• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

san bernardino active shooting event

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
Good. He had no right to as he was no longer in danger of grievous bodily harm, an element of defense of self.

The risk of arming citizens against mass terrorism is of them being overwhelmed by the horror, their emotions and their need to do something active.

The elements of common law defense of self are four; be innocent of instigation, be in danger of bodily harm, use sufficient force to deliver oneself only from harm, and attempt to withdraw. Your statutory requirements may be greater or lesser, not having qualified immunity a citizen cannot afford to be wrong.

This would depend on the state (if the guy would be legally OK to shoot). If he witnessed (or really knew) them killing 14 people, I think that he would be OK to shoot, even when they are leaving. He would have been shooting at killers ... almost every state allows shooting them, even when no danger to the shooter is present...

Not a self defense question ---- a citizens arrest issue.
Its called REASONABLE force to secure the arrest .. and it can be reasonable IMO to shoot at a fleeing vehicle wherein all the occupants have just killed 14 people.


CA recognizes citizens arrest...http://le.alcoda.org/publications/files/CITIZENSARREST.pdf

Why the carrier did not shoot is unknown to me...perhaps too far off for the guy where a handgun is out of range or he thought he could not hit the vehicle (why waste expensive ammo).
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,067
Location
here nc
This would depend on the state (if the guy would be legally OK to shoot). If he witnessed them killing 14 people, I think that he would be OK to shoot, even when they are leaving. He would have been shooting at killers ... almost every state allows shooting them, even when no danger to the shooter is present...

Not a self defense question ---- a citizens arrest issue.
Its called REASONABLE force to secure the arrest .. and its reasonable IMO to shoot at a fleeing vehicle wherein all the occupants have just killed 14 people.

CA recognizes citizens arrest...http://le.alcoda.org/publications/files/CITIZENSARREST.pdf

there is only one state in the union, NC, which has no statute allowing citizens arrest ~ we might detain, but pointing a firearm or other weapon at someone to 'detain' is a against NC statutes. 15A-404. Detention of offenders by private persons.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/pdf/byarticle/chapter_15a/article_20.pdf

ipse
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,337
Location
Nevada
Just posting this as I stumbled across it this morning. It seems there was an ARMED witness at a nearby business that observed the black SUV leaving after shots were fired. He did not intervene.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/herald_bulldog/2015/12/witness_i_saw_suv_leaving_san_bernardino_shooting_scene

Reports are coming in that he did have some level of intervention, even without shots fired. But regardless, he is living in a state putting him at the extreme disadvantage of being one of few, and possibly the only, armed people in the vicinity. His firearm is for his defense, not to stop massacres of those who the state has disarmed, a state which continues to ironically spew the drivel that the cops are sufficient for this.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
Reports are coming in that he did have some level of intervention, even without shots fired. But regardless, he is living in a state putting him at the extreme disadvantage of being one of few, and possibly the only, armed people in the vicinity. His firearm is for his defense, not to stop massacres of those who the state has disarmed, a state which continues to ironically spew the drivel that the cops are sufficient for this.

Another logical explanation .. he had no duty there..like cops have no duty...
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Just posting this as I stumbled across it this morning. It seems there was an ARMED witness at a nearby business that observed the black SUV leaving after shots were fired. He did not intervene.

Good. He had no right to as he was no longer in danger of grievous bodily harm, an element of defense of self.

Whatever may have been a "reasonable man" response a couple of weeks ago, following Paris and San Bernardino, a reasonable man might well surmise that mass murdering armed terrorists leaving the scene of their crime are an imminent danger to other innocent persons and the community at large.

Defense of innocent third parties is as legitimate as defense of self, though admittedly often a more difficult situation for the individual citizen to discern. But, it would be beyond mind boggling for authorities to press charges against an armed citizen who intervened to stop terrorists from successfully fleeing the scene of their crime...as long as the LAC actually engaged terrorists.

Now, whether any reasonable man armed with only a self defense handgun would choose to intervene against multiple terrorist armed with long guns is another question.

Charles
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,337
Location
Nevada

Have Gun - Will Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
290
Location
Kenosha County, Wisconsin
FBI agents early Saturday raided the home of a man believed to have purchased two military-grade rifles used in this week’s deadly rampage in San Bernardino,
[ ... ]
Early on Saturday, law enforcement authorities raided a home next door to one where the Farook family once lived in Riverside, Calif. According to a law enforcement official, the raid targeted Enrique Marquez, who is thought to have bought the two military-grade rifles used in the attack. Both weapons were modified in a way that allowed them to be used with greater lethality, suggesting extensive planning for the attack.[my emphasis]

Marquez, who has not been charged with a crime, has checked himself into a nearby mental health facility.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...76cbec161973_story.html?tid=pm_national_pop_b

What did he do? Remove the bullet button and use a standard-capacity magazine? You mean bad guys can do that? So the restrictions were only on the good guys? Who would've thought?

No doubt, who would've thunk it? :banghead: Obviously not the Wash Post...

But wait a minute... let's back up a bit:

FBI agents early Saturday raided the home of a man believed to have purchased two military-grade rifles used in this week’s deadly rampage in San Bernardino, [ ... ]

the raid targeted Enrique Marquez, who is thought to have bought the two military-grade rifles used in the attack.

(Bold added by me) Hold on - where can I purchase these "military-grade rifles"? The only rifles our nanny state allows us to purchase are certainly not "military-grade" - they are, by definition, "civilian-grade"! Methinks the story might be a bit embellished, possibly? :rolleyes: :banghead:

<Cough>LIARS!<cough>
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
--snipped--Hold on - where can I purchase these "military-grade rifles"? The only rifles our nanny state allows us to purchase are certainly not "military-grade" - they are, by definition, "civilian-grade"!
Military grade? Like the bolt action .308 that Carlos Hathcock used?

Or perhaps class III/full auto which civilians with enough money can certainly own.

Course we all know that they are just demonizing guns in general.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
A neighbor, now in his last days, MCPOCG, suggests otherwise, that he used a 30-06 Model 70 Winchester - 7.62×63mm versus 7.62×51mm NATO .308.

My neighbor was Hathcock's 'sideboy' at his last Parade, when he refused his crutches and stood unassisted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_ThieleAl may be mis-remembering, but I will never suggest it to his face. Mrs MCPOCG Thiele would have my ... ... Al will have the whole room in tears telling the story.
The point though was that a bolt action rifle was used. Today the military still uses some - notably the Remington 700.

"Military grade"? My ask ......... me no questions and I'll tell no lies. :p
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,463
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
The point though was that a bolt action rifle was used. Today the military still uses some - notably the Remington 700.

"Military grade"? My ask ......... me no questions and I'll tell no lies. [emoji14]
Have we forgotten about the faulty safety on the 700 series.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
Have we forgotten about the faulty safety on the 700 series.
I still love my 700 :)

Remington established a dedicated website and toll-free hotline to help consumers determine whether their Model 700 or Model Seven rifle(s) are subject to recall:
• Website: http://xmprecall.remington.com
• Toll-Free Hotline: 1-800-243-9700 (Prompt #3 then Prompt #1) Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. EDT.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...0-and-model-seven-rifles-for-trigger-trouble/
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
Have we forgotten about the faulty safety on the 700 series.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

What's a safety? LOL

Safeties fail sometimes .. one should not supplant good practicing of the rule not to point a gun in the direction you would not want a bullet to go and other good rules just because of the presence of a safety.


I don't design my guns with safeties anymore. I think it makes people get lazy about gun safety.

When I hand my gun to another and I tell them that they have no safety they handle them correctly.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
What's a safety? LOL

Safeties fail sometimes .. one should not supplant good practicing of the rule not to point a gun in the direction you would not want a bullet to go and other good rules just because of the presence of a safety.


I don't design my guns with safeties anymore. I think it makes people get lazy about gun safety.

When I hand my gun to another and I tell them that they have no safety they handle them correctly.

Most revolvers do not have mechanical safeties. Some are not drop proof either.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,067
Location
here nc
ya, initial news reports several days ago stated some how he is related by blood to one of the shooter(s).

ipse
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,278
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
ABC news radio network is reporting this evening that the FBI has a dive team searching a lake for evidence. A separate comment said the government forces of truth, justice, and the American way are looking for a hard-drive removed from the computer of one of the killers before the shooting spree.

Hmmmm. Now, where have I heard about an FBI dive team searching a lake before? Oh, yes! I remember now. Dr. Steven Hatfill. They searched a lake near his home or something at least twice, maybe more, while publicly making him look like the perpetrator of the anthrax attacks. And, if I recall, they were either looking for a computer or found one. As a side note, the forces of truth, justice, and the American way were never able to bring a case against him. Hatfill sued and received a $5M settlement.

Of course, the comment about seeking a hard-drive removed from the computer before the killing spree is curious. When else would it have been removed? After the killing spree? How would anybody know it was removed after the killing spree? Or, before for that matter since the killers evaded the G-men for something like four hours before being shot and killed.
 
Top