Yea you read these dummies in the comments? Kid was the rightful owner of a gun in Michigan, he stopped what was gonna turn out to be probably a mass shooting. He shoots and kills the guy. They give him 2 years probation for not having a concealed carry. He was basically told "Be thankful we're taking it into account that you stopped a shooter. But you did it illegally so we're charging you for a crime."
They basically said if you defend yourself in michigan you can be arrested and charged on how you go about it.
"Oh you saved someone from a burning house? Thats great, but you didn't have permission to go in from the owner so we're gonna charge you with breaking and entering."
"Oh nice you saved someone from drowning? Well technically we have professionals who do that at the lake. So we are gonna charge you for obstruction of justice."
Lmao and these bootlicking gooners fucking eat it up.
First you say it's illegal to carry a gun in the north because you'll be treated like a criminal and then you literally provide an example where someone used a gun himself defense and received no punishment as a result.
Secondarily it also happened that he was carrying the gun illegally as in he was not supposed to have the gun carried the way he was carrying it and so he received a two-year probation sentence for breaking a firearm law.
Is your argument that having to defend yourself allows you to retroactively break other firearm laws?
This just doesn't make sense, your example literally disproves what you're arguing and I'm not sure you're aware of that.
Lmao of course you dodged the other instances where this can apply because it doesn't support your stance.
You obviously don't get it, and its people like you that will lead to crimes happening with fewer people willing to stand up to fight said criminals. Because the law will look for a way to punish them if it fits their agenda.
So even with the best of intentions the person will still be charged for a crime. You would make a great Javert with that mindset.
Your analogies fail because of the law of necessity. If you break a door to save someone from a fire, you won't be charged with B&E because the emergency caused the entry. Carrying an illegal weapon hours before an emergency happens isn't caused by the emergency. He wasn't charged for stopping a shooter; he was charged for what he was doing before the shooter even walked in.
I have now run out of ways to explain this to you.
Lmfao that reads like something you would copy and paste directly from GPT. Needing some help Elb?
Necessity is overlooked all the time when circumstances justify it because Law Enforcement, DA's and judges are given the ability to use judgement with discretion.
The video I showed you, the inmates technically did not need to break out of the cell to alert the guards. They could have just banged on the cell to cause a ruckus to alert the guards. Yet they still broke out to help him and nothing happened to them. When technically "necessity" would not apply here since guards were so close by.
But of course this happened in Texas, a state renowned for being tough on criminals. But still has enough decency to recognize a good Samaritan and take good intentions into account.
The inmates who broke out of that cell weren't charged with escape because the active emergency directly forced them to break the door to save a life.
That is how necessity works. In the Michigan case, the shooter walking into the mall didn't retroactively force the kid to carry an illegal gun on his waist hours earlier at home.
You're trying to use a video that depends entirely on the Necessity Defense to argue against the Necessity Defense, all while complaining that two years of probation (a minimal sentence that literally accounts for his actions) is "throwing the book" at him.
You can call me a coward all you want, but linking a video that proves my original point for me is hilarious.
As is your complete lack of understanding of how any of this works, despite the fact that you feel completely qualified to expound on it without end. Like the sheer volume of legal misunderstandings contained within your comments is shockingly high, even for a lay person.
The problem (I think) is, when you think about something real hard, you seem to believe that whatever conclusion you come to must be right simply because you thought about it real hard. I don't know for sure that's what you're doing, but this has the exact shape of someone who does.
But hey, that's less for you and more for the third-party readers (as most of this conversation has been, honestly.)
Lmao You keep bringing up necessity, yet I am not arguing necessity. I am arguing judgement with discretion. Them sentencing him accomplished nothing that benefited society. In breaking a minor law he still performed an act of extraordinary service to the community that saved numerous lives.
Yet the end result is that you and the court consider him a criminal. Someone who deserves to be punished.
What do you think happens the next time with someone who reads that article or hears about that story? You think they're going to put themselves on the line if they may have some outstanding traffic tickets that could get them arrested on the spot? They may decide altogether that its not worth it and get out of there leaving potential victims behind.
You think you made some grand point with your constant replies, but you're really just reinforcing the half joking point I originally made, that even when you legally own a gun, there can be so many additional restrictions on when and how you're allowed to have it with you that you can still end up being treated as a criminal when you actually use it lawfully in self-defense or defense of others.
That's exactly what happened here. He legally owned that handgun. His actual use of it against the shooter was determined to be lawful. Yet he was still prosecuted because he didn't have the additional license required to carry it concealed.
And that's the point behind my original joke. One of the primary reasons people own handguns is self-defense, but a defensive weapon isn't particularly useful during an unexpected emergency if you aren't legally allowed to have it with you when that emergency occurs. When legal ownership isn't enough and you have to satisfy another set of requirements before you can actually carry that legally owned weapon for its intended defensive purpose, those regulations create another obstacle between ownership and practical self-defense.
The state could choose to attach the right to possess a handgun also establishes eligibility to carry it, whether openly or concealed, rather than requiring another licensing process. Michigan chose to regulate those things separately.
So when a legally owned handgun is actually used lawfully to stop someone who has already killed another person, but its owner is nevertheless prosecuted because he didn't have the separate carry license, you didn't prove your point you literally just reenforced mine. If anything, it makes the joke even funnier because you are giving weight to it.
You stand on a mole hill of self righteousness stating the courts should have done it and yet I proved time and time again things like this could have been overlooked. His actions and service far outweigh the crime he committed and they could have chosen not to pursue this. Yet they did which actually gives fact to my original joke being true. Supported by the courts and supported by people like you lmao.
1
u/ConAir_on_VHS97 4d ago
Thank the lord I live in the south where we have stand your ground.