should you be held accountable for injury or death if you shoot through a door/wall

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
whether accidentally or purposefully, should you be held accountable for any injury or death for your shot through a door or a wall?

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/28/biden-advises-shooting-shotgun-through-door

Vice President Joe Biden told Field & Stream magazine in an interview published Monday, "[if] you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door."

Coincidentally, a 22-year-old man in Virginia Beach, Va., was charged Monday with reckless handling of a firearm after doing just that a couple days earlier.

Local TV station WAVY 10 reports that the man observed two masked men leaning into his bedroom window. The men allegedly had weapons and told him to close his bedroom door. He stepped outside of his bedroom and did as instructed, then fired his shotgun through the closed door and then several more times at the window
Click to expand...
.

so when someone follows the advice of the VP???

Police received a 911 call from Wafer about 4:42 a.m., in which he tells the dispatcher: “I just shot somebody on my front porch with a shotgun, banging on my door.”

They found McBride’s body on the porch.

Evidence shows McBride knocked on the locked screen door, Worthy said, and there was no forced entry. The interior front door was open, and Wafer fired through “the closed and locked screen door,” said Worthy, who declined to discuss many details about the investigation.

“We do not believe he acted in lawful self-defense,” she added.
Click to expand...

should all persons be held accountable for these acts?????
 
guys like this, maybe????

http://www.chillicothegazette.com/a...fter-fatal-shooting?odyssey=obinsite&gcheck=1

A Ross County Sheriff’s Office sergeant is on paid administrative leave after a shooting that left a local woman dead.

Sgt. Brett McKnight, an 11-year-veteran with the sheriff’s office who was recently promoted, has been placed on leave while the Bureau of Criminal Investigation continues its investigation, Sheriff George Lavender told media Friday.

The investigations come after Krystal Barrows, 35, was shot in the head while a search warrant was being served at 10:30 p.m. Wednesday at 467 U.S. 23. She died Thursday night in a Columbus hospital.

Lavender, who at times was visibly emotional, expressed condolences to Barrows’ family and explained that his office and McKnight also are grieving about what happened. A counselor has met with his deputies as well as the Rev. Steve Schmidt, who has been appointed to act as a liaison between the sheriff’s office and Barrows’ family.

During the BCI investigation, Lavender said, it was discovered a bullet had accidentally been discharged from outside the door of the trailer, struck the door frame and went through the house toward the couch.

Lavender, who was at the scene, said he never heard an independent gunshot and believes McKnight’s gun fired as a second flash bang detonated just inside the front door.

“I absolutely believe this was an accidental shot. I really believe that the deputy that accidentally discharged his weapon was not aware of it at the time. You know, these are very emotional, high-stress situations. They’re going into a situation where they feel they could be shot and adrenaline is very high, emotions are very high,” Lavender said.

Lavender explained that, as flash bangs detonate, a strong reverberation is felt, and he thinks McKnight did not realize his weapon discharged.

At first, they thought the flash bang might have caused pieces of a kerosene heater to strike Barrows, but then found a shell casing outside. At that point, Lavender said the guns used by the officers in the service of the warrant were secured and BCI officials were contacted.

As deputies went to the home to serve the warrant, they were armed with information that alleged a large amount of heroin was being sold from the home, that there were several weapons inside and that there was a guard at the front door with a rifle, Lavender said.

“Anytime someone is possibly loaded inside waiting for officers, it’s just like the military. Those people in the military fear for their lives, I’m sure my people do, too,” Lavender said. “I’ve been on the front line. It is dangerous, and you do have a sense of you have to protect yourself, but you’ve got to do what’s right.”
 
Since the shooter at Newtown, Adam Lanza, shot through the door of the school shouldn't this thread be combined with all threads on the Newtown tragedy?
 
see, people (especially anti-gunners and freedom haters) want to hold us regular civilians to the highest standard when it comes to firearm safety. the following rules are usually the first ones learned when any class is taken.....

• Always treat the gun as if it were loaded.
• Never point the gun at something you are not prepared to destroy.
• Keep your finger of the trigger and outside the trigger guard until your sights are on the target.
• Be sure of your target, and what is behind your target.

so why is it that most of those same people offer a free pass to cops when they don't obey even these simple laws and someone INNOCENT is killed?

http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto...lly-shot-by-ross-county-deputies-in-raid.html
 
Ahh. I see STY didn't feel the need to post the original F&S interview. You know...it's the one the right's taken horribly out of context (again).

I did one of these town-hall meetings on the Internet and one guy said, “Well, what happens when the end days come? What happens when there’s the earthquake? I live in California, and I have to protect myself.”

I said, “Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.” Most people can handle a shotgun a hell of a lot better than they can a semiautomatic weapon in terms of both their aim and in terms of their ability to deter people coming. We can argue whether that’s true or not, but it is no argument that, for example, a shotgun could do the same job of protecting you. Now, granted, you can come back and say, “Well, a machine gun could do a better job of protecting me.” No one’s arguing we should make machine guns legal.
Click to expand...

So he's not telling people to do it, he's telling them if they were in the situation, it would be better if they had a shotgun.
 
Howey said:
Ahh. I see STY didn't feel the need to post the original F&S interview. You know...it's the one the right's taken horribly out of context (again).



So he's not telling people to do it, he's telling them if they were in the situation, it would be better if they had a shotgun.
Click to expand...
You beat me to it...I was going to ask STY if he should be responsible for not posting bullshit?



F&S: What about the other uses, for self-defense and target practice?
V.P. BIDEN: Well, the way in which we measure it is—I think most scholars would say—is that as long as you have a weapon sufficient to be able to provide your self-defense. I did one of these town-hall meetings on the Internet and one guy said, “Well, what happens when the end days come? What happens when there’s the earthquake? I live in California, and I have to protect myself.”
I said, “Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.” Most people can handle a shotgun a hell of a lot better than they can a semiautomatic weapon in terms of both their aim and in terms of their ability to deter people coming. We can argue whether that’s true or not, but it is no argument that, for example, a shotgun could do the same job of protecting you. Now, granted, you can come back and say, “Well, a machine gun could do a better job of protecting me.” No one’s arguing we should make machine guns legal.
 
Althea said:
You beat me to it...I was going to ask STY if he should be responsible for not posting bullshit?



F&S: What about the other uses, for self-defense and target practice?
V.P. BIDEN: Well, the way in which we measure it is—I think most scholars would say—is that as long as you have a weapon sufficient to be able to provide your self-defense. I did one of these town-hall meetings on the Internet and one guy said, “Well, what happens when the end days come? What happens when there’s the earthquake? I live in California, and I have to protect myself.”
I said, “Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.” Most people can handle a shotgun a hell of a lot better than they can a semiautomatic weapon in terms of both their aim and in terms of their ability to deter people coming. We can argue whether that’s true or not, but it is no argument that, for example, a shotgun could do the same job of protecting you. Now, granted, you can come back and say, “Well, a machine gun could do a better job of protecting me.” No one’s arguing we should make machine guns legal.
Click to expand...


That's the difference between the right and left.

They're dishonest, sneaky, snarky, and lie a lot.
 
Howey said:
Ahh. I see STY didn't feel the need to post the original F&S interview. You know...it's the one the right's taken horribly out of context (again).


So he's not telling people to do it, he's telling them if they were in the situation, it would be better if they had a shotgun.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. from the same excerpt you quoted - "Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.”

and what expertise does he have to say something like this? i'm a 6x expert rifleman with an M16/AR15, a 3x expert with the 1911 .45 caliber pistol, and barely a marksman with a shotgun. so everyone is different.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I beg to differ. from the same excerpt you quoted - "Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.”

and what expertise does he have to say something like this? i'm a 6x expert rifleman with an M16/AR15, a 3x expert with the 1911 .45 caliber pistol, and barely a marksman with a shotgun. so everyone is different.
Click to expand...

Context, sweetie, context...
 
F*cking Ay, yes you should be held accountable!

It's Called Endangerment?!!

In US law, endangerment comprises several types of crimes involving conduct that is wrongful and reckless or wanton, and likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm to another person. In some states, such as Florida, substantially similar language is used for the crime of "Culpable Negligence."

The offense is intended to prohibit and therefore deter reckless or wanton conduct that wrongfully creates a substantial risk of death or serious injury to others.
The law specifies several types of endangerment:

  • Child endangerment: placing a child in a potentially harmful situation, either through negligence or misconduct.

  • Reckless endangerment: A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. “Reckless” conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm. The ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others.

  • Public endangerment is a criminal act that can be prosecuted in a court. It is usually applied to crimes which place the public in some form of danger, although that danger can be more or less severe according to the crime. It is punished most frequently in Canada.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP]
Endangerment can range from a misdemeanor to a felony. The NY Penal Code codifies Reckless Endangerment in §120.20 in the second degree and §120.25 in the first degree for injuries to persons and 145.25 for risk to damage to property. One of the most important elements in these charges is not that necessarily damage or injury happened, but that there was potential for substantial injury or damage to occur by the defendant's actions.[SUP][3][/SUP]


From Wikipedia
 
signalmankenneth said:
It's Called Endangerment?!!

In US law, endangerment comprises several types of crimes involving conduct that is wrongful and reckless or wanton, and likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm to another person. In some states, such as Florida, substantially similar language is used for the crime of "Culpable Negligence."

The offense is intended to prohibit and therefore deter reckless or wanton conduct that wrongfully creates a substantial risk of death or serious injury to others.
The law specifies several types of endangerment:

  • Child endangerment: placing a child in a potentially harmful situation, either through negligence or misconduct.
  • Reckless endangerment: A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. “Reckless” conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm. The ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others.
  • Public endangerment is a criminal act that can be prosecuted in a court. It is usually applied to crimes which place the public in some form of danger, although that danger can be more or less severe according to the crime. It is punished most frequently in Canada.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP]
Endangerment can range from a misdemeanor to a felony. The NY Penal Code codifies Reckless Endangerment in §120.20 in the second degree and §120.25 in the first degree for injuries to persons and 145.25 for risk to damage to property. One of the most important elements in these charges is not that necessarily damage or injury happened, but that there was potential for substantial injury or damage to occur by the defendant's actions.[SUP][3][/SUP]


From Wikipedia
Click to expand...
I think 'reckless' goes out the window, during endtimes!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top