Posts: 15
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2008
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Orts
quote:
Originally posted by Jon
Would I feel bad if someone died? Yes... but then I feel bad when anyone dies, and it happens a lot.
No, No, No... Not Someone, your immediate DEAD family member!
I'm not interested in a debate over how many, if ever, some un-named face, I'm saying your neighbors heard a gunshot, (and it matters not if one house away or thirty) did absolutely nothing, and believe they did the absolute correct thing by ignoring the gunshot while your relative bled to death on your doorstep because they were not going to react in a knee-jerk manner. Be honest, at what point will that support for inaction turn to rage over inaction? I say it would change immediately when it comes crashing down on a person personally.
We see this in our DUI laws. People yell and scream when little Brianna gets smushed by a drunk driver. We need tough laws, we need zero tolerance, and we need the death penalty. Yet when we have a "few" social drinks of wine at the art gallery opening and drive home, and get pulled over near the house, and fail the sobriety tests... suddenly the law wasn't meant for us, it's for all the others drunks. These laws are not meant for us social drinkers but for the "bar drunks".
The second someone is personally touched by a single bullet smashing through their love one's brains and everyone who heard it did nothing, those same people saying well if it's one house away it's this, if it's 5 houses away it's that, if it's a single shot it's this, if it's multiple shots it's that, if it for a rat it's this, if it's for a fly it's that.... When it happens to them they will be the first person yelling and screaming that those people who heard the noise and did nothing should be charged with criminal negligence.
Now, with a straight face, tell me I’m wrong.
Not that it will matter to you but Yes! I think you are WRONG!
1st, what's this comment: No, No, No... Not Someone, your immediate DEAD family member!, what's that about? Should it matter? We as humans shouldn't just look out for our own. That's part of what's wrong with society, no one wants to get involved. If I heard a shot I'd go over next door and check on my neighbors rather than waste time on the phone and have to wait 30 minutes or whatever for the cops to arrive - boy you talk about inaction, that's the epidome of inaction.
2nd, is your circa 1943 Adolph Hitler statement: We need tough laws, we need zero tolerance, and we need the death penalty.
I for one am glad to have kind and caring neighbors that watch out for me and mine as I do for them as well.
I think in your purple veined indignation you've lost sight or just don't know what kind of round was fired at this rodent, it's not as big of a deal as you're making it into! Sure had it been a hard ball 9mm slug that would be a different matter. Of course any responsible gun owner would know to not use that round for terminating a rat in a residential district because we all know we are ultimately responsible for any injuries or damage we incur. And yea, to the untrained ear you may not know the difference. That doesn't mean you have to start a witch hunt against every gun owner on the island. It is this kind of fear that is going to lead to all of our rights and freedoms being taken away from us little by little.
Posts: 1,595
Threads: 111
Joined: May 2007
Sorry about your exaustion Jay. At least you've gotten this topic down to the nitty gritty;
"Do I believe that a single gunshot indicates a crime?"
Yes it does, if it's in a populated area (Zoning is irrelevent) Shooting the gun IS the crime.
This from the Hawaii Rifle association website:
"Discharging a firearm toward a populated area or on or toward a street or road is reckless endangering. This can apply to private ranges, plinking, accidental discharges, and self-defense use."
Laws we don't agree with can be changed, but no matter how justified, reasonable, heroic, or beneficial Tom's actions were; he commited reckless endangering by firing a weapon in a populated area. It seems so simple to me. All this debate over the the degree or justification of criminality is what's exausting.
I support the constitutional right to bear arms, and I support the constitutional right of citizens to respond to criminal acts, no matter how manini others may see them. (This may be known as the right to not hear guns going off in the middle of the night)
This from a PTSD saturated combat veteran.
Posts: 703
Threads: 37
Joined: Jun 2008
OK, Tom fire a 22 cal, round loaded with #12 dust shot which on a good day might travel 50 feet and be dangerous out to 15 feet. He did not take out the rat with a .50 caliber Barrett which would travel 2500 yards and still be dangerous. We have a real tempest in a teapot going on here again. Better to take out the rat this way than scatter poison around his property and endanger pets and kids. Doesn't matter what some meth head does on Xmas or New Years. By all means report that jerk but lets not make a criminal out of someone doing a community service. Obviously the police did not perceive a threat to law and order. He used the appropriate force with the appropriate device to deal with vermin, nuf said.
dick wilson
dick wilson
"Nothing is idiot proof,because idiots are so ingenious!"
Posts: 1,595
Threads: 111
Joined: May 2007
So Tom's actions are illegal but OK. There are still some grey areas here. Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is it OK to shoot in a neighborhood?
.22 dust shot OK !
.22 short OK ?
.22 Long OK ?
Handgun or rifle OK ?
30/06 OK ?
155 howitzer OK ?
12 Ga. shotgun OK ?
one shot OK ?
one shot every 10 minutes OK ?
5 quick shots OK ?
fireworks out of season OK ?
wasted Police response initiated by shooter OK ?
Maybe it would be easier if the law stated:
"Discharging a firearm toward a populated area or on or toward a street or road is reckless endangering"
Oh wait; That's what the law does say. If we don't like it we should change the law.
Whatever,.......... My compliments to whomever reported the shot. The Police probably were correct in taking no action, but after several repetitions of an incident like this they may advise Tom that he's wasting their time and might think about using a trap.
Posts: 1,273
Threads: 41
Joined: Oct 2007
Greg, thanks, that's a move away from dogmatism and towards more constructive conversation.
"In" and "toward" are very different terms, and it is unfair and misleading to use them interchangeably as you do. "Toward" I'm sure we could all agree as in most cases to be reckless endangering. "In" isn't necessarily so. Context matters, and I'm certain the court would rule in that manner.
Having read the law first hand this morning, again carefully--the best we can say is that the Hawaiian statutes are vague and poorly written, and simply bad law. As well, any fire arm laws that are wholly exclusive--as in the manner you are suggesting the statutes to be read--are clearly in violation of 2cd Amendment principles. States have the right to regulate, but not to prohibit.
The term "populated" is contextual, and obviously some people feel very different about what it constitutes. Is populated one neighbor a half mile away, or is it downtown Tokyo?
We have a situation of bad law, poorly understood and poorly applied. There is certain to be no good outcome to this state of affairs. It is the epitome of injustice to force people to be subject to law that is simply incomprehensible.
Posts: 14
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2008
quote:
Originally posted by DickWilson
OK, Tom fire a 22 cal, round loaded with #12 dust shot which on a good day might travel 50 feet and be dangerous out to 15 feet. He did not take out the rat with a .50 caliber Barrett which would travel 2500 yards and still be dangerous. We have a real tempest in a teapot going on here again. Better to take out the rat this way than scatter poison around his property and endanger pets and kids. Doesn't matter what some meth head does on Xmas or New Years. By all means report that jerk but lets not make a criminal out of someone doing a community service. Obviously the police did not perceive a threat to law and order. He used the appropriate force with the appropriate device to deal with vermin, nuf said.
dick wilson
Couldn't have said it better myself!
Posts: 1,595
Threads: 111
Joined: May 2007
Do contextual considerations apply to other laws as well?
In Hawaii a person is guilty of a DUI for blowing a .08
So is a .09 OK as opposed to a 1.5 ?
Is a functional alcoholic that can drive better after a coldpack more acceptable than an accident prone klutz ?
______________________________________________________________________
As far as "constructive" conversation goes, I think I've offered some from the start; If you don't appreciate the sound of random gunfire in your neighborhood, call the cops. Get your neighbors to call the cops. Every incident. It will eventually stop a nuisance, it may save a life. It has worked in my community.
If you don't mind random shots, or live in an area so rural you can't hear them, don't call.
Dogma?
Posts: 1,273
Threads: 41
Joined: Oct 2007
I have no idea where you are going with that example.
Of course the DUI is contextual. It's illegal at .08 and not at .07. The legal limit isn't .0000000000000000000. And you can't get DUI if you're not driving--but rather sitting in the bathtub.
But personally I can live with your attitude, and fair enough. There are those who will call the police whenever they think they get a whiff of weed too. And unlike the topic at hand, smoking a bowl is a crime at both the state and federal levels. It's questionable, as far as I'm concerned, whether this sort of zealous attitude is constructive, and time will tell how well it all works out.
Remember, we're talking about shooting a rat. One rat, one shot. Not gunfights in the street, or automatic gunfire in the middle of the night. I can tell a difference, and I expect I'd call police in some of those situations as well. But, again, we're talking about shooting a rat. One rat, one shot, in an unquestionably safe manner.
On a larger note--we have a right as citizens to KNOW where or when or if shooting a rat is a prosecutable crime. There should be no question about it. And certainly, there exists plenty of questions. And this is a bad state of affairs and lends itself to misreading, misinterpretation, injustices, and encourages personal interpretations to suit personal pet attitudes and paranoias.
Posts: 1,595
Threads: 111
Joined: May 2007
Fair enough Jay. Where I was going with the DUI example is that a small degree of crime is still a crime. I envy your ability to express yourself.
Please note that nowhere here have I expected to change anyone's mind about this or other gun issues. I have merely pointed out that my neighborhood of small ag lots has seen considerable success in stopping random gunfire that we, as a community, found to be bothersome and dangerous.
Happy holidays everyone. [  ]
Posts: 8,622
Threads: 1,044
Joined: May 2003
I'm not talking about shooting a rat.
What concerns me is causing your neighbors sufficient alarm and concern to call the police. No one seems to be paying attention to the reason the police were called. People don't generally call the police to say hi. They generally do so because there is some fear involved. While one may certainly feel entitled to dispatch a rat I'm not convinced I or anyone else is entitled to show so little respect for one's neighbors peace or safety as to cause them fear. This is where fantasy crosses path with reality. Reality is that one or more neighbors were concerned and alarmed enough to call the police. This is one rather tightly packed neighborhood, not the woods or a farm. I would be extremely apologetic if I thought by my actions that I had caused my neighbors to be afraid.
Not neighborly in my book.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
|
