Man Shoots Lost Alzheimer's Patient Thinking He's A "Prowler"

[Gravekeeper]

Still sounds easy. None of those requirements sound tough.

NJ, one gun per month.
Handguns must be registered.
Concealed carry isn't allowed for anyone who isn't law enforcement.
No "assault" weapons.
15 round maximum.

1. Its one handgun per month if purchased in-state.
2. Handguns must only be registered if purchased in-state.
3. Open carry is permitted if you have a concealed carry permit.
4. No assault weapons here either. Also no full auto weapons. In fact pretty much any military or tactical designed firearm is prohibited. No assault rifles, no Spas-12's, no auto/burst fire pistols, etc. No pistols with a barrel length of less than 4.1 inchs. No palm guns or other derringer like guns, no modified weapons ( no full auto mods, no barrel sawing, etc ), no hand guns that can fire .25 or .32 caliber rounds, so on and so forth.

Owning a handgun here is difficult and essentially only permitted for target shooting and nothing else. You can;t just get one because you need "protection".

In reality, tons of people get denied because the Democrat-led state refuses to issue permits. They are supposed to let you know within 30 days of applying for a permit what the verdict is, but that's always ignored and it could take half a year just to find out you've been denied. Very restrictive background checks. If you live near a school (Which is just about everywhere), your chances plummet. And what a surprise, most gun crime in NJ is committed with illegally owned guns.

The permits are handled by local police forces or state forces if no local police are present. The criteria is set and the police have no discretion in the matter. You either qualify or you don't and they must issue a permit if you do. The wait time sucks yes, but it seems to be location dependent. IE when your local police force gets their ass around to it.

I have no idea how you think the Democrats are doing it. The approval or denial of a permit is up to the police chief in question.

There is no statue in the law regarding distance from a school. I can see how if you twisted the wording of the last clause really really really hard you could maybe bullshit that one up but it wouldn't hold up in any way.

[Greenday]

3. Open carry is permitted if you have a concealed carry permit.

I have no idea how you think the Democrats are doing it. The approval or denial of a permit is up to the police chief in question.

How does one open carry if getting a concealed carry permit is effectively impossible?

Who do you think passes these laws? The pro-gun law Republicans who are a minority?

[Gravekeeper]

How does one open carry if getting a concealed carry permit is effectively impossible?

I'm just quoting the laws, seeing as you're having some trouble with the facts of the matter.

A cc permit is generally only granted to people that actually need a weapon for their job such as security and armoured car guards, etc. Though they can be granted in cases of extreme danger to a person's safety.

Who do you think passes these laws? The pro-gun law Republicans who are a minority?

No, you specifically blamed the Democrats for the length of time the permits take and for denying permits. When they in fact are in no way involved in the process at any level whatsoever. Permits are handled entirely by local and state police forces.

Don't try to change the subject or move the goalposts.

Additionally, welcome to democracy. The people wanted them, the senate drafted them and the Republican governor both endorsed and signed them into law. If the pro-gun Republican minority doesn't like it, they have 49 other states to choose from. Or they could, I as I pointed out, just drive one state over to buy a handgun in which case they don't need a purchase permit or to register the handgun with NJ. ;p

[Titi]

Greenday, gun laws getting a gun aside. New Jersey does NOT have Castle Rules, and even some counties don't allow you to shoot someone in your own house.

http://www.thebassbarn.com/forum/12-...ooters-nj.html

[lordlundar]

I just find is discouraging that the first thought in these situations is "shoot first and ask questions later." I thought the "wild west" (which honestly seems more civil than modern day) died off a century ago.

[siead_lietrathua]

yeah i think how hard it is to get a gun is kinda irrelevant. this guy owned one already, he used the gun in a manner where he thought he was gonna be the big hero, and ended up killing someone innocent.
how many months of paperwork, and varying types of permits, it took to get him the weapon is an irrelevant point to how he chose to use it.

[Greenday]

Greenday, gun laws getting a gun aside. New Jersey does NOT have Castle Rules, and even some counties don't allow you to shoot someone in your own house.

http://www.thebassbarn.com/forum/12-...ooters-nj.html

I'm quite aware and it's quite disturbing.

[Andara Bledin]

I just find is discouraging that the first thought in these situations is "shoot first and ask questions later." I thought the "wild west" (which honestly seems more civil than modern day) died off a century ago.

It's worth noting that in this case, the guy didn't "shoot first" and I'm actually quite tired of hearing that contention in relation to this case (from another forum's anti-gun crowd beating that horse).

His big mistake was exiting his house when he thought there was danger lurking outside without sufficient lighting to determine what said potential danger actually was. To claim fear for your life after displaying a lack of said fear by leaving a well-lit and locked building to go into the dark is fucking stupid and anyone who would do the same is a moron.

[HYHYBT]

If he didn't shoot first, that changes everything. I'd thought, though, that the other guy wasn't even armed.

[Andara Bledin]

If he didn't shoot first, that changes everything. I'd thought, though, that the other guy wasn't even armed.

You might wish to read the part I was responding to that I even quoted for reference in my own post.

Lordlundar commented about "shoot first and ask questions later."

Hendrix tried talking to the man, but rather than give any sort of response, he kept advancing. Even after being told to stop.

From the article:

"[Hendrix] gave several what he described as verbal commands," Wilson said. "[Westbrook] continued walking toward him after he told him to stop."

If anyone is curious, the house is the last one on this street. They have one neighbor to the west and the rest of the house is surrounded by woods.

[HYHYBT]

Sorry; you're entirely right.

[lordlundar]

Hmm, poor wording on my part, let me clarify:

What I meant was that as a first course of action in seeing someone outside in the night the first assumption is "he's trying to break in and rob me!" then grab a gun and go out to confront him. Why wasn't his first response to grab a flash light and stay in the doorway shining the light on him?

It's a depressing trend that the first response to a stranger is to shoot them instead of trying to actually find out why they're there first.

And before anyone responds with the stupid "when seconds count..." nonsense, I'd like to point out that these situations are not an armed person charging them down, they're cases of people in secure places which can hold off a real intruder for some time leaving their place of security to justify playing vigilante. Seeing someone you're unfamiliar with is NOT justification to shoot them.

[Andara Bledin]

His first assumption was that he was trying to get in, because he was trying to get in. He rang the doorbell several times (which would pretty much guarantee it wasn't an actual burglar, in my mind, to be honest) and tried the handle as well, trying to get into the house as his addled mind thought he belonged there.

And he did try to find out why he was there. Or do you think his asking questions were along the lines of "what color is the sky?" as opposed to, say, "who are you?" or "why are you in my back yard?" He even told him to stop approaching him. Even someone with Alzheimer's still knows what the word stop means and how to do so. There was more going on than just that; I suspect exposure might have played a role.

I still think the guy was an idiot for going outside, into his back yard, where there's no light (why the hell does someone who lives on the edge of forest have no back light?) when police were already on their way. But characterizations that he "shot first and asked questions later" or that he went outside to "play vigilante" are utterly unsupported by the reported information.

[lordlundar]

In a safe place, police on the way, he knows where the person is and that he hasn't made any effort to break in, so he chooses to grab a gun instead of a flashlight, go out of the safe area and confront the person because he got impatient.

Let me point this out to you: He took the course of action that put himself and others in danger because he decided to stop waiting for the police despite there being no immediate threat. So yes, he did "shoot first and ask questions later" in that he made an assumption that cost a life before finding out the truth and he did play vigilante because he tried to stop a crime that wasn't happening in the worst way imaginable.

Responsible gun owners understand that the use of lethal force is an absolute last resort. But too many people are using it as their first option and standing laws are making it acceptable. That is BS, pure and simple.

[Andara Bledin]

I see you've got your own personal narrative built in your head that sort of ignores some reported information and fills in the gaps to suit the picture you wish to present, so I'm going to go ahead and bow out of this thread until something new gets presented.