phillips and said "gimme your gun or I'm going to knock you on your butt and take it" and then behaved in such a violent or threatening manner that Philips was scared to death, or if he had violently laid hands on phillips and phillips felt that he was at risk of death or severe injury, Pierce was completely wrong and could have been legally shot and possibly killed by the initial aggressor.
That's just the way the laws are written. It protects all of the hotheads who might think of shoving or punching a guy who committed an offense.
Watch the westerns and you will often see the bad guy goading the good guy into drawing first. Those dudes would go to jail.
I don't think these are problems with a lack of training. These guys were both idiots. One shouldn't need training to not pull a legally carried firearm on a person for their political views or middle finger. One should not need training to understand that following and confronting an unstable person that just had a gun to your head is a very bad idea.
Okay, that is correct, when phillips had the gun pointed at pierce, IF, and this is a great big if, pierce felt threatened he could have acted on it with a certain level of legal immunity. If he had drawn a gun and popped phillips, we still and always will come back to whether or not there was an actual threat, or a threat that was real to ignore.
In retrospect it's obvious that phillips didn't want to shoot. It may have been pretty obvious at the time. I'm not sure what I would do if phillips had pointed a gun at me. It is completely obvious that pierce didn't fear him at all.
A bit of looking around will show that Pierce isn't a quiet man. As time passes we may find out that he was actually the instigator, that maybe he had provoked philips, and that phillips was the one who got caught. My brothers always kicked me under the dinner table and of course I was the one who got poked with with a fork when I started yelling.
It seems pretty clear here at the beginning. Whatever comes out in the trials will be interesting.
Not what I said, I guess you missed the '?' at end of each QUESTION. Stupid people with guns doing stupid things...the price we pay for 2nd amendment rights?That's right! We need more laws!!!!
Remember the legal requirement is not if Pierce felt threatened but if a reasonable person in Pierce's place would have felt threatened. It would be pretty hard to argue that a reasonable person would not have felt threatened once a gun was drawn, brandished, and used in an aggressive manner.
Correct. It would be hard not to take it seriously with a crazy looking dude like phillips pointing a gun. But it's the subtle points that would make or break it, unless there is some sort of legal protection involved.
maybe irrelevant to the discussion, but a person can look into pierce's personal life and the fact that he pursued phillips in search of a new confrontation and clearly see that he's probably not suited to carry.
IMO.
maybe irrelevant to the discussion, but a person can look into pierce's personal life and the fact that he pursued phillips in search of a new confrontation and clearly see that he's probably not suited to carry.
IMO.
There is a thin line between bravery and stupidity but in the case of Pierce we don't have to worry about which side of the line he fell on. Following a known armed man into the parking lot to continue the confrontation speaks of stupidity to a level that seems to rise to dangerous in itself. I'm not a legal scholar but once Philips ended the confrontation and retreated and Pierce decided to pursue and re escalate it the roles of who was the aggressor may have reversed (again?).
As noted earlier though there are clearly parts of this situation that are unknown as we have already heard about areas "off camera" and I expect there is much more to the story then we will ever know. I'm sure Philips has been in the presence of those who espouse political views different than his own in the past and has managed to, seemingly, NOT draw his gun and confront them so it is likely there is more to it with Pierce
As noted earlier though there are clearly parts of this situation that are unknown as we have already heard about areas "off camera" and I expect there is much more to the story then we will ever know. I'm sure Philips has been in the presence of those who espouse political views different than his own in the past and has managed to, seemingly, NOT draw his gun and confront them so it is likely there is more to it with Pierce
Aguila Blanca
Staff
FireForged said:
Just to pile on a little, first we should remember that maroon is a shade of deep red, it is NOT in any way a shade of black -- or even brown.
Second: I'm 75 years old. Your comment is the very first time I have ever seen/heard anyone suggest that Bugs Bunny's use of "maroon" was anything other that an intentional (by the cartoonists) mispronunciation of the word "moron." To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever claimed that it had any racial overtones. I know for a fact that I have used it (in my best Bugs Bunny imitation accent) in the presence of persons of color, and nobody has ever expressed any sense of having been offended.
This "historical meaning" of which you speak, I'm sorry to inform you, does not exist.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Back to the original story, this incident serves as another example of why liberals don't think ordinary people should be allowed to carry guns -- they're afraid everyone will act as irresponsibly as they do.
A few more incidents like this and it may transpire that the most "commonsense" law we could enact to prevent "gun violence" might be a law that prohibits Democrats and liberals from possessing firearms.
A few more incidents like this and it may transpire that the most "commonsense" law we could enact to prevent "gun violence" might be a law that prohibits Democrats and liberals from possessing firearms.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
However, if Pierce had been armed he would have been fully within his rights to shoot Phillips when Phillips was pointing a gun at him.briandg said:
You had to do it didn't you? Leave your politics out of this. This may have been a politically motivated altercation, but there are citizens at both ends of the spectrum and everywhere in between that don't care for Trump. This is not a Democrats/liberal issue and those kind of comments put a real bad taste in my mouth.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
People talk of Pierce’s stupidity in pursuing his attacker to the parking lot; and by and large, I’d agree that’s not how I’d bet with my life on the line. Still, it is worth remembering that people respond to different motivations. What many perceive as prudence, some will perceive as weakness. Prudence pays off right up until you meet one of those guys. Then you are encouraging an attack instead of deterring it.
FireForged
New member
It has been discussed extensively for at least 15 years on the internet, its not hard to find. I wont post a link to it.
best regards
That because you are notpart of a generation that has to have a “safe space” at college where you can draw with crayons because someone’s opinion hurt your feelings.
You might also have deductive reasoning, another seemingly lost skill, in which Bugs calling an old white guy, Elmer Fudd, a “Maroon”, so was obviously not a form of racial discrimination.
Now that people don’t study history or read books, you might have to “Facebook” or “tweet” to see how uninformed opinions are created and propagate.
There are some folks that think nothing existed before the internet..
"Maroon" referring to a colony of escaped slaves does exist (I learned that from this thread) but it's an arcane and obscure definition of the word, and I'm not sure it's even derogatory anymore. The only ones who would be offended by it are looking for something to be offended by, and I'm happy to oblige them 
- Status