Man at Walmart attacked for carrying gun with permit

[Imperializt Russia]

What's truly ridiculous is the amount of people saying "He was holstering his gun" and "holstering your gun isn't aggressive". This is about as dishonest a reputation of the scenario as you can get. No, Mr. Foster did not decide to intervene because he saw Mr. Daniels holster his gun, he decided to intervene because he witnessed Mr. Daniels walk back towards his car, retrieve his gun, conceal it underneath his coat and walk back into the store. That is a remarkably more different context than a simple "he was holstering the gun". If you aren't going to bother representing the scenario with at least half a shred of integrity, you have fuck all chance of making a meaningful point.

Inevitably, some people are going to say "that's still not committing a crime", and that's true, it isn't. But under American law, you are legally allowed to restrain or stop anybody who you believe is either in the process of or on the verge of committing a crime and no arrest, whether by civilians or police, requires the arrestor to have conclusive proof that the person is guilty, only a reasonable belief or suspicion is required. Some people here seem to feel that Foster's belief was unreasonable, but the law doesn't care what you think because only the opinion of Mr. Foster matters. Quite obviously, he acted in the sincere belief that a crime was about to take place. Because of that, he's not your typical assault conviction and the only punishment he should face is the payment of damages to Mr. Daniels for whatever injuries he sustained.

If people want legal precedent, I guess you could look at John Crawford III who was shot by police in a wal-mart in Ohio (an open-carry state), for the crime of holding a BB gun. Seeing as the officers involved haven't been incarcerated, I'm lost for words to explain why people want Foster thrown in jail considering the person he tackled is still very much alive and well.

Grand Juries do not indict police officers.
Police officers kill black men at about 27 times the rate of whites.

This is an awful example.

[Keyboard Warriors]

What's truly ridiculous is the amount of people saying "He was holstering his gun" and "holstering your gun isn't aggressive". This is about as dishonest a reputation of the scenario as you can get. No, Mr. Foster did not decide to intervene because he saw Mr. Daniels holster his gun, he decided to intervene because he witnessed Mr. Daniels walk back towards his car, retrieve his gun, conceal it underneath his coat and walk back into the store. That is a remarkably more different context than a simple "he was holstering the gun". If you aren't going to bother representing the scenario with at least half a shred of integrity, you have fuck all chance of making a meaningful point.

Inevitably, some people are going to say "that's still not committing a crime", and that's true, it isn't. But under American law, you are legally allowed to restrain or stop anybody who you believe is either in the process of or on the verge of committing a crime and no arrest, whether by civilians or police, requires the arrestor to have conclusive proof that the person is guilty, only a reasonable belief or suspicion is required.Some people here seem to feel that Foster's belief was unreasonable, but the law doesn't care what you think because only the opinion of Mr. Foster matters. Quite obviously, he acted in the sincere belief that a crime was about to take place. Because of that, he's not your typical assault conviction and the only punishment he should face is the payment of damages to Mr. Daniels for whatever injuries he sustained.

If people want legal precedent, I guess you could look at John Crawford III who was shot by police in a wal-mart in Ohio (an open-carry state), for the crime of holding a BB gun. Seeing as the officers involved haven't been incarcerated, I'm lost for words to explain why people want Foster thrown in jail considering the person he tackled is still very much alive and well.

You are not correct. You even admit that there must be some reasonable belief of a crime. Carrying a firearm is not a crime.

I don't have the time or the patience to argue with people who pick and choose specific sentences and words to respond to, most particularly when the question is answered in the post you quote.

[Keyboard Warriors]

What's truly ridiculous is the amount of people saying "He was holstering his gun" and "holstering your gun isn't aggressive". This is about as dishonest a reputation of the scenario as you can get. No, Mr. Foster did not decide to intervene because he saw Mr. Daniels holster his gun, he decided to intervene because he witnessed Mr. Daniels walk back towards his car, retrieve his gun, conceal it underneath his coat and walk back into the store. That is a remarkably more different context than a simple "he was holstering the gun". If you aren't going to bother representing the scenario with at least half a shred of integrity, you have fuck all chance of making a meaningful point.

Inevitably, some people are going to say "that's still not committing a crime", and that's true, it isn't. But under American law, you are legally allowed to restrain or stop anybody who you believe is either in the process of or on the verge of committing a crime and no arrest, whether by civilians or police, requires the arrestor to have conclusive proof that the person is guilty, only a reasonable belief or suspicion is required. Some people here seem to feel that Foster's belief was unreasonable, but the law doesn't care what you think because only the opinion of Mr. Foster matters. Quite obviously, he acted in the sincere belief that a crime was about to take place. Because of that, he's not your typical assault conviction and the only punishment he should face is the payment of damages to Mr. Daniels for whatever injuries he sustained.

If people want legal precedent, I guess you could look at John Crawford III who was shot by police in a wal-mart in Ohio (an open-carry state), for the crime of holding a BB gun. Seeing as the officers involved haven't been incarcerated, I'm lost for words to explain why people want Foster thrown in jail considering the person he tackled is still very much alive and well.

Grand Juries do not indict police officers.
Police officers kill black men at about 27 times the rate of whites.

This is an awful example.

So you're arguing that the law we have for police officers is not good enough for the law we have for civilians?

If you don't like that example, consider that Linda Maddox of Florida shot her grandson and escaped charge after thinking he was a burglar.

[Big Jim P]

Considering the evidence against him, he deserves to be convicted. Video footage tends to be very compelling. As for whether a jury agrees, well, we will see. I personally hope he is convicted. He is just lucky he wasn't shot.

Out of curiosity, were you one to argue that both police officers involved in the John Crawford shooting should have been indicted for murder? Or Linda Maddox who shot her grandson after assuming he was a burglar, should she have been convicted of murder?

Not that I recall. Possibly. I would have to familiarize (or re-familiarize as the case may be) myself with both cases to have an opinion.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Out of curiosity, were you one to argue that both police officers involved in the John Crawford shooting should have been indicted for murder? Or Linda Maddox who shot her grandson after assuming he was a burglar, should she have been convicted of murder?

Not that I recall. Possibly. I would have to familiarize (or re-familiarize as the case may be) myself with both cases to have an opinion.

I'll wait.

[Big Jim P]

Not that I recall. Possibly. I would have to familiarize (or re-familiarize as the case may be) myself with both cases to have an opinion.

I'll wait.

You'll be waiting for some time as I have no interest in looking up either case.

Edit: Start a thread on either one (or both) and I will see you there.

[Imperializt Russia]

Grand Juries do not indict police officers.
Police officers kill black men at about 27 times the rate of whites.

This is an awful example.

So you're arguing that the law we have for police officers is not good enough for the law we have for civilians?

If you don't like that example, consider that Linda Maddox of Florida shot her grandson and escaped charge after thinking he was a burglar.

I'm arguing America has a shit legal culture of "oh, Police Officer? He's probably right" and "scary black men", and that American police further have an even worse culture amongst themselves. Look at the history of the NYPD.

The law would be sufficient, probably, I'm arguing it is insufficiently or improperly applied because people just side with police at court.
How many police officers get indicted for killings on the job? I think this statistic was brought up in either the Crawford or Garner threads. It's absurdly low. In many places, it's 0.

[Spirit of Hope]

How about a little honesty form you? How is choking a man NOT lethal force?

Because putting somebody in a choke-hold has never before been considered lethal force. Why, all of a sudden, are we supposed to concoct this definition in order to indict this man?

And please don't pretend a choke-hold is the same as choking somebody to death.

How was Foster in any way in the right to attack an innocent victim?

Because he acted with the belief that Daniels was not an innocent victim. Christ, how many fucking times are you going to make me repeat this? I don't know if you don't know the law, or you don't care about the law or the law isn't convenient for you so you just want to fucking ignore it, but that's not my problem. Legally, you are allowed to place somebody under a citizen's arrest by which holding them until the police arrive if you have a reasonable belief that they are about to commit a crime. And frankly, your opinion on what is reasonable is something I give two fucks about. Foster has a right to explain why he acted the way he did and the people responsible for judging that are prosecutors and judges. Period.

What facts am I ignoring? The fact that Foster attacked an innocent man because he THOUGHT he might be dangerous just because he was varying a LEGAL gun?

Edit: An attempt to be a good citizen would have been (as others have pointed out in this thread) notifying the manager or calling the police. there was no imminent threat that justified the attack.

Nobody here is arguing what he did was right. The disagreement is whether or not he deserves to be convicted for what he did. Please try to keep up. Here's more of that honest we talked about.

Lethal force (deadly force) is: "An amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person."
Now tackling some one is not lethal force, it isn't that likely to cause either "serious bodily injury or death" a choke hold is borderline, as you certainly can cause serious bodily injury or death with it if you want but the assailant did not appear to be attempting that in the video, and would depend on the context. In this case I would say not lethal force, based on the context.

Now Foster may have belied Daniels was about to commit a crime, but what was his evidence? The retrieval of a gun and placing it in a holster, concealed. The law requires that Foster has a reasonable belief that Daniels is about to commit a crime. So how is it reasonable to draw the conclusion that concealed gun=imminent crime? 5% of America has concealed carry permits, so it isn't exactly reasonable to suggest concealed carry =imminent crime, Daniels did not carry any other accessories useful to a crime, such as a large bag, or ski mask. Foster has a right to a jury sure, but he doesn't have a strong ground for reasonable.

He certainly deserves to be convicted, your first action should never be to attack someone unless the threat of "serious bodily injury or death to another person" is an immediate concern, such as a gun or other weapon is out.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Now Foster may have belied Daniels was about to commit a crime, but what was his evidence? The retrieval of a gun and placing it in a holster, concealed. The law requires that Foster has a reasonable belief that Daniels is about to commit a crime. So how is it reasonable to draw the conclusion that concealed gun=imminent crime? 5% of America has concealed carry permits, so it isn't exactly reasonable to suggest concealed carry =imminent crime, Daniels did not carry any other accessories useful to a crime, such as a large bag, or ski mask. Foster has a right to a jury sure, but he doesn't have a strong ground for reasonable.

See how you've conceded that Foster may have believed Daniels was about to commit a crime, that just explained why he has a strong ground for escaping conviction. This is not about what the judge, you or I find reasonable, it is about what Foster found reasonable. Unless you've something to suggest he acted out of malice, there isn't much more to talk about.

He certainly deserves to be convicted,

Of what?

Last year a Florida grandmother shot and almost killed her 7 year old grandson after waking up and hearing what she thought was a burglar. She wasn't charged. She never spent a day in prison. She's still legally allowed to own her firearm. This scenario involves a man being tackled to the ground by another man who thought he was an armed robber. So both them fucked up in exactly the same way, except one escaped jail after seriously injuring a child and one is apparently deserving of being convicted of assault because he might have hurt someone?

How do you explain that?

[Big Jim P]

Now Foster may have belied Daniels was about to commit a crime, but what was his evidence? The retrieval of a gun and placing it in a holster, concealed. The law requires that Foster has a reasonable belief that Daniels is about to commit a crime. So how is it reasonable to draw the conclusion that concealed gun=imminent crime? 5% of America has concealed carry permits, so it isn't exactly reasonable to suggest concealed carry =imminent crime, Daniels did not carry any other accessories useful to a crime, such as a large bag, or ski mask. Foster has a right to a jury sure, but he doesn't have a strong ground for reasonable.

See how you've conceded that Foster may have believed Daniels was about to commit a crime, that just explained why he has a strong ground for escaping conviction. This is not about what the judge, you or I find reasonable, it is about what Foster found reasonable. Unless you've something to suggest he acted out of malice, there isn't much more to talk about.

He certainly deserves to be convicted,

Of what?

Last year a Florida grandmother shot and almost killed her 7 year old grandson after waking up and hearing what she thought was a burglar. She wasn't charged. She never spent a day in prison. She's still legally allowed to own her firearm. This scenario involves a man being tackled to the ground by another man who thought he was an armed robber. So both them fucked up in exactly the same way, except one escaped jail after seriously injuring a child and one is apparently deserving of being convicted of assault because he might have hurt someone?

How do you explain that?

How are the two comparable? Just waking up and hearing what you think is a burglar is a far cry form seeing someone you think is about to commit a crime in broad daylight in a public place.

[Keyboard Warriors]

See how you've conceded that Foster may have believed Daniels was about to commit a crime, that just explained why he has a strong ground for escaping conviction. This is not about what the judge, you or I find reasonable, it is about what Foster found reasonable. Unless you've something to suggest he acted out of malice, there isn't much more to talk about.


Of what?

Last year a Florida grandmother shot and almost killed her 7 year old grandson after waking up and hearing what she thought was a burglar. She wasn't charged. She never spent a day in prison. She's still legally allowed to own her firearm. This scenario involves a man being tackled to the ground by another man who thought he was an armed robber. So both them fucked up in exactly the same way, except one escaped jail after seriously injuring a child and one is apparently deserving of being convicted of assault because he might have hurt someone?

How do you explain that?

How are the two comparable? Just waking up and hearing what you think is a burglar is a far cry form seeing someone you think is about to commit a crime in broad daylight in a public place.

I'd wager that it's perfectly normal to hear noises in your house when other people are staying/living there. I hear noises made by my house's occupants most every night; I don't go and clobber them.

[Imperializt Russia]

She's elderly, in her home, at night.
Being able to defend yourself at home, at night, by shooting first and asking questions later is a staunchly-defended right in Florida.

I guess charging her would set precedent against this, which is obviously an assault on the freedom of Floridians.

Additionally, the right to carry a concealed weapon is a staunchly-defended right in many states.
Not charging Foster could send a message against this.

[WestRedMaple]

Now Foster may have belied Daniels was about to commit a crime, but what was his evidence? The retrieval of a gun and placing it in a holster, concealed. The law requires that Foster has a reasonable belief that Daniels is about to commit a crime. So how is it reasonable to draw the conclusion that concealed gun=imminent crime? 5% of America has concealed carry permits, so it isn't exactly reasonable to suggest concealed carry =imminent crime, Daniels did not carry any other accessories useful to a crime, such as a large bag, or ski mask. Foster has a right to a jury sure, but he doesn't have a strong ground for reasonable.

See how you've conceded that Foster may have believed Daniels was about to commit a crime, that just explained why he has a strong ground for escaping conviction. This is not about what the judge, you or I find reasonable, it is about what Foster found reasonable. Unless you've something to suggest he acted out of malice, there isn't much more to talk about.

You are still incorrect. It is not about what Foster found reasonable. That isn't how the law works, and that is a very good thing.

[Keyboard Warriors]

She's elderly, in her home, at night.
Being able to defend yourself at home, at night, by shooting first and asking questions later is a staunchly-defended right in Florida.

I guess charging her would set precedent against this, which is obviously an assault on the freedom of Floridians.

Additionally, the right to carry a concealed weapon is a staunchly-defended right in many states.
Not charging Foster could send a message against this.

You could flip things around and say not charging Maddox is an assault on the freedom of Floridians to live and that charging Foster is an assault on the freedom of Floridians to protect themselves and others against crimes which they think are likely to occur.

[Imperializt Russia]

"Assault on the freedom of Floridians" was entirely facetious, by the way.
On the basis that Florida is the state that thought Zimmerman was in the right and rejected negative character references as evidence against him - I concocted that reasoning for why one person was not charged and another was.

[Keyboard Warriors]

"Assault on the freedom of Floridians" was entirely facetious, by the way.
On the basis that Florida is the state that thought Zimmerman was in the right and rejected negative character references as evidence against him - I concocted that reasoning for why one person was not charged and another was.

Ah, I see.

[Spirit of Hope]

Now Foster may have belied Daniels was about to commit a crime, but what was his evidence? The retrieval of a gun and placing it in a holster, concealed. The law requires that Foster has a reasonable belief that Daniels is about to commit a crime. So how is it reasonable to draw the conclusion that concealed gun=imminent crime? 5% of America has concealed carry permits, so it isn't exactly reasonable to suggest concealed carry =imminent crime, Daniels did not carry any other accessories useful to a crime, such as a large bag, or ski mask. Foster has a right to a jury sure, but he doesn't have a strong ground for reasonable.

See how you've conceded that Foster may have believed Daniels was about to commit a crime, that just explained why he has a strong ground for escaping conviction. This is not about what the judge, you or I find reasonable, it is about what Foster found reasonable. Unless you've something to suggest he acted out of malice, there isn't much more to talk about.

He certainly deserves to be convicted,

Of what?

Last year a Florida grandmother shot and almost killed her 7 year old grandson after waking up and hearing what she thought was a burglar. She wasn't charged. She never spent a day in prison. She's still legally allowed to own her firearm. This scenario involves a man being tackled to the ground by another man who thought he was an armed robber. So both them fucked up in exactly the same way, except one escaped jail after seriously injuring a child and one is apparently deserving of being convicted of assault because he might have hurt someone?

How do you explain that?

Just because Foster may have believed Daniels was about to commit a crime doesn't mean that a reasonable person would believe the same thing. Plenty of people believe the moon landing was faked, big pharmaceutical is concealing the cure to Ebola, and that Hitler is still alive, this does not make those beliefs reasonable. It is not about what Foster found reasonable, it is what a hypothetical reasonable individual at the scene would find reasonable.

Fosters defense is "I saw a black guy with a gun so I decided he must be committing a crime." when 1 in 20 people in the United states are legally allowed to carry concealed, probably an even higher percentage in Florida. Not to mention Daniels age (62?), or the fact that law enforcement carry concealed as well, depending.

As to the grandma, can you give me more specifics, did she attempt to talk to the child, did she order him to leave, what happened? If she had a reason to believe he was a burglar she had the right to shoot, it all comes down to did she have the reasonable belief that there was a burglar in her house.

[Keyboard Warriors]

See how you've conceded that Foster may have believed Daniels was about to commit a crime, that just explained why he has a strong ground for escaping conviction. This is not about what the judge, you or I find reasonable, it is about what Foster found reasonable. Unless you've something to suggest he acted out of malice, there isn't much more to talk about.


Of what?

Last year a Florida grandmother shot and almost killed her 7 year old grandson after waking up and hearing what she thought was a burglar. She wasn't charged. She never spent a day in prison. She's still legally allowed to own her firearm. This scenario involves a man being tackled to the ground by another man who thought he was an armed robber. So both them fucked up in exactly the same way, except one escaped jail after seriously injuring a child and one is apparently deserving of being convicted of assault because he might have hurt someone?

How do you explain that?

Just because Foster may have believed Daniels was about to commit a crime doesn't mean that a reasonable person would believe the same thing. Plenty of people believe the moon landing was faked, big pharmaceutical is concealing the cure to Ebola, and that Hitler is still alive, this does not make those beliefs reasonable. It is not about what Foster found reasonable, it is what a hypothetical reasonable individual at the scene would find reasonable.

And guess what? There are tens of millions of people around the US who are completely alien to the concept of legally carrying firearms into stores. You have no idea where Foster is from, where he grew up and what his exposure to firearms is like. Whether or not he was being reasonable is something that is judged from his position and nobody else's.

Fosters defense is "I saw a black guy with a gun so I decided he must be committing a crime." when 1 in 20 people in the United states are legally allowed to carry concealed, probably an even higher percentage in Florida. Not to mention Daniels age (62?), or the fact that law enforcement carry concealed as well, depending.

The Sheriff went on to say, in the article, that he understood that some people were alarmed to see others carrying firearms. Unless the Sheriff is also unreasonable?

As to the grandma, can you give me more specifics, did she attempt to talk to the child, did she order him to leave, what happened? If she had a reason to believe he was a burglar she had the right to shoot, it all comes down to did she have the reasonable belief that there was a burglar in her house.

She heard a noise, she got her gun and fired blindly into the dark. I don't see how a noise is any more reasonable than a fleeting glimpse of a gun, especially when the use of force was much greater.

[Imperializt Russia]

Just because Foster may have believed Daniels was about to commit a crime doesn't mean that a reasonable person would believe the same thing. Plenty of people believe the moon landing was faked, big pharmaceutical is concealing the cure to Ebola, and that Hitler is still alive, this does not make those beliefs reasonable. It is not about what Foster found reasonable, it is what a hypothetical reasonable individual at the scene would find reasonable.

And guess what? There are tens of millions of people around the US who are completely alien to the concept of legally carrying firearms into stores. You have no idea where Foster is from, where he grew up and what his exposure to firearms is like. Whether or not he was being reasonable is something that is judged from his position and nobody else's.

No.

What is reasonable is for the courts to decide.
He can claim he thought he was acting on a reasonable suspicion, the courts may disagree.

[Spirit of Hope]

Just because Foster may have believed Daniels was about to commit a crime doesn't mean that a reasonable person would believe the same thing. Plenty of people believe the moon landing was faked, big pharmaceutical is concealing the cure to Ebola, and that Hitler is still alive, this does not make those beliefs reasonable. It is not about what Foster found reasonable, it is what a hypothetical reasonable individual at the scene would find reasonable.

And guess what? There are tens of millions of people around the US who are completely alien to the concept of legally carrying firearms into stores. You have no idea where Foster is from, where he grew up and what his exposure to firearms is like. Whether or not he was being reasonable is something that is judged from his position and nobody else's.

Fosters defense is "I saw a black guy with a gun so I decided he must be committing a crime." when 1 in 20 people in the United states are legally allowed to carry concealed, probably an even higher percentage in Florida. Not to mention Daniels age (62?), or the fact that law enforcement carry concealed as well, depending.

The Sheriff went on to say, in the article, that he understood that some people were alarmed to see others carrying firearms. Unless the Sheriff is also unreasonable?

As to the grandma, can you give me more specifics, did she attempt to talk to the child, did she order him to leave, what happened? If she had a reason to believe he was a burglar she had the right to shoot, it all comes down to did she have the reasonable belief that there was a burglar in her house.

She heard a noise, she got her gun and fired blindly into the dark. I don't see how a noise is any more reasonable than a fleeting glimpse of a gun, especially when the use of force was much greater.

Yes it is judged from Fosters position, but as if he was a "reasonable man".

Alarmed does not equall assault.

I would hold she should be arrested.

[Keyboard Warriors]

And guess what? There are tens of millions of people around the US who are completely alien to the concept of legally carrying firearms into stores. You have no idea where Foster is from, where he grew up and what his exposure to firearms is like. Whether or not he was being reasonable is something that is judged from his position and nobody else's.

No.

What is reasonable is for the courts to decide.
He can claim he thought he was acting on a reasonable suspicion, the courts may disagree.

I don't see how that contradicts with what I said. In case you were unclear, I meant the courts were going to include his background in their deliberation.

[Imperializt Russia]

Fair enough, I'll admit that I don't know the legal standard in the US.
But in the UK, we use the "reasonable person" metric - a standard that does not take a person's situation into account, because you can't set precedent with it.

[Keyboard Warriors]

And guess what? There are tens of millions of people around the US who are completely alien to the concept of legally carrying firearms into stores. You have no idea where Foster is from, where he grew up and what his exposure to firearms is like. Whether or not he was being reasonable is something that is judged from his position and nobody else's.


The Sheriff went on to say, in the article, that he understood that some people were alarmed to see others carrying firearms. Unless the Sheriff is also unreasonable?


She heard a noise, she got her gun and fired blindly into the dark. I don't see how a noise is any more reasonable than a fleeting glimpse of a gun, especially when the use of force was much greater.

Yes it is judged from Fosters position, but as if he was a "reasonable man".

Which shouldn't make an iota of difference as there aren't any reports that suggest he was psychotic or had a mental disability. Some people have different experiences and react differently to others. That doesn't make them unreasonable.

Alarmed does not equall assault.

Nobody said it did.

I would hold she should be arrested.

Well, at least you're consistent.

[Big Jim P]

Just because Foster may have believed Daniels was about to commit a crime doesn't mean that a reasonable person would believe the same thing. Plenty of people believe the moon landing was faked, big pharmaceutical is concealing the cure to Ebola, and that Hitler is still alive, this does not make those beliefs reasonable. It is not about what Foster found reasonable, it is what a hypothetical reasonable individual at the scene would find reasonable.

And guess what? There are tens of millions of people around the US who are completely alien to the concept of legally carrying firearms into stores. You have no idea where Foster is from, where he grew up and what his exposure to firearms is like. Whether or not he was being reasonable is something that is judged from his position and nobody else's.

Fosters defense is "I saw a black guy with a gun so I decided he must be committing a crime." when 1 in 20 people in the United states are legally allowed to carry concealed, probably an even higher percentage in Florida. Not to mention Daniels age (62?), or the fact that law enforcement carry concealed as well, depending.

The Sheriff went on to say, in the article, that he understood that some people were alarmed to see others carrying firearms. Unless the Sheriff is also unreasonable?

As to the grandma, can you give me more specifics, did she attempt to talk to the child, did she order him to leave, what happened? If she had a reason to believe he was a burglar she had the right to shoot, it all comes down to did she have the reasonable belief that there was a burglar in her house.

She heard a noise, she got her gun and fired blindly into the dark. I don't see how a noise is any more reasonable than a fleeting glimpse of a gun, especially when the use of force was much greater.

To anyone with any amount of firearms safety training, that would be, at best, an incredibly negligent discharge.

[Keyboard Warriors]

And guess what? There are tens of millions of people around the US who are completely alien to the concept of legally carrying firearms into stores. You have no idea where Foster is from, where he grew up and what his exposure to firearms is like. Whether or not he was being reasonable is something that is judged from his position and nobody else's.


The Sheriff went on to say, in the article, that he understood that some people were alarmed to see others carrying firearms. Unless the Sheriff is also unreasonable?


She heard a noise, she got her gun and fired blindly into the dark. I don't see how a noise is any more reasonable than a fleeting glimpse of a gun, especially when the use of force was much greater.

To anyone with any amount of firearms safety training, that would be, at best, an incredibly negligent discharge.

But she shot an innocent boy who wasn't committing a crime. That's assault with a deadly weapon.