As kids, one of my friends lived across the street from a golf course. He used to hide near one of the short holes with a baseball bat. When the golfers would drive onto the green, he would run out and try to hit the golf ball out of the air back at them. Of course, as kids, we thought this was hilarious, but the golfers never seemed to be amused.

I'm assuming these were blanks, but it would've been much cooler if they weren't.

i wouldnt be very happy to have a shotgun fired next to me when not wearing anything to protect my hearing

>What would you do?
I certainly wouldn't be hitting golf balls and tryig to ignore the crazy man with a shotgun

You know this is Canada because in America this would've resulted in a ridiculous call for litigation of banning shotguns, metal detectors at putt putt courses, and that guy getting tased.

Should be called "How to catch Budzos' 5-iron in the temple". More likely I would snap my driver in half and fling the sharp end through his neck before he could recock that fucking thing.

>> ^budzos:
Should be called "How to catch Budzos' 5-iron in the temple". More likely I would snap my driver in half and fling the sharp end through his neck before he could recock that fucking thing.

At which point Steven Segall would drop out the sky and be like "OH SHIT BUDZOS YOU THE MAN!" Both would then attend a ho-down and discuss the finer aspects of disabling shotgun wielding foes.

"Only in Canada" must be right because I think this stunt is a bit reckless. It just doesn't seem safe to sneak around with a shotgun in a populated area. Someone could get the wrong idea and decide to shoot first. I definitely don't think it would be unreasonable to call the police. And we know how police love to use their tasers.

Hopefully they filmed this in some rural area where people are more comfortable with guns.

Lolz, upvote for the Asian guy.


PULL!

*swing*

Jeezuz, the people just stand there like dumb sheep waiting to get shot.
Run, hit him, do something.

Pretty creative--I like how he how he swings the shotgun like a golf club before he shoots.

I've never seen a "no firearms permitted" sign on a golf course...so it would be legal to carry it in--of course firing it on the other hand...but this is a TV show and I am sure a lot of it was arranged/staged.

i wouldnt be very happy to have a shotgun fired next to me when not wearing anything to protect my hearing

I can buy that--shotguns can be pretty loud (130dB), but I doubt there was much powder in the rounds, and the exposure is so short you would probably be a lot worst off at a rock concert. Honestly, this is probably the most exciting thing that has happened to these people in a while--I'm sure they will be more than happy to tell the story for years to come.

Someone could get the wrong idea and decide to shoot first.

That would be murder. Just because someone has a gun in public, or is even threatening, doesn't mean you have the right to shoot them--people who undergo CCW training realize this as they re-iterate this point several times. There is a list of criteria that must be satisfied before you can even legally draw your weapon--at least in my state.

Jeezuz, the people just stand there like dumb sheep waiting to get shot.
Run, hit him, do something.

What can you really do if someone next to you pulls out a loaded shotgun with malicious intent? Besides, his body language looked pretty harmless to me...

>> ^imstellar28:
That would be murder. Just because someone has a gun in public, or is even threatening, doesn't mean you have the right to shoot them--people who undergo CCW training realize this as they re-iterate this point several times. There is a list of criteria that must be satisfied before you can even legally draw your weapon--at least in my state.


Well, regardless of what they told you in your class, I don't think you're correct. It's not that clear cut. Or maybe your teaching applies only to concealed weapons in public places, neither of which necessarily apply to this situation.

See http://law.jrank.org/pages/10128/Self-Defense.html

"The same values that underpin self-defense support the defense of property. Generally a person has greater latitude in using physical force in the defense of her dwelling than in the defense of other property. In most jurisdictions deadly force is justified if a person unlawfully enters onto property and the property owner reasonably believes that the trespasser is about to commit a felony or do harm to a person on the premises."

I think if this driving range owner saw a guy with a shotgun trespass into and then sneak through his property he could try to argue that the trespasser was "about to commit a felony or do harm to a person on the premises". You seem absolutely incorrect that "threatening" isn't enough. "Threatening" clearly can be enough for a reasonable self-defense argument.

Also, from this case http://www.tdn.com/articles/2008/07/04/area_news/doc486d3008b3d11480365604.txt the district attorney is quoted as saying "... the shooter is allowed to act on appearances in defending themselves or another and a mistaken belief in the appearance of danger is immaterial" when explaining why they weren't prosecuting a self-defense/murder case.

I'm not saying someone is likely to get off completely (although it's possible), but it's certainly strong mitigating factors that a prosecutor, judge, and jury will consider carefully.

Also, I'm sure in this situation they made previous arrangements with the driving range and quite possibly the local police.

>> ^Creperum:
>> ^budzos:
Should be called "How to catch Budzos' 5-iron in the temple". More likely I would snap my driver in half and fling the sharp end through his neck before he could recock that fucking thing.

At which point Steven Segall would drop out the sky and be like "OH SHIT BUDZOS YOU THE MAN!" Both would then attend a ho-down and discuss the finer aspects of disabling shotgun wielding foes.


WINNAR!

You win one (1) Internet!

>> ^Camhuffman:
You know this is Canada because in America this would've resulted in a ridiculous call for litigation of banning shotguns, metal detectors at putt putt courses, and that guy getting tased.


Or getting shot to death by someone else.

quote from rychan:
Or maybe your teaching applies only to concealed weapons in public places, neither of which necessarily apply to this situation.

I was speaking from the perspective of one of the other golfers on the range, who might have a CCW, as they are the only people who could have legally had a weapon on their person...unless they themselves were walking around with a firearm in plain sight.

Generally a person has greater latitude in using physical force in the defense of her dwelling than in the defense of other property.

Exactly, the rules would be even more strict if you were on someone elses property--as the golfers at the ranger were.

"Threatening" clearly can be enough for a reasonable self-defense argument.

Self defense, yes. Drawing your weapon and opening fire, no. If someone picks a fight with you and you shoot them you will most likely be charged with murder...just because someone appears threatening or is even directly threatening you doesn't mean you can shoot them. Legally, you are required to exhaust all available options--including running away if possible, before you can even draw your weapon. Even when become the attack becomes imminent and you have no last option, and you are forced to draw your weapon, you must shout at your attacker to stop--if possible...you cannot just pull out your revolver like its a scene from tombstone and start railing the hammer.

From your own link, http://law.jrank.org/pages/10128/Self-Defense.html:

"A person claiming self-defense must prove at trial that the self-defense was justified. Generally a person may use reasonable force when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack. Nondeadly force can be used to repel either a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. DEADLY FORCE may be used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force.

In some cases, before using force that is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to the aggressor, a person who is under attack should attempt to retreat or escape, but only if an exit is reasonably possible. Courts have held, however, that a person is not required to flee from his own home, the fenced ground surrounding the home, his place of business, or his automobile.

A person who is the initial aggressor in a physical encounter may be able to claim self-defense if the tables turn in the course of the fight. Generally a person who was the aggressor may use nondeadly force if the victim resumes fighting after the original fight ended. If the original aggressor attacked with nondeadly force and was met with deadly force in return, the aggressor may respond with deadly force.

A person may use force to defend a third person from attack. If the defender is mistaken, however, and the third party does not need assistance, most jurisdictions hold that the defender may be held liable in civil court for injuries inflicted on the supposed attacker.

A defendant who successfully invokes self-defense may be found not guilty or not liable. If the defendant's self-defense was imperfect, the self-defense may only reduce the defendant's liability. Imperfect self-defense is self-defense that was arguably necessary but somehow unreasonable. For example, if a person had a GOOD FAITH belief that deadly force was necessary to repel an attack, but that belief was unreasonable, the defendant would have a claim of imperfect self-defense. In some jurisdictions, the successful invocation of such a defense reduces a murder charge to MANSLAUGHTER. Most jurisdictions do not recognize imperfect self-defense."

I think it is very interesting that you decided to use that article as proof against my argument, and had to read through passages that refuted your beliefs in order to cherry pick your quote from it...what do you have to gain from the view you hold?

Well, regardless of what they told you in your class, I don't think you're correct.

The article you yourself provided pretty much mirrors exactly what I learned in my CCW class (which was taught by a local police sniper with 20 years experience)

I respectfully disagree, I think your original contention is still misleading. You said

"That would be murder. Just because someone has a gun in public, or is even threatening, doesn't mean you have the right to shoot them..."

And the article, both the parts I linked and the parts you linked, said that-
1) Threatening someone with a gun in public can be reason enough to shoot them and successfully argue self defense.
2) Even if it isn't, it's likely to provide enough mitigating factors that it wouldn't be "murder"

And additionally I pointed out that-
1) The situation here isn't public.
2) CCW isn't the only relevant set of guidelines for this situation.

And finally pointed out that-
1) The appearance of a threat is enough to justify deadly force, even if it was a joke or the threat wasn't real for some reason.

The other pieces you grabbed from my article don't undermine what I was saying, in fact they support it.

The guy with the shotgun, by trespassing into a place of business and stalking people, was threatening deadly force (or at least someone could argue this reasonably), so as you posted, responding with deadly force would be appropriate.

My hypothetical situation specifically mentioned the owner of the driving range, and what you posted specifically says that an owner or employee is not obligated to attempt a retreat from a place of business before using deadly force.

Maybe you're parsing some of the article incorrectly. When it says "deadly force may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force" it doesn't mean that the attacker has to be actively firing a weapon. They just have to be presenting the reasonable threat of deadly force.

I'd say it's very unlikely that an employee would be successfully prosecuted for murder in the event that he witnessed the gunman sneak onto the property and start to stalk golfers. You spoke with certainty that someone would be, and I think you're far too certain.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by deedub81.

Awarding kronosposeidon with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Skeeve.

*dead unfortunately

Only published or personal queue videos may be flagged dead - ignoring dead request by chilaxe.