Yes you are, just find a better dance....
This is a discussion on It's gratifying to see that felony charges have been filed... within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; against Indiana Pacers player Stephen Jackson, who five days ago fired FIVE SHOTS INTO THE AIR (which were at the time called "self defense" and ...
against Indiana Pacers player Stephen Jackson, who five days ago fired FIVE SHOTS INTO THE AIR (which were at the time called "self defense" and actually defended by some on firearms web forums) after an altercation outside a strip club.
I took some heat for my views on this, on a different forum, because I rushed to "judging" the guy based on stereotypes I may personally harbor about self-indulgent, egomaniacal sports figures who (may or may not) come from inner-city kinds of cultural backgrounds and do not act like responsible citizens. My own feeling is that many times these people do not have the maturity or self-restraint to be in control of the outrageous fortunes of which they suddenly find themselves in possession.
Mostly, my anger and frustration at the situation had to do with the fact that this was a famous sports star treated far differently -- for firing five random shots into the air -- from how you or I would have been treated.
And as it turns out, I was right. It wasn't self defense. According to a news story here, he is now charged with felony criminal recklessness, and misdemeanor counts of battery and disorderly conduct. "Jackson was hit by a car, and police say he fired a gun into the air at least five times. He originally told police he was punched, but later said he was not, prosecutors said."
Anyway, here's my "I-was-right" dance.
(I'm allowed to be a little immature for a second, right?)
Yes you are, just find a better dance....
It takes a college degree to break'em;
and a high school education to fix'em!
...Is there another thread on this, or something?
I thought this subject had a LOT to do with CCW issues, since the accused and his companions all had CCW permits, and on another forum, at least, people were quick to spout off that he was entitled to defend himself. I was like, "Um, five shots into the AIR does not indicate, to me, that he had a legitimate need to draw and fire the gun..."
No one wants to weigh in on this?
(I was not yet a member of CCforum when this made the news, so I don't know what discussion may have transpired.)
"We" may be waiting for the "rest of the story" if there is any. Sounds like your position has been vindicated by the charges filed. I don't see how any gun literate person could justify firing a gun five times into the air in the name of SD.
Well, now Mr. Jackson will have an opportunity to try to explain it to a jury, I guess. Good luck with that!
Or, as I feel is more likely (especially since no one was reported hurt) he will be given probation and community service...
Agreed, I think drawing and firing into the air would be considered a chargeable crime, and I expect that he will not be a permit holder for long, unless there is more to the story than we are aware of. His day in court should uncover the facts in the case. I'll be curious how it turns out for him, as a "celebrity"....
Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde; Beware the anger of a patient man.
Not knowing about your stereotype issues et. al., I and the law do though agree with you.
He plainly broke the law and as such should be penalized in kind.
The only shocker to me is that full charges are being pressed muchless at all as usually it's reduced to some minor misdemeanor like disturbing the peace or brandishing.
Good for the DA in not making a mockery of the law and _real_ self defense as allowed by law toward those of us less fortunate or well known citizens.
I still recognize the tragedy that this situation will be added to the growing -- albeit very slowly, and still very small -- list of infractions (both minor and severe) committed by licensed CCWers.
I am reminded of several high profile (for local stories, anyway) cases involving CCW licensees here in Florida.
There was a man named James Settembre, who was very active in sending pro-CCW and pro-gun letters to the editor of The Palm Beach Post. (I myself have had half a dozen or more letters published each in that paper, the Miami Herald, and the Sun Sentinel, over the past nine years.) Mr. Settembre was eloquent and articulate and reasonable and logical... and then he shot and killed his wife, dog, and himself.
Yup. He was a stellar, ardent supporter of RKBA, and then he became one of it's blackest marks. I was dumbfounded, saddened... I had not known the man personally (have not had the time really to get involved in the local RKBA-activist movement, unfortunately) but I felt like I knew him -- we were kindred spirits.
Apparently some issues arose in his life that made him despondent, and he decided to take the actions he took.
And every time this kind of thing happens, whether it is a tragedy, like the case of Mr. Settembre (whom I can't bring myself to hate even though his actions bring disrepute to the CCW movement), or other cases where whackjobs get a CCW license and think they're Rambo, it hurts us, and gives antis more fodder for making us look bad -- even though on the whole we are FAR more responsible and honest than the population at large.
Did anyone here know Mr. Settembre personally? Please PM me if you did.
When I first read the Pacer story, what I read stated that Mr. Jackson fired "at" the departing car. Slightly less stupid version than firing in the air, but still probably illegal in most jurisdictions to fire at someone "getting away" and no longer an immediate lethal threat.
Legal considerations aside, firing at the rear of a car moving away would probably have little chance of "successfully" striking the occupant.
There was a teenager driving without a license here in Florida a year or two ago, Jerrod Miller, who was fired on when he fled a cop who had stopped him for driving erratically on school grounds (some after-school dance or function was going on, and the cop was doing moonlighting security, I believe). He fired at the car, ostensibly because he believed it was heading toward vulnerable student pedestrians, and one of the shots (I don't know how many were fired) hit the kid in the back of the head and he was killed.
Of course, this being south Florida, there were screams of racism (black kid, white cop); the cop was immediately fired although no charges were brought against him.
Firing at a departing car most certainly can result in a death. It's not a likelihood, but it's within the realm of possibility, that's for sure.
(Witnesses damned the cop, by saying that they knew of no kids who were in the path of the car. Who knows, or will ever know, whether they lied to screw the cop because they were sympathetic to the kid? The kid's uncle, by the way, allowed the kid to use the car even though knowing that the kid had no driver's license. Was the uncle ever charged? NO. And since that incident, the uncle DID get in trouble for allowing ANOTHER nephew to drive his car without a license. That kid had the brains to STOP when challenged by a police officer, and as a result he is still taking up oxygen.)
I'm not so sure. The first account I read stated that the vehicle had been driven toward him by the unruly perp. One might argue that shooting the driver would have been fully justified, yet at the same time firing in the air to make a point is forbidden? Look at the outcomes. Probably a dead driver v no one harmed.
It is true that firing into the air instead of the ground (and not even that) posed a risk to others, but good grief, I'm not so sure this wasn't self defense. A very oud noise at the right time can be a defensive move.
Given that all the players were licensed and they were not the cause of the altercation ( again according to my first read a few days ago), I think the DA is over reacting. Let it go with a warning. Suspend the carry license, whatever.
I'm not saying the smartest moves were made by the player, just that the situation seemed to require a defensive move; his biggest mistake might have been firing in the air not because it was reckless, but because he might have then been hit by the car he failed to stop.
I like the outcome. No one hurt.
I'm a little puzzled -- it sounds as if you are carrying on an argument with folks who aren't even here. Why not post this on whatever-the-original forum was?
On the issue itself, I do think that firing into the air is a bad move, but I do not agree that the mere filing of charges means that you have been proven right. It means the prosecutor agrees with you. Remains to be seen whether a jury will.
Well, the fact is that the DA has seen fit to file charges; I have to assume that he knows the facts as available, and knows whether he stands a decent chance at convicting. (They don't usually file charges when they have a crappy chance; that's the conventional wisdom.)
It has always been what I have been taught, and read, that you shouldn't draw the handgun unless you perceive a real need to fire it. That doesn't mean that you will HAVE to fire it just having drawn it. But if you are drawing the gun while feeling that it should be enough just to fire it into the air, I think that proves you should not have felt justified under the "reasonable person" standard to be drawing in the first place.
The fact remains that he is now charged: someone in a position to know has judged that Jackson should not have fired his five "I'm-a-badass" shots into the air. How much of this was b-ball hiphop toughguy posturing, is anyone's guess. My suspicion doesn't weigh any more than anyone else's, but it's mine and I like it. :D
Don't get me wrong; I agree with you that firing in the air is a bad move.
I just don't buy your reasons for feeling vindicated on this one. You could have been right without appealing to authority.
The so-called "appeal to authority" is nothing of the kind. I felt the way I felt -- strongly -- well before the DA decided to charge Jackson. The "appeal to authority" was more of a Nelson Muntz-esque "Ha ha!"