Concealed carry success story

[livetofall 0]

Crap, this isnt bill the joker from SDTC who does the webmaster stuff? Friggin Jackoff!!!

www.911missinglinks.com the definitive truth of 9/11..the who and why, not how

You can handle the TRUTH www.theforbiddentruth.net

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And as far as gut shooting an attacker... man that is harsh.. I have MUCH bettter shot placement than that.

While rolling around on the ground being kicked by an attacker who is standing over you? Center mass seems like a good choice, especially when somewhere as public and populated as Westlake at lunchtime (not wanting to worry about strays).

Blues,
Dave

You have a VERY good point, all the way around. If someone is actually knowlegable ablout concealed weapons, to take the time and distance for a "better shot placement" that person would boubltfully be returning to their motel. I have a charter arms bulldog .44 special well known as a "belly gun". Simple fact is if you have the time to make a head or heart shot "YOUR LIFE" had a probabity of not being in immediate danger...therefore manslaughter/murder. that guy just saved alot of court time and fees by making a "harsh shot placement". again good point

Got cites for court cases proving that??

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

. . .
Again, there are plenty of times during life when we ARE truly wronged when we have the occasion to practice the virtue of forgiving others.

Quote

In the eyes of Jesus, shouldn't the criminal have the same right to life as your children? Wouldn't God/Jesus would be happy with you for turning the other cheek?

As far as the question of the criminal having the same right to life as my children, that's an interesting question... so if faced w/ the choice, which should I choose? The goblin has my daughter at gun point and I have a clear shot at him. If I don't shoot and kill HIM, he says he will kill her. What is the right thing to do?[

The answer, IMO, goes to your second question, would Jesus/God be happy w/ me turning the other cheek. The passage you're referencing says that if someone slaps you on one cheek, turn and offer him the other. It doesn't say, if someone slaps your daughter's cheek, turn and offer him your daughter's other cheek.

I can chose to give MY life away at the hands of a criminal, in order to witness God's infinite love and in some way to shadow for him the sacrificial death of Jesus. Many saints have done this in the past. However, I do NOT have the right to offer up someone ELSE's life. I don't have such sovereignity of anyone else's life. My only choice is to protect those that God has blessed me with.

Now, I WOULD have the choice to practice the virtue of forgiveness if some goblin took the life or lives of those in my family and I wasn't there to defend them. Then, in that circumstance, it would be a very powerful and healing thing, for me and hopefully for the perp to forgive. And I hope that if I'm ever in that circumstance that I'm able to do that. I don't know that I'd be able to though.

I agree with you about having a responsibility as a father. Your last paragraph is the point I was originally trying to make.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Butters 0]

Why did your God banish the Devil to hell and why doesn't your God forgive the Devil?

...

With your reasoning, we should have allowed Hitler to continue his genocide and expansion of German Lebensraum.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

...

I shed not a single tear for those killed while attempting to physically assualt or kill another human being.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[micro 0]

Quote

I shed not a single tear for those killed while attempting to physically assualt or kill another human being.

I do. It's tragic to see how some people have wasted their lives.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[BASE1036 0]

Quote

I'm sorry but using a gun on an (assumed) unarmed man raises questions. Unless the man being attacked was 180 years old, suffering from brittle bone disease, 4' 10" of lsight build and never been in fight in his life it doesn't add up.

That would have been perfectly legal here in Florida. In fact in most places all you have to show is reasonable concern for your life.
I am with those that say the sad part is the Victim has to live with the fact that he had to take anothers life in this situation.
In the long run, its just one less person our tax dollars are going to have to support in prison.

Daniel
Protect Yourself and Your Loved Ones
Tasers - Pepper Spray - Stun Guns and more!
www.dallassecuritysupply.com

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Crap, this isnt bill the joker from SDTC who does the webmaster stuff? Friggin Jackoff!!!

no webmastering here, but we need one to build a webpage, know anybody?

mmmm toxic waste - what we are doing here is moving plants to 3rd world countries and pouring toxic waste onto farm land - these guys will have the highest per capita of superheroes as a result. We are killing ourselves with these practices

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Why did your God banish the Devil to hell and why doesn't your God forgive the Devil?

I was playing devil's advocate. Having said that, I personally disagree with the Catholic / Christian interpretations of much of the Old Testament.

...

Quote

With your reasoning, we should have allowed Hitler to continue his genocide and expansion of German Lebensraum.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

...

I shed not a single tear for those killed while attempting to physically assualt or kill another human being.

And with your logic, insurgents are fully justified killing off American troops in Iraq. Or, a burglar would be justified killing an armed homeowner who was trying to protect his property by killing the burglar.
What is good and what is bad is not as clear cut as we would like to believe. We have a tendency to believe ourself to always be on the side of right.
Most killings can be argued to be both murder, and justified if looked at from multiple perspectives. I'm not trying to justify murder, I'm pointing out our justifications for murder/killing can often be considered absurd. We just have to look at things from a different perspective.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Butters 0]

First:

The Devil's Advocate is just that, the Devil's Advocate.

Second:

Quote

Or, a burglar would be justified killing an armed homeowner who was trying to protect his property by killing the burglar.

If you do not posses the ability to see the flaws in the logic and reasoning of this statement ... no comment.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

First:

The Devil's Advocate is just that, the Devil's Advocate.

Perhaps your dictionary differs from mine, but being a devil's advocate is just a tool to test the strength of opposing arguments.

Quote

Second:

Quote

Or, a burglar would be justified killing an armed homeowner who was trying to protect his property by killing the burglar.

If you do not posses the ability to see the flaws in the logic and reasoning of this statement ... no comment.

If you see flaws, please point them out. As far as I can tell, they are merely extensions of the logic you proposed. The homeowner was guilty of trying to kill another human being. You said:

Quote

I shed not a single tear for those killed while attempting to physically assualt or kill another human being.

Are you saying that sometimes murdering/killing another human being is justified? If so, who gets to decide when that is the case?

The world is not black and white, right and wrong.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

First:

The Devil's Advocate is just that, the Devil's Advocate.

Perhaps your dictionary differs from mine, but being a devil's advocate is just a tool to test the strength of opposing arguments.

Quote

Second:

Quote

Or, a burglar would be justified killing an armed homeowner who was trying to protect his property by killing the burglar.

If you do not posses the ability to see the flaws in the logic and reasoning of this statement ... no comment.

If you see flaws, please point them out. As far as I can tell, they are merely extensions of the logic you proposed. The homeowner was guilty of trying to kill another human being. You said:

Quote

I shed not a single tear for those killed while attempting to physically assualt or kill another human being.

Are you saying that sometimes murdering/killing another human being is justified? If so, who gets to decide when that is the case?

The world is not black and white, right and wrong.

Incorrect - the homeowner is defending himself and his family against someone meaning them harm. The goal is to stop the intruder's attack, NOT to kill.

You take actions to stop the attack - if the perpetrator dies due to those actions, if does not mean the homeowner has murdered the perpetrator.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Scoop 0]

Quote

By virtue of being put on the ground, he has demonstrated that he at a disadvantage to the other man. It may also be that the attack came as such a surprise that he was hurt early on and somewhat less able to effectively defend himself at that point. That, combined with the overwhelming fear he must have felt when attacked by a man threatenning to kill him may have left him feeling like lethal force was the only option. Timeliness was critical when he was attacked and he didn't have time to consult members of a discussion forum to debate the various options that may have been available to him.

No shit sherlock. You are very bright, that is the point I was making, impact factors effect on a spontaneous situation. I then followed it up with 'we don't have an accurate account' but given what we know, which is currently: 'man attacked by another man, man shot', there is something out of proportion in a response, agreed.

Maybe he was 9 foot tool with arms like tree trunks and ate a small puppy as some pre-fight ritual... but probably not.

If we don't have the facts, we can't comment and therefore saying, wow, what a hero for killing someone who attacked him is wrong too.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Incorrect - the homeowner is defending himself and his family against someone meaning them harm. The goal is to stop the intruder's attack, NOT to kill.

In the example, the homeowner was specifically trying to kill the intruder. Redefining the scenario to make the homeowner out to be the good guy further demonstrates my point that perspective is everything when it comes to making judgement calls.

Quote

You take actions to stop the attack - if the perpetrator dies due to those actions, if does not mean the homeowner has murdered the perpetrator.

No, it means he killed him, which is the other half of murdering/killing.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[headoverheels 334]

Quote

I'm sorry but using a gun on an (assumed) unarmed man raises questions. Unless the man being attacked was 180 years old, suffering from brittle bone disease, 4' 10" of slight build and never been in fight in his life it doesn't add up.

Dude, cut him a break. He is balding, after all.

And I don't consider any LaRouche pumper as a credible witness.

[Butters 0]

Please read my previous post. I mentioned physical assault or attempted murder. I did not mention property protection.

If the burglar poses a physical threat then the homeowner is acting in self-defense. If the burglar does not pose a physical threat then the homeowner is acting offensively and can not claim self-defense.

PS: It is the reason for an action that is good or bad, not the action itself.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Richards 0]

Quote

No shit sherlock. You are very bright, that is the point I was making, impact factors effect on a spontaneous situation. I then followed it up with 'we don't have an accurate account' but given what we know, which is currently: 'man attacked by another man, man shot', there is something out of proportion in a response, agreed.

Maybe he was 9 foot tool with arms like tree trunks and ate a small puppy as some pre-fight ritual... but probably not.

If we don't have the facts, we can't comment and therefore saying, wow, what a hero for killing someone who attacked him is wrong too.

[livendive 8]

Quote

I'm sorry but using a gun on an (assumed) unarmed man raises questions. Unless the man being attacked was 180 years old, suffering from brittle bone disease, 4' 10" of lsight build and never been in fight in his life it doesn't add up.

He was 52 years old, the assailant was 25, caught him by surprise, and quickly gained an advantage. Oh, and the bad guy had previously attacked his mom and set fire to her daycare, while she had children there. Fuck him.

Further information

Quote

Man killed at Westlake had set fire at mom's home in '01
By Sara Jean Green
Seattle Times staff reporter

A 25-year-old man who was fatally shot while attacking a stranger Saturday at Westlake Plaza had previously served time in prison for setting fire to a day-care center his mother operated out of her Phinney Ridge home.

Daniel Culotti was shot shortly after 11 a.m. by a 52-year-old man he was assaulting in an unprovoked attack, according to Seattle police. The victim of the assault was carrying a handgun and had a concealed-weapons permit, police said.

In July 2001, Culotti had attacked his mother, Melinda Culotti, inside the family's former residence on Palatine Avenue North near Woodland Park Zoo. He later returned and doused the floors inside the house with gasoline, setting the house on fire.

Culotti's mother, several child-care providers and seven children escaped unharmed.

Culotti later pleaded guilty to first-degree arson and was sentenced to just under two years in prison.

Though it is unclear when Culotti was released from custody, he was arrested three times this year for violating the conditions of his release into the community, jail records show.

Melinda Culotti said she only learned of her son's death Monday and declined to comment when reached at her home in upstate New York.

Seattle police continue to investigate Saturday's shooting, and their findings will be turned over the prosecutor's office to decide whether charges are warranted. While police would not speculate on whether the shooting of Culotti was self-defense — saying the term is a legal finding that will be determined by prosecutors — the account offered by a police spokeswoman supports that possibility.

According to Seattle police, a woman called 911 at 11:08 a.m. Saturday to report that a man was acting erratically, yelling at passers-by and randomly assaulting strangers near Boren Avenue and Pine Street. Officers sent to the scene couldn't find the caller, the man or any victims, police spokeswoman Debra Brown said.

Twenty-three minutes later, police dispatchers radioed that shots had been fired at Fifth Avenue and Pine Street, she said. Moments earlier, witnesses told police, a man in his 20s apparently attacked the 52-year-old man, punching and kicking him until he fell to the sidewalk. The older man pulled out a .357-caliber Ruger revolver and fired one round, striking the man in the abdomen.

The older man "was not winning the fight" — the other man "just starts attacking him, he's on the ground and a shot is fired," Brown said, describing witnesses' accounts.

"It happened pretty fast. Probably by the time anybody thought to intervene, it was already over."

The 52-year-old had a concealed-weapons license and was in legal possession of the handgun, Brown said. Police have not released the man's name because he was not booked into jail.

"He was very cooperative," she said, noting the man waited for officers to arrive and turned over his weapon; he was interviewed by police and later released.

According to a police report on the incident, officers took into evidence the handgun, one spent shell casing and five live rounds of ammunition.

The names of the 52-year-old man and three witnesses were redacted from the report.

Culotti, who was not carrying identification, later died at Seattle's Harborview Medical Center. He was identified through fingerprint records.

His death has been ruled a homicide, according to James Apa, a spokesman for Public Health — Seattle & King County.

Though it will be up to King County prosecutors to decide, one local author who has written about Washington state's gun laws said the shooting appears to be a "textbook case of self-defense."

"This 52-year-old fellow was minding his own business, going through Westlake [Plaza] and this other guy jumps him, whacks him pretty good, gets him down on the ground and starts kicking him," said Dave Workman, author and senior editor for Gun Week, a national publication that reports on gun laws, regulatory changes and news from the firearms industry.

"Under those circumstances, the man on the ground was in fear of being severely beaten or beaten to death and so was justified in defending himself, including using lethal force."

According to state law, anyone who can legally possess a firearm also can apply for a concealed-weapons license. The law, however, typically restricts citizens from carrying guns onto school property and into jails and courthouses, bars or other places where alcohol is served, restricted areas in airports, and mental-health facilities.

State law not only allows people to defend themselves and their property from intruders in their homes but also from anyone who poses a threat of imminent bodily harm to themselves or others in any place they're legally allowed to be — whether it is a shopping mall, a grocery store or a city street.

Workman said that in determining whether a case fits the legal definition of self-defense, one must consider "the reasonable man doctrine" — that is, what any reasonable person would do under similar circumstances with the same amount of information.

In the past year or so, King County prosecutors have declined to file homicide charges in three cases in which self-defense was claimed, spokesman Dan Donohoe said.

He explained that from a legal standpoint, prosecutors must disprove a claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt for a jury to convict someone in such a case.

Seattle Times news researcher David Turim contributed to this report.

Sara Jean Green: 206-515-5654 or sgreen@seattletimes.com

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

'we don't have an accurate account' but given what we know, which is currently: 'man attacked by another man, man shot', there is something out of proportion in a response... If we don't have the facts, we can't comment and therefore saying, wow, what a hero for killing someone who attacked him is wrong too.

The police have the facts, and they released the shooter.

From the original news story:

"The man was arrested, but after questioning him and other witnesses, detectives determined they did not have probable cause to book him into the King County Jail. The man was released."

Don't you trust these police officers to have made the correct decision?

[Scoop 0]

Cool, well done that man
This info clears it up somewhat! Now wheres the queue, I want to be one of the ones who gets to carry him on my shoulders throught the streets

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Don't you trust these police officers to have made the correct decision?

No, police officers have shown themselves to make mistakes.

In this case they may have done the right thing though.

Sad that of all those witneses, nobody actually did anything when a younger person decided to beat up an older person.

[beowulf 1]

from the description of the events it doesn't look like there was enough time for anyone else to intervene.

[livetofall 0]

Quote

Quote

Don't you trust these police officers to have made the correct decision?

No, police officers have shown themselves to make mistakes.

In this case they may have done the right thing though.

No doubt that "may" doesnt belong in that sentence.
I dont think the guy was able to ask him "hey buddy, having a bad day? You need a smoke? Let me buy you a cheeseburger..you really dont need to stomp my skull into the ground."

www.911missinglinks.com the definitive truth of 9/11..the who and why, not how

You can handle the TRUTH www.theforbiddentruth.net

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

From whats been written so far its a perfect example of why some people shouldnt be allowed guns as opposed to a success story... in my opinion.

From what I have read so far, it is the PERFECT use of a gun. A guy is minding his own business and gets attacked. Gets attacked bad enough that he gets knocked to the ground, no one is helping him, and the guy who attacked him is saying he is going to kill him.

I'd shoot. Glad he shot.

The police seem to not have an issue.

The victim was 50 something and the attacker 25.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

This info clears it up somewhat! Now wheres the queue, I want to be one of the ones who gets to carry him on my shoulders throught the streets

Despite stereotypes of gun owners, I bet the last thing this guy wants is to be called a hero and carried through the streets.

Being FORCED to shoot another human being may have been his only option, I'd say this will be tough to accept for him for a long time. He should be proud he had the strength to make the right, and difficult, decision - but it doesn't make it any easier knowing that.

This is not a scenario for celebration, it's a time for quiet approval and support.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,465]

couldn't agree with you more!!!!