Pajamas Media

99 Comments

1. jvon:

I’m not going to comment on this much until more facts are known, but I will say this much: you can do serious harm, even kill a person, by punching them in the face hard enough to land them on the ground. If the shooter’s version of the story is factual, it may well have been justified not only under Montana law but in a more general sense.

Aug 27, 2009 - 1:36 am 2. Mj233:

The very idea that a citizen was once required to justify use of deadly force turns the constitution on it’s head, requiring a defendant to prove innocence, rather than requiring the state to prove guilt. The “Castle Doctrine” fixes that. It’s not perfect, but neither is the Law. Old people and the infirm especially suffer from physical attacks, and bear the price of recovery in addition to the humiliation of being a victim. There is NO, NO reason for assault by a perpetrator, and if they do, and get shot, it’s a lick on ‘em.

Aug 27, 2009 - 2:12 am 3. Rob:

Mr Owens, A reasonable jury could easily conclude that assault by an assailant 100lbs your better represents a realistic threat to life or limb. This assailant (if reports are accurate) had intent, proximity and means to inflict serious bodily harm, thereby meeting legal definition of mortal hazard. Where the shooter stays while the case is investigated (as it should be) is not relevant.Great reporting, very instructive case for those of us that go armed and potential assailants. Most people can’t “fight”, if a big guy punches me in the face, I’d feel threatened.

Aug 27, 2009 - 2:15 am 4. Incirlik:

#1 Well said. There are many documented cases where a person was killed in a fistfight, and some people in jail because they did the killing (intentional or otherwise). It should always be the burdon of the state to prove mafesence. It’ll be interesting to see how this one pans out.

Aug 27, 2009 - 2:56 am 5. seansarto:

As much as I endorse the Constitutional premises of Castle Doctrine, my first question is: Did Schmidt have a license for a concealed weapon…and was he violating Wal-Mart’s policy of employee’s having such on the premise…I would think that he most likely was…

Aug 27, 2009 - 4:11 am 6. Brian:

“he had to release Schmidt while authorities conduct their investigation.”

Imagine that! Being innocent until proven guilty. And this is a bad thing?

Aug 27, 2009 - 4:52 am 7. Rashputin:

If someone twice his size knocked him to the ground with a single punch, why wouldn’t he expect to be kicked while he was down? He had every right to interpret the situation as a threat of serious bodily harm and reacted accordingly. I don’t have the option to flee if I’m attacked, is that an exception allowing me to me to defend myself in a similar situation or is everyone supposed to submit to beatings or murder in order to keep things tidy for investigators? How would keeping the victim in jail enhance the investigative abilities of law enforcement working the case anyway?

Big guys like to intimidate and bully smaller guys, it’s a fact of life and it’s why they say, “God created man, but Sam Colt made them equal”. It’s also why those who are the “big guys” by virtue of their government jobs hate the idea of people being anything other than helpless victims. In most instances, although we don’t know about this particular instance, the attacker has a long history of violence or is a career criminal. Career prosecutors need career criminals and career criminals need as many victims as possible. Is it any wonder that a prosecutor who opposed the law in the first place still does? We need to return to the time when everyone knew that laying your hands on someone else was a dangerous thing for you to do. Those prone to violence need to once more be afriad to be voilent.

Regards

Aug 27, 2009 - 4:59 am 8. B Dubya:

My guess is that Mr. Lira will now be less prone to resolve disputes with folks by physically intimidating them or by, as it appears, physically assaulting them with his fists. Because Mr. Schmidt appears to have arrived at a undeniable conclusion, that Mr. Lira, massing some 100 pounds greater than he, was likely to be successful in physically overpowering him in a fist fight. Mr. Schmidt then applied Colonel Colt’s remedy to the situation, which ended the dispute without further injury to Mr. Schmidt.
The lesson here is be polite. People who lay hands on people where they carry firearms are likely to get shot. Civility and courtesy are not only the oils that allow society’s members to interact cordially, they can be the means whereby the normally impolite can avoid being killed for their aggressive and foolhardy behaviors.
South FLorida is a good example of how nice everyone can be when you never know who is carrying.
Montana, on the other hand, has pretty much always been that way. More people, when they are armed in Montana, carry openly than carry concealed, but the principle of enlightened civility prevails then too.

Aug 27, 2009 - 5:32 am 9. Tristan Phillips:

A helpful piece of information for Mr Owens (On the off but unlikely chance he reads these comments): People can and have died by simply falling from standing and striking their head on hard surfaces like concrete floors. Start perusing motorcycle message boards and see how people have been injured and killed by just striking their head after falling. If you think that pushing someone hard to a concrete floor does not have the potential to kill I have a bridge to sell you.

A question I’d like to see Mr. Owens respond to: What are your views on this case, given the limited amount of information?

Aug 27, 2009 - 5:46 am 10. Paul in MI:

Wow, I’m not sure how I feel about this. The second amendment says what it says and I’m steadfast behind a person’s right to defend themselves. But at the same time it really seems that this would have ended better if that guy hadn’t brought his gun to work. I think the law is probably correct but if I was Walmart I’d be establishing a pretty strict “No Guns at Work” policy right about now.

Aug 27, 2009 - 6:00 am 11. JKB:

Nice provocation in stating that the shooter went free. A more accurate description would be that the shooter has not been charged pending a more thorough investigation. Charges may be brought if the shooter’s claim of self-defense is not substantiated.

Interesting, the complaint here seems to be that prosecutors have to put in a little work. That they must do a more thorough investigation before bringing charges. Is it really so terrible that having offered evidence of justified force, the prosecution must refute it beyond a reasonable doubt rather than simply think up a competing theory?

The only real question in the new law is the use of the language of threat of bodily injury as opposed to threat of serious bodily injury used in most states for the use of deadly force. That may prove to be an issue that needs refinement. But then most legislature actions need refinement to function in the real world. That’s why we have case law.

Is it really so terrible that someone can remain where they are lawfully, not be forced to flee or wait for the cops to get around to showing up, and defend themselves from the violence of others? It might be called “stand your ground” or more appropriately “no retreat” but really we could call it anti-bullying. Criminals (and bullies) should not be able to win just by being willing to threaten violence.

Aug 27, 2009 - 6:00 am 12. Peter the Bubblehead:

I’d like to know what sort of records each of these men involved had prior to this incident? If Schmidt has had prior run-ins with the law, then I would think the investigation would focus more on him. If, however, Lira has a record of assault or fighting, it may well prove Schmidt had a reason for fearing for his own life and/or safety.

As one of the previous posters stated, we need to find out more facts about this case before laying blame.

Aug 27, 2009 - 6:05 am 13. Now and Then:

Maybe he just dropped the gun and it went off. Lots of people killed that way. Sure would hate to see something like that happen to a passionate town hall protester.

Aug 27, 2009 - 6:15 am 14. JKB:

Note that the use of deadly force is authorized under the law if citizens are “threatened with bodily injury.”

This is also a misrepresentation. As the section simple permits the use of force but Montana Code permits the use of force in defense of persons but limits the use of deadly force to imminent death or serious bodily injury:

45-3-102. Use of force in defense of person. A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Aug 27, 2009 - 6:21 am 15. Clayton E. Cramer:

My first reaction to the description of what happened is that Schmidt’s actions don’t sound completely unreasonable–at least, if Schmidt’s version is correct. Even Lira’s version, while not as supportive of Schmidt’s actions, doesn’t sound completely ridiculous. Even if Schmidt had intentionally run into Lira, punching someone in the face so hard that they end up on the ground is disproportionate use of force, and Schmidt might well have had good reason to fear great bodily injury or death if he believed Lira was going to continue the attack.

Here’s an ugly reality: not everyone that can carry a gun, should carry a gun. There are some who are prohibited by law from possessing a gun; there are a few more who are allowed to possess a gun at home, but are not allowed to obtain a permit to carry concealed. There are some people who can legally own a gun, or who can obtain a permit, but who I would strongly encourage not to do so, because they lack the wisdom or self-discipline to do so. Fortunately, many people in this category know their own limitations, and choose not to do so.

Carrying a gun on a regular basis, for most adults, is not ever likely to be a problem. But if you are prone to losing your temper, getting drunk or stoned enough in public places that you shouldn’t drive, or suffer from severe depression or hallucinations–having a gun, and even more so, having one on your person, isn’t wise.

There are many rights that we enjoy, including the right to bear arms. That doesn’t mean that every person would be wise to regularly exercise all of those rights.

Aug 27, 2009 - 6:22 am 16. Ken:

If, as the author contends, this isn’t the outcome that the Montana legislators intended, then my first question is “why not?” A man is, by the best evidence available, assaulted by a larger man and knocked to the ground. Rather than allow himself to come to further harm, he acted in self defense.

Assuming the facts are accurate, in order for this use of the castle doctrine to be wrong, we must assume one or more of the following:

1) Victims must permit themselves to suffer bodily harm or mayhem, in preference to using deadly force on their assailant, who is acting intentionally to harm the victim.

2) Victims must put themselves in greater jeopardy by turning their back on a dangerous person and attempting to flee – being, now, unable to see any additional attacks or avoid them, as well as presenting the assailant with a more vulnerable target.

3) It is better to treat the victim who stood up for himself as a criminal, than the assailant who attacked him.

In this case, I must question why the author is determined to make more victims of innocent citizens while protecting those who intentionally take actions to violate the victim’s life or person.

Aug 27, 2009 - 6:29 am 17. bibio44:

#5: “…my first question is: Did Schmidt have a license for a concealed weapon…and was he violating Wal-Mart’s policy of employee’s having such on the premise…”

Yes, a very important point since Wal-Mart policies supersede the law in many states.

Aug 27, 2009 - 6:39 am 18. Del:

Things are so upside down in our country that the law working as it was intended to is so strange to us. Think of it a person innocent until proven guilty walking the streets. Amazing. If the facts are correct and the shooter is the victim ,I hope he wins and other states take notice. Criminals beware! The good guys are taking back the streets in Montana.

Aug 27, 2009 - 6:45 am 19. Odysseus:

Well, one thing is certain: A .25 doesn’t offer much for self defense.

Aug 27, 2009 - 6:45 am 20. macko:

I don’t know IF schmidt provoked lara in order to shoot him under the guise of self defense but my guess is if he had he would have killed him.

When it comes down to making the decision to pull the trigger or not in some cases it is simply whether you are willing to be judged by 12 or carried by 4.

Aug 27, 2009 - 6:58 am 21. Bob Owens:

“A question I’d like to see Mr. Owens respond to: What are your views on this case, given the limited amount of information?”

Thanks for asking. Given the limited amount of information, I’m not yet ready to draw a conclusion.

I am relatively certain that Wal-mart does not allow employees to carry concealed weapons. If so, it seems undisputed that Schmidt violated corporate policy, and perhaps state laws, but I don’t know what they are. Nor do I know how bringing a gun to work against company policy (and potentially against state or local laws) might impact the investigation or the decision to charge him (or not).

Aug 27, 2009 - 6:59 am 22. James:

Don’t be fooled by this fools article! Here in liberal California we have long had a “stand your ground” law. There is, in fact, no duty to retreat in the face of aggression. I should know, I’m a criminal defense attorney and have tried many murder cases involving self-defense. If fact, here in CA when a defendant claims self-defense the prosecutor has the burden of proving that the self-defense action was not justifiable. The defendant need not prove anything. It’s the same in many other states. Anyone who agrees with Mr. Softie Owens should read the recent Supreme Court Heller decision: self-defense is a natural right. When someone attacks you, there should be no duty to retreat like a big wuss. And we all should use any means at our disposal to protect our health, lives, and health and lives of others. Want to try to crush my skull with a punch? I’ll shoot you.

Aug 27, 2009 - 7:06 am 23. Jack Okie:

It should be pretty easy to see which version of events is accurate. If Lira was shot from a distance of one foot, there should be significant powder residue on/in his face.

As others have said, Schmidt’s and Lira’s history may help point the way. I can’t imagine someone who’s outweighed by 100 lbs starting a ruckus unless they’re naturally belligerent. That said, from here Schmidt seems more believable. If the facts are as he stated I have no problem with what he did, or the law. As B Dubya implied, “An armed society is a polite society”.

Aug 27, 2009 - 7:07 am 24. wrg:

Mr. Owens

My brother in law is a asst. manager at a Walmart and is allowed to carry concealed. BUT, his is a special case because is also a part time DNR officer. Walmart does have a policy against concealed weapons in their store for customers and employees but will make exceptions for “just cause” as in his case.

Aug 27, 2009 - 7:13 am 25. MarkD:

Somehow, I’ve been able to avoid fistfights at work (and everywhere else) for the past 40 or so years. WalMart should fire both these clowns, if they haven’t already.

I’ll leave any legal decision to the jury, but the prosecutor seems like he needs to take a breath and chill. It’s his job to decide if the law was violated, not to decide what he’d like the law to be.

Given both accounts, absent eyewitnesses or security camera footage, I’d pass on this one if it were my decision. Let them destroy each other with civil lawsuits.

Aug 27, 2009 - 7:16 am 26. rocketeer:

The .25-caliber bullet that ripped into the left side of Danny Lira’s forehead blew apart when it hit his skull, exiting in fragments.
Wow, this sounds bad. We must do something to protect this guy.

The man who shot him went free on the orders of the local district attorney.
Holy Mackerel! The DA just let this guy off, scott free? How can this be?

How about we re-write the first few sentences of the story to be something like this to see if we get the same sympathy factor:

Danny Lira was shot and wounded yesterday after physically assaulting a coworker at their place of employment. The coworker, a full one hundred pounds lighter then the 250 pound Lira, was punched in the face and knocked to the ground, before using his .25 caliber pistol to defend himself against the much larger man.

I’m getting very tired of people presenting the facts in a biased and very dressed-up way like this author does from the start. I don’t feel any sympathy for the larger guy. The author is making the aggressor into the victim and the victim into the aggressor. What if the person that was knocked down was a woman, or a child, or an elderly person? Would there be any question at all about them using a gun to defend themselves? Perspective is everything. Perception becomes reality.

Aug 27, 2009 - 7:18 am 27. SDN:

Wal-Mart or any other employer may have such a policy.
1. That isn’t the same as a law.

2. Unless Wal-Mart or any other employer is going to put up metal detectors / conduct random searches, carrying concealed means they won’t know it’s there… until I need to use it to defend myself.

Aug 27, 2009 - 7:37 am 28. Bohemond:

I should point out that the Castle Doctrine was an inherent part of the Common Law- it has been whittled away in most states not by statute but by the rulings of activist judges. Legislation like Montana’s (or Florida’s) simply restores the law to what it was.

Aug 27, 2009 - 7:38 am 29. bibio44:

#26: “What if the person that was knocked down was a woman, or a child, or an elderly person? Would there be any question at all about them using a gun to defend themselves? Perspective is everything.”

Great point. Of course, if the aggressor IS a woman, or a child, or an elderly person – or if he or she only outweighs you by 10 or 20 pounds – or if you outweigh the aggressor – maybe you ought to think twice about blasting away. Unless of course you hear “a click.”

Aug 27, 2009 - 7:55 am 30. Bob:

Obviously, there’s the usual caveat of “we don’t know all the facts”…..but from what we can gather from the information presented to us, this does seem like a legitimate use of deadly force.

There is a concept known as a “per se” weapon (I learned this from Massad Ayoob), which is essentially anything (including your physical body – hands, feet etc), that is not ostensibly a weapon, being weaponized to commit an assault.

Lira was using his body as a “per se” weapon in this case (much like the abusive husband battering his wife), and Schmidt could be reasonably expected to consider Lira a potentially deadly threat after being punched in the face and knocked to the floor.

Maybe he’ll get fired from Walmart for having a concealed weapon, that’s a separate issue.

An important part of the whole “castle doctrine” concept is to essentially correct a glaring perversion of our legal system – that somebody had to prove they were innocent of wrongdoing. Now, the emphasis is righteous – innocence before guilt. The state has the burden of proof, as it should. The immediate investigation of the incident resulted in Schmidt being arrested and jailed for a while, but without any probable cause to detain him further, he was released. This is how our system of justice is supposed to work. We have no right to incarcerate people we cannot prove are guilty.

Aug 27, 2009 - 8:05 am 31. Bob:

I forgot to add – Schmidt only fired once. That is significant also. He fired, the threat ended, he didn’t fire any more.

That indicates controlled use of force to neutralize the threat.

Another important factor in determining his lawful use of deadly force.

Aug 27, 2009 - 8:17 am 32. SammHill:

The headline is inconsistant with the article and the facts of the case as we know them now.

I suspect the author is a wuss. Stay in the Northeast sir, real men live out here in the West, you wouldn’t fit in.

Aug 27, 2009 - 8:21 am 33. James S.:

If this goes to court it will be politically motivated and the shooter will win. I say this because, unless there is security camera footage or witnesses that can clarify some of the discrepancies, the case strikes me as too much a toss up to waste the State of Montana’s money on. Reasonable doubt is a high hurdle to cross. Any jury would simply need to look at the difference in size of the two involved to see the little guy would probably feel threatened after being punched.

This being said, Wal-Mart should fire both of these idiots. I don’t care how short of supply of workers they may have in this area (if there is a shortage) no workplace needs this crap.

Aug 27, 2009 - 8:25 am 34. Paul -Indiana:

This case is a good example of why I have a CC permit.

Aug 27, 2009 - 8:25 am 35. Wayneman:

Where I live it reads: If there is a threat of serious bodily injury and or death to you or to a third party…deadly force is authorized.Then it’s up to the D.A. to decide if your conduct meets those requirements.From what I can tell from the facts given I would say that the force used was authorized by the law.

Aug 27, 2009 - 8:33 am 36. David - MD:

The prosecutor may have an agenda in this case. He may want to let the person go in order to take a poke at the law (which he does not like). It seems that there is enough reason to hold the guy for overnight at least while they check out the story.

This is not a case where it happened at the guy’s house. This appears to be an escalation of a work altercation. That would be suspicious. Of course, this is incomplete facts based on a newspaper story.

Aug 27, 2009 - 8:34 am 37. Paul in MI:

I’m having a hard time imagining a fight scenario where a gun comes into play and the unarmed party doesn’t back down immediately. Either Lira kept attacking after seeing the gun OR Schmidt fired after the danger was past OR Schmidt, shooting from his back, drew, aimed, and fired a head shot in the space of one or two seconds before Lira could react. If it’s the last one then Craig Schmidt has earned himself a place on my “Dudes Not to Mess With” list.

Aug 27, 2009 - 8:38 am 38. James S.:

One more comment: Those that feel Mr. Owens is caving to go control need to read some of his other articles. He is definitely pro-2nd Amendment. This article is not his usual tone.

Mr. Owens, why the change? Is it because, regardless of legality, Mr. Schmidt’s actions do not help either side of the argument?

Aug 27, 2009 - 8:38 am 39. Steve:

@ Odysseus (19)

Ya think? The .25 certainly put an end to the altercation (and the other guy in the hospital). While not the ideal caliber for stopping power, it can be easily argued that the weapon served the role of “self-defense” fairly well in this alleged scenario.

Aug 27, 2009 - 8:39 am 40. ked5:

Last summer in Seattle, a man who was MINDING HIS OWN BUSINESS, watering plants in a traffic circle when harrassed by some obnoxious young women in a car (they were mad he was in their way – they couldn’t wait five minutes for him to finish caring for something everyone on the street enjoyed), then was punched by a male in another car. He hit his head, fell into a coma, and several days later – DIED. the man who threw the punch was convicted of manslaughter.
While we don’t know in the montana case, in the seattle case, there were racial overtones.

Oh, btw, a serious self-defense move is to punch a person in their septum (part of the nose) – if done correctly, it will shove the septum into the brain and cause immediate death.

Aug 27, 2009 - 9:36 am 41. Scott:

Personally I think he’s trying for a position with MSNBC and said as much on his blog. The slant in this article is horrendous and he should really be ashamed of himself for the “spin” he’s put into it.

According to the links Mr. Lira is 5′9″ and 300lbs, Mr. Schmidt is 6′ 155lbs. “Billings Police Sgt. Jay Berry said that Lira hit his coworker Craig Schmidt, 49, in the face. Schmidt, 49, fell backwards, and then allegedly pulled out a .25-caliber semi-automatic Beretta handgun and shot Lira, police said. The single shot was fired at a range of 10 to 15 feet.”

So basically Schmidt, got knocked on his butt and from a prone position drew and fired his weapon. The head shot may or may not have been intentional as Mr. Owens article implies. Schmidt also had a CC permit which Mr. Owens fails to mention, so it is unlikely he had a history or assault or violence.

Lira’s account is rather shaky as well. If you have such a weight advantage on someone there is no real need to escalate things after a typical “shoulder slam” while moving past one another, especially in the workplace. Let it go and notify a manager. If you are foolish enough to escalate things and knocked the guy on his butt with one punch there isn’t much reason to continue in an aggressive manner, you’ve proven that you shouldn’t be messed with. Lira even states that he proceeded to continue to attack after the punch.

Owens’ account also implies that Lira has a bunch of bullet fragments in his brain. “He has a slight bruise on his brain and facial lacerations from fragments of the bullet, which did not penetrate the skull, according to Dr. Eric Dringman, a St. Vincent surgeon.”

Shame on you Mr. Owens.

Aug 27, 2009 - 9:47 am 42. Jack in Silver Spring:

Bob @30 & 31 – Thought your comments were very good. Now & Then @13 – Don’t why you brought up the issue of the town hall meetings – and, oh btw – modern guns do not go off when dropped: before a gun is marketed it is dropped to make sure it does not go off. The only way a gun fires is if their is human finger on the trigger and a round in the chamber.

Many of you are correct – punching someone in the face can kill him/her. Indeedd, had Schmidt not fended off Lira with his gun, he might have been killed. Of course, in that case we would never have heard about it because fists are not newsworthy for the MSM, only guns are.

Aug 27, 2009 - 10:04 am 43. Professor Guvinoff:

If enough evidence is gathered to propose to a jury that the shooter was not justified, the jury will have to decide one way or the other, by the criteria of the current law and their own conscience. We can bet on the outcome if we are so inclined, but we cannot predict it. Patience on that one.

In the meantime, the trend is clear: the new gun laws coming into existence or making their way through the state-level legislative process go in the direction of re-affirming the 2nd amendment.

That’s “back to the basics” for me, and I don’t have to wait for the jury’s conclusion to express my enthusiasm for this new trend. The many deaths at Virginia Tech could have been avoided if the school’s gun policy did not enforce a privilege in favor of the outlaws in the name of some abstract concept of “social justice”. Are we still in America? I hope and pray I am.

Aug 27, 2009 - 10:08 am 44. JER:

A hundred pound advantage is the equivalent of a deadly weapon in the hands of the bigger man. As the saying goes, “God made men both small and tall; Sam Colt made them equal.”

This is precisely what a handgun is for – leveling the odds.

Would you prefer Schmidt beaten to death and Lira in jail for 10-20 years? How would that have been any better for anyone?

Aug 27, 2009 - 10:30 am 45. Bilgeman:

Mr. Owens:
“Craig Schmidt walks the streets of Billings a free man — at least for now — after shooting a man in the face over a work-related argument that escalated to gunplay.”

Why do you lie?

While the facts in this case have yet to be definitively established, BOTH parties to this admit that there was an intermediate stage between “workplace argument” and “gunplay”…that intermediate stage was the unwanted physical contact by one person on another, which the law in most jurisdictions would call “assault and battery”.

That’s a crime itself, sir.

But for some reason known only to yourself, you choose to characterize this as “bad words, then BANG!”.

An obvious falsehood.

Aug 27, 2009 - 10:33 am 46. Bilgeman:

#15 Clayton Cramer:
“Here’s an ugly reality: not everyone that can carry a gun, should carry a gun. There are some who are prohibited by law from possessing a gun; there are a few more who are allowed to possess a gun at home, but are not allowed to obtain a permit to carry concealed. There are some people who can legally own a gun, or who can obtain a permit, but who I would strongly encourage not to do so, because they lack the wisdom or self-discipline to do so. Fortunately, many people in this category know their own limitations, and choose not to do so.”

Absolutely correct, sir, well said.

We must really strive not to be our own worst enemies.

Aug 27, 2009 - 10:46 am 47. Chris is Dallas:

I always say that an armed populous is a polite populous. I’ll bet Mr. Lira will be a much more polite man in any future disagreements.

Aug 27, 2009 - 10:47 am 48. Rick:

Mr. Lira can be greatful his encounter was not with me. As I carry a .40 cal. not a wimpy .25.
By the way I have a bad back and need a new hip. So I can not run.Oh and will not run.

Aug 27, 2009 - 11:10 am 49. Sara:

This is the ultimate anti-bullying law. Next time you decide to threaten and attack the pencil neck standing over there, make sure he is not carrying the great equalizer. Best to treat others the way you want to be treated, actually.

Aug 27, 2009 - 11:16 am 50. Steve Sampson:

Thank you, rocketeer, that was an astute observation.

This scenario is a two way street, as a large (260 lbs, 6′2″)physically fit martial artist, I often have to walk away from confrontations. In discussions with police, I have learned that I would have no sympathy because of my size and experience. So, I can assure you that not all bullies are large men, there are many Napoleon Complexes walking around that are looking to be beat up or win a law suit. No I would never carry a pistol, living with one in the Marines was enough for me, but I do carry a bokken behind the seat of my car, in case I am ever helplessly outnumbered. The police and border guards consider it a toy and that is fine with me, although it is just as deadly as the katana in trained hands. (Despite Tom’s portrayal in Last Samurai)

No matter how the law is written or how it is applied; there will always be a degenerate or a criminal that will take advantage of a situation; common sense and integrity will suffice for the rest of us despite the whining of Progressive Marxists who seek to disarm us.

Aug 27, 2009 - 11:19 am 51. KRB:

Hope everyone takes the time to read ‘More Guns Less Crime’ by John R. Lott. My own feelings are that everyone has the right to defend themselves. I don’t care about the size, the weight, or records of the people involved.
I agree completely with Bilgeman in that the crime was Lira’s assault.

Aug 27, 2009 - 11:21 am 52. Fantom:

“And once that gun is used, the shooter doesn’t have to justify his actions as much as the prosecutor must prove that his actions were not justified:”

Sounds reasonable to me.

5. seansarto:

The Constitution is his license to carry however he wants. As to Wal Mart policy.. so they fire him. that is not of legal concern. Although I will say we have, for better or worse, Public Accommodation laws. basically places doing buisiness with the public cannot have policies like “no Blacks”. I s’pose under such a concept it would be justified to say such places cannot discriminate against armed People. That public accommodation protects all of ones rights.

Aug 27, 2009 - 11:31 am 53. Scott:

Mr. Owens response to my pointing out the heavy innuendo and spin in this article from his Confederate Yankee blog.

“Scott, you twisted what I wrote into something you can gin up faux outrage over.

OMG, I used a flashy lede to draw the reader in! That’s call “engaging the reader.” It was also perfectly accurate. The you would assign some other meaning to it—claiming that is meant to give sympathy to Lira—is an artifice that exists entirely within your own mind.

That “The man who shot him went free on the orders of the local district attorney” means—and see if you can follow along here—the man who shot him went free on the orders of the local district attorney.. Again, you look into your crystal ball and conjure up some sinister alternative meaning out of thin air.

Likewise, the rest of your outrage is based upon your desire to create additional meaning from the text, and then find offense in what you’ve created. You hide this being trying to claim what I “obviously meant” and what you think I implied… when I did not such thing.

As for the reports of what happened that day, again. I stated quite clearly there were very different accounts of what took place.

I suggest you find a hobby, other than trying to put words in other people’s mouths and then getting mad about what you “hear.”

~ Bob Owens

Interesting since quite a few posters here got the same impressions I did. Usually Mr. Owen has a pro-2nd Amendment stance and I found this article to be out of the norm for him. He seems a bit thin skinned over my pointing this out.

Aug 27, 2009 - 11:34 am 54. Steve:

@ SDN (27)

“Wal-Mart or any other employer may have such a policy.
1. That isn’t the same as a law.”

This may depend on where you live, and how company policy is implemented. In Ohio, at least, Revised Code specifically states that if an establishment posts a ‘no-firearms’ notice at the entrance, it is a felony to carry inside.

Aug 27, 2009 - 11:43 am 55. Sam:

Wow, so many ways to spin things!
How about this one:

Little guy with power issues gets shut down in harassing overweight co-worker by a supervisor.
Little guy goes and gets a gun.
Little guy provokes co-worker to strike at him.
Little guy pulls a gun to commit an assault.
Co-worker believing himself to face an immediate threat from a weapon, albeit a lesser weapon that actually in use, follows the Castle Law and attempts to defend himself by merely restraining the little guy.
Little guy breaks free and attempts to murder co-worker by firing a gun, albeit one of pathetic caliber, at co-workers head.

Yeah, it is a horrible thing when someone trying to defend himself against a bullying, murderous guy with a history of harassing him is subject to such attacks by those more interested in enabling bullies in their attempts to intimidate and murder people than in supporting the rights of people to legitimately and lawfully defend themselves.

Go Spin!

Aug 27, 2009 - 11:50 am 56. Roy Lofquist:

@ 4 – Incirlik

Howdy. Spent the best part of 63 there.

@ Y’all

I lived in Arizona for many years. Open carry was lawful and common. Happens like that when rattlesnakes (both kinds) are often found in unexpected places. Remarkably polite society there.

Aug 27, 2009 - 11:52 am 57. Chemman:

#52; most right to carry states allow individual businesses to establish carry or no carry policies as long as they are posted where those that carry can be reasonably forwarded.

Aug 27, 2009 - 12:16 pm 58. Scott:

12. Peter the Bubblehead:

“I’d like to know what sort of records each of these men involved had prior to this incident? If Schmidt has had prior run-ins with the law, then I would think the investigation would focus more on him. If, however, Lira has a record of assault or fighting, it may well prove Schmidt had a reason for fearing for his own life and/or safety.

As one of the previous posters stated, we need to find out more facts about this case before laying blame.”

Schmidt had a CC permit, so it is unlikely he had any run-ins with the law or a history of violent behavior. No information is currently available about Mr Lira’s background.

Aug 27, 2009 - 12:22 pm 59. Paul:

Most of us can avoid fist to cuffs at work, in a bar, at school. We can do nothing if we were working at Ruby’s, or Virginia Tech, or on a FAA ’safe’ domestic flight.

I’ll take my chances with me, or my fellow armed.

Aug 27, 2009 - 1:32 pm 60. Fantom:

@57

Yes I realize that. The point I was making was that it would be lawful for States/fed to make law allowing right to carry in public places via “Public accommodation”.

Here in Oklahoma we recently passed legistlation to allow workers to keep their weapons in their car parked on company property so they would have them in their commute. It is on hold right now because some companies.. notably Conoco-Philips have gone to court to stop it.

Aug 27, 2009 - 1:37 pm 61. Fantom:

Hmnn, looks like it was upheld in the Denver Court.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=356&issue=53

Guess I am behind the times.

Aug 27, 2009 - 1:51 pm 62. Alan Lothian:

I hope you won’t take amiss a comment from the UK, which has perhaps the most repressive anti-gun legislation in the western world. First, I agree with the posters who have written “we need to know more before passing judgement”. Second, the same. Third, the same again. Quite important. Fourth, I am a fairly old geezer who if knocked to the ground by a large (or indeed a moderately-sized) bugger, and if in possession of a pistol, would certainly have used it. I did have some training in these things many years back (no way would I have gone for a head shot, but that’s not germane; perhaps the shooter here didn’t, either, and just missed or even tried to scare, v. unwise as my old RAF instructor brutally explained).
Here in the UK, it would have got me into deep shit, since a: the pistol would have been ipso facto illegal, regardless and b: the supermarket would have instantly been surrounded by clowns in Rambo costumes screaming “Armed Police” who would, given their recent track record in the peace-loving UK, have been quite likely to have shot me, even with my hands up and the pistol on the floor.
But here in the UK (note that I am not defending our guns policy, at least not very far) it would be quite beyond belief for supermarket employees to pack a firearm. Even illegally. The fracas would have led to the arrest of the offending party, who’d probably have got off too leniently. I don’t say we’re perfect, indeed I know we’re not. But the big fella in this story also got off very lightly if this .25 bounced off his thick head. Even with my eyesight, I’d have got at least three in his thorax. Which takes me back to points 1,2,3 above. Genuinely perplexed, me.

Aug 27, 2009 - 2:29 pm 63. dave:

I think we miss a higher point in these kinds of events.. a guy who PUNCHES YOU AND KNOCKS YOU DOWN DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT! It’s beyond a ‘threat’, it’s an ATTACK and it can kill… if I had a gun in my pocket and a gigantic guy punched me I definitely would use it.. you can DIE from being punched in the face, or the gut, or the kidney…

How about we agree that when someone uses deadly force against US, then WE have the automatic right to return said deadly force?

The problem is we analyze these events after the fact. When a guy is swinging on you, you have NO power of reason or judgment beyond staying ALIVE.

Aug 27, 2009 - 2:45 pm 64. Sapwolf:

As a 136lb. 44-year old male, I believe Schmidt was justified. Lira could have killed him or crippled him with just ONE blow to the head. The fact that Schmidt only had a .25 means his intent is not to kill when firing only one shot.

It’s a good law and as a smaller man, we need the gun as a deterrent to 260lb goons who can kill us with one swipe.

The law is an equalizer and takes the advantage of size and physical strength away and makes it a fair level playing field.

Regardless though, it is the states who decide, not the federal government anyway.

We need more trained Americans with guns than less. THAT is what will help to keep crime down and people at bay from picking fights and bullying others.

Aug 27, 2009 - 3:07 pm 65. Sapwolf:

When a 260+lb man attacks me physically, that is a THREAT to my life.

Aug 27, 2009 - 3:11 pm 66. Bilgeman:

#51 KRB:
“I agree completely with Bilgeman in that the crime was Lira’s assault.”

Hey, i appreciate the sentiment, but that’s NOT what I said.

I want to be as accurate as possible here. We do not KNOW who laid hands on whom, but we DO know that there was a physical encounter of some kind.

Usually, one wouldn’t expect a cat to start a scuffle with someone who had 100 pounds on him, but if the shrimp knew he was armed with a gatt, I can see him looking to “make his bones” on some poor big easy-going galoot.

In my experience, brothers Steve Sampson and rocketeer relate entirely plausible scenarios.

So basically, until we know who first made the threat and then laid their hands on whom, we cannot assign blame to either party…and this means that properly, Mr. lira, being not guilty of anything yet under Montana law, is free to come and go as he pleases.

Mr. Owens obviously sees fit to demonize Lira’s actions, and other folks think Schmidt was playing bully-thug and got what was coming.

Until we know more, we should cool it, and be as accurate and impartial as possible.

Which is why Mr. Owens should get to drink from the fire hose for trying to spin this thing in so dishonest a way.

Aug 27, 2009 - 3:17 pm 67. Bilgeman:

Alan Lothian:
“Here in the UK, it would have got me into deep shit, since a: the pistol would have been ipso facto illegal, regardless and b: the supermarket would have instantly been surrounded by clowns in Rambo costumes screaming “Armed Police” who would, given their recent track record in the peace-loving UK, have been quite likely to have shot me, even with my hands up and the pistol on the floor.”

And that probably preferable to be taken alive by the Gun Bobbies.

HM Courts would do a “William Wallace” on you mate, like they did that poor chap who shotgunned those two sh*tballs while they were committing their home-invasion upon him.

That poor bastid is so deep in a hole that the only way he’ll ever see the sun again is if some kindly soul tapes a postcard to a brick and tosses it down to him.

Disgusting mess over there.

Aug 27, 2009 - 3:27 pm 68. Anonymous:

Think of the savings if he had used a .45 acp instead of a .25 acp.

Aug 27, 2009 - 3:49 pm 69. Steve Sampson:

I see by the comments that most of you assume that the large man is usually at fault. I think if you will ask a martial artist, even those who fight in the octagon, “most” of the heavyweights are the gentlest outside the ring and often the first to offer help when it isn’t expected.

It is a strange feeling to experience continually, to walk by women loading their groceries in their car and upon looking at you they quickly lock themselves in their car until you pass. It is rather humorous, considering the fact that if there was trouble you would be their life preserver. It is my cross to carry in this life, I am used to it.

It is hard to walk away from a taunting bully, especially if you fear no man alive, in the ring or out. Yet being a big man, you are automatically considered to be the aggressor as most of you have insinuated.

I appreciate your situation, Rick, and I understand why you carry the 40 cal. I prefer the 44 mag it has the best ballistics and you can reload it to make it a hot round. I don’t consider walking away from a confrontation the same as running, using that standard, I would be known as a coward; but you are right an overhead right or a kick to the head from a big man can turn the lights out permanently. Fortunately, most big men who are bullies are not trained in martial arts or they would never consider being a bully.

Remember, aggression is almost always a behavior designed to mask fear. A big man who is afraid is a true coward and a menace to society. Confidence and control is infinitely more manly than aggression, for aggression and bravado is only a result of fear and a lack of confidence.

Aug 27, 2009 - 5:00 pm 70. seansarto:

I come from NY state and the case of Bernard Goetz still resonates here with me…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Goetz

Goetz got the worst of defending himself there…And he came across as a pretty reasonable man…The Federal Courts got him under CC law in the end…but the Civil lawsuit smacked him with a 43 million fine for the assailants, who then went on to commit greater felonies, (at least the ones that could still walk). The Civil Court jury was pretty rigged against Goetz.

What happened to Goetz under NY law (and my experiences with LA law) sounds a lot like the UK’s clampdown on a person’s right to defend themselves…

My other questions: Was there a history of harassment or altercations between the two parties? Had the Store management or local authorities any knowledge of such?
What are crime statistics for the area?…I mean Goetz got strung up by the Sharpton charlatans when NYC was a gangster’s paradise at that time, (the same one they want the US to become now…the trade off bein’ Bob Dylan Christmas albums.)
Another sad thing in the Goetz story s that this crime was brazenly being perpetrated in a public area and no one would intervene for the safety of Goetz seeing he was outnumbered and overpowered.

Aug 27, 2009 - 5:14 pm 71. Will:

Sounds like the second amendment being put to use as it should be !!!! When one’s right to self defence is denied, it’s Socialism pure and simple !!!!

Aug 27, 2009 - 5:22 pm 72. vivo:

Regardless of laws and regulations, why was this guy carrying a gun at work?

Even if he knew there was going to be an altercation?

19. Odysseus:

“Well, one thing is certain: A .25 doesn’t offer much for self defense.”

Put one bullet on each eye, hit the jugular, aim at the ears, shoot thru the mouth.

The big guy here stopped attacking; not good for self-defense?

Aug 27, 2009 - 7:38 pm 73. frank grimes:

50.steve sampson:”No I would never carry a pistol, living with one in the Marines was enough for me,”

it may not be enough for you attacker.

Aug 27, 2009 - 8:10 pm 74. jrabbit:

I live here in Billings, Montana, and will admit these two were just plain stupid! Does not mean the rest of us are and I too carry a gun to work.(not wal- mart though) I have justification for such actions and being female I will continue to do so until such threat has been removed from the premise. And yes, all of my supervisors have been informed, they have done their parts to remove said threat, and now its in the hands of the court…..

But then again- a large percentage of REAL Montana’s carry guns… its just the way we are. and am also Very PROUD of that fact. We dont carry to harm fellow man. We carry to protect livestock, for harvesting game, protection of self from snakes (all varieties!) and because WE TEACH OUR CHILDREN HOW TO HANDLE WEAPONS CORRECTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
this is second amendment issue more than anything else.

Aug 27, 2009 - 9:23 pm 75. Moho:

I find several things about this law incredibly stupid. Firstly, in many cases the only witness as to whether bodily injury was imminent would be the murdered counterpart. And what about knives? Is it only legal to kill people this way with a gun? Why couldn’t you stab a person. Even stab them repeatedly? After all, they might be getting up after just one stabbing. What a ridiculous culture that such questions are even asked. We’re the laughing stocks of the world.

Aug 27, 2009 - 9:29 pm 76. inspectorudy:

I have been reading Bob’s blog for a while and I have noticed a lot of angst directed at the people who have been photographed with legal weapons at some of the town hall meetings. Bob has stated that he feels that it is unwise to carry a gun to events such as this and that maybe we should wise up and leave them at home. This brings up that old image of laws that allow you to do something but socially it is frowned upon. The right to carry, with a permit, is just that and society should sooner rather than later realize that all citizens can be armed and that they should proceed on that basis. As mentioned above, in states where this is not a new law people leave women and smaller people alone. None of us should ever feel like we have to “Take one for the Gipper” before we can defend ourselves. I have had a CCP for over ten years and have never had to display it to anyone. I have been in situations where I was the only one of my race in real bad neighborhoods and the thought that if I had to confront someone I would at least be able to make it to my truck and scram. This episode is a lot like the Obama/Crowley/Gates mess. We need to wait for the facts and pray that there is not a racial componet to this. Cut Bob some slack. I think he is like a principal at a high school who just allowed a new code of dress and hopes the kids don’t abuse it. With the new wave of CCP states rising all we need is for a bunch of cowboys to mess it up for the rest.

Aug 27, 2009 - 9:34 pm 77. bibio44:

#60: “Here in Oklahoma we recently passed legistlation to allow workers to keep their weapons in their car parked on company property so they would have them in their commute.”

Sounds like a great idea since, as I understand it, road rage is unknown in Oklahoma.

#64: “The fact that Schmidt only had a .25 means his intent is not to kill when firing only one shot.”

Yeah, I mean how much damage can you do to someone by shooting them in the head with a .25? As an experiment, you might try it on your spouse, parent or child. Or you could turn it into a party game. It would make a great ice-breaker.

Aug 27, 2009 - 10:10 pm 78. Paul of Alexandria:

It sounds to me that in either version Lira threw the first punch. Not that this shouldn’t be reviewed by the police, you don’t want people to start abusing the law. On the other hand perhaps now people like Lira will be a little more inclined to show courtesy to their fellow workers. I certainly wouldn’t punch someone who was simply arguing with me.

Aug 27, 2009 - 10:51 pm 79. Dale of Mo:

What is the problem with this case? A much larger person got into a physical confrontation with a smaller person and got shot….sounds like justice to me. Why would anyone’s logic lead to the conclusion that one must first get into a physical confrontation, loose, attempt retreat, beg for help, be denied help, and only then use a deadly weapon to save themselves? I don’t believe in physical violence but this is for sure, if someone attacks me I will not attempt to use judo, kickboxing, wrestling, or any other low IQ method of protecting myself. I will simply use a firearm to end the attack, period. If you don’t want to get shot, do not attack. Sounds like one state finally got it right.

Aug 28, 2009 - 3:30 am 80. Alan Lothian:

Bilgeman:
“like they did that poor chap who shotgunned those two sh*tballs while they were committing their home-invasion upon him.

That poor bastid is so deep in a hole that the only way he’ll ever see the sun again is if some kindly soul tapes a postcard to a brick and tosses it down to him.”

In fact, Tony Martin, the poor bastid in question, was out in three years. Bizarre case. Jury acquitted him of attempted murder on the one he winged (but did convict him of felonious assault) yet convicted him of murder on the one he sorted out thoroughly.This from two, three shots fired in the dark. Still, perverse jury verdicts are not unknown in the US, no? FWIW huge amount of outrage at case, suggestions of jury nobbling, etc. General (not universal) opinion was that he should have been fined for possession of an unlicensed shotgun, end of story. Local lowlifes supposedly put a price on Martin’s head, too, but that has never been proven.

“Disgusting mess over there.”

It’s not as bad as it looks from across the pond, but it’s pretty bad. The surviving “shitball” (as good an epithet as any) in the Martin case attempted to sue for compensation since he was unable to continue in his customary occupation, ie burglary. Thrown out, but not before a few grand sterling was sent his way in “legal aid” from the public tit.

Anyway, I am fascinated by the general discussion, and propose to keep quiet and listen. If anyone wants to email me about UK stuff, they can do so by putting a dot between my Christian and surnames, an at sign and then the name of a certain search engine’s mailer. I hope I am not breaking any rules by writing that.

Aug 28, 2009 - 5:00 am 81. Bilgeman:

#72 vivo:
“Regardless of laws and regulations, why was this guy carrying a gun at work?”

What of it? Maybe in Montana they don’t have enough convenience stores, so the Wal-Mart fills in as the local “Stop and Rob”.

Would you deny the cashier working the night shift at an isolated gas station or convenience store a gun to defend him or herself?
(Assuming that that cashier wasn’t a felon or a nut.)
How about a postal worker?

I work on a ship, vivo, and have worked for Maersk Lines, sailing in the Indian Ocean off Somalia and other pirate infested waters.

Because of stupid laws written by unreasonable people, I end up with nothing more lethal than a charged fire hose or a fire axe against people who have AK-47s.

Thanks for that…that doesn’t work out too well.

If you spend 1/3 of your day at work, then very roughly you can reckon that if you’re going to be the victim of a violent crime, then it’s 33% likely to happen while you’re “on the clock”.

Aug 28, 2009 - 5:15 am 82. Anonymous:

moho:” We’re the laughing stocks of the world.”

which world is this,the one where citizens walk the streets safe from attack?if not,then why should we care?

you keep worrying about what other people think of you,i’ll stay prepared.

Aug 28, 2009 - 5:48 am 83. Will:

For you anti-gunners,the reason for carrying is for protection whenever and wherever it may be, work or otherwise .

Aug 28, 2009 - 6:43 am 84. byron Dickens:

samn! It’s getting to where you just can’t assault someone with impunity anymore. What is this country coming to?

Aug 28, 2009 - 10:05 am 85. Bilgeman:

moho:
“We’re the laughing stocks of the world.”

No, chum, wrong pronoun.

“We’re” not the laughing-stock, “You” are the laughing-stock.

And feel free to leave any time you wish. No one will stop you.

Aug 28, 2009 - 10:33 am 86. Marc Malone:

#41 Scott – Thanks for bringing out the real facts.

The CC tells me a lot. I suspect there was a reason the guy had the gun at work. Any problems with the big guy in the past? Wanna lay odds on that one, anyone?

Perhaps the bullet shattered and didn’t penetrate the skull precisely because it was fired from below. Angle provides greater density. I note also that it him the assailant in the forehead, which means he was facing the shooter after he had knocked him down. The fight, therefore, was not over.

I’m gonna make a prediction as to how the facts will be when it all sorts out. They’ve had this argument a few times, a long-running dispute. The little, much older guy, feeling intimidated gets a gun. Now, feeling safe, he takes no crap from the big guy, and purposely shoulders him on the way out. The big guy uses this as his excuse/motivation to take a swing at the uppity little guy. Sadly for him, he doesn’t know the little guy is packing, or he wouldn’t have done it. Little guy tries to blow his brains out, but the thick skull of the bigger guy saves him.

Was the little guy baiting him? Maybe it was a bit of a sting, but so what? A big guy shoulders you in walking by, and you’ll do nothing. If a little guy shoulders you, if you know he’s packing, will also elicit no response from you. It’s a power relationship. The little guy was packing in secret, and the bigger guy misjudging the power relationship took a swing. Sucks to be him.

Aug 28, 2009 - 1:56 pm 87. Dave:

An armed society is a polite society.

Aug 28, 2009 - 2:11 pm 88. federale86:

No, they could not hold him during the investigation. If arrested, a person goes before a judge or magistrate, where it is decided if he is held. Most are released on recognizance or bail. In this case with a dispute as to the facts, there person arrested would have been released. You cannot just hold someone during an investigation.

Too bad that inaccurate information is published on such a usually, except for Comrade Racist Ruben Navarrette, fine website.

Aug 28, 2009 - 2:31 pm 89. vivo:

81. Bilgeman:

Common sense, my friend. Guns are good for self-defense if you live in a dangerous place; otherwise, you don’t need them.

Aug 28, 2009 - 3:02 pm 90. Bilgeman:

#89 vivo:
“Common sense, my friend. Guns are good for self-defense if you live in a dangerous place; otherwise, you don’t need them.”

Well, here’s some common sense.

How do you tell you’re in a dangerous place until something dangerous happens?

It’s kinda late to try taking steps THEN.

I’m reminded of all the people during the LA riots in ‘92 who rushed out to buy a gun, and then ran smack-dab into LA County’s 15 business day “cooling off period”, that many of them had voted for.

Ooops!

Aug 28, 2009 - 5:20 pm 91. vivo:

90. Bilgeman:

“How do you tell you’re in a dangerous place until something dangerous happens?”

One of the rules for survival is knowing where you are and the dangers around. It takes common sense, information and instinct.

If you don’t have this, don’t go to Mexico City, San Salvador, Bogotá, Sao Paulo, Miami, NYC, Detroit, Mexican border, Los Angeles, and many local spots including your neighborhood. Oh, and Billings, Montana.

Aug 29, 2009 - 2:32 am 92. Blackwater:

The law sounds good to me. No person should ever be physically assualted if they were simply minding their own business. Try to imagine you’re out for a jog and a group of thugs thinks it might be a good idea to beat the crap out of you for no apparent reason and possibly even beat you to death. And sadly there’s a huge amount of these “a**holes of the world”. I see them almost every day messing with people. And a lot of them carry knives and guns (and banning guns and knives would only make the problem worse since now only the violent low lifes would carry them – so don’t even go there). They basically never grew out of the bully phase they went through in school and some people are flatout hardcore murders and criminals. And what would you suggest doing if a group of men makes rude comments at your girlfriend, sister, daughter, wife, grandmother, father, handicapped friend or brother, etc? What if your father tells them to go F themselves and get a life? And then in response they start to assualt you and your loved ones. What would you do? Sit there and take it? Well let me tell what happened in Israel recently when an unarmed father was ganged up on. An elderly Jewish man and his family were being harassed by a large group of arab-Israeli citizens who ended up beating the elderly Jewish man to death. They even chased him down when he tried to run away. They through his body in the ocean. Sorry, but barbaric a**holes like those arab thugs DESERVE WHAT THEY GET UNDER CASTLE LAWS. Don’t want to get shot? Then don’t start assualting innocent bystanders who are simply trying to enjoy a stroll with their friends and family. Sounds simple enough to me. Don’t tell me you actually feel sympathy for these douchebags? I would never start randomly assualting people. If I did then I derserve the consequences of my actions. It’s time these jacka**es get put back in their place. Society would be a lot better that way.

Aug 29, 2009 - 3:00 am 93. ray:

As mentioned, more facts are needed. Without other witnesses or substantiating evidence it becomes one of those he said/he said situations that are very difficult to judge. In the meantime, having a system where you are innocent until proven guilty is something very important to maintain. And having a system where you are allowed to defend yourself from physical violence is also very important.

Aug 29, 2009 - 6:48 am 94. Bilgeman:

#91 vivo:
“If you don’t have this, don’t go to Mexico City, San Salvador, Bogotá, Sao Paulo, Miami, NYC, Detroit, Mexican border, Los Angeles, and many local spots including your neighborhood. Oh, and Billings, Montana.”

Ahhh, but what you are doing by thinking like that is surrendering vast swathes of territory to the barbarian.

Step back and look at what you have said here.

A law-abiding citizen, going about his life in his own country, should constrain himself from his legitimate and free passage of certain areas because his government has infringed upon and thereby denied him his right to self-defense.
That isn’t freedom.

That’s as whack as our policy in Viet Nam, where we, and ONLY we, respected the border drawn on the 17th Paralllel, while the Communists of the North freely and repeatedly marched across it.
That’s how you lose, and essentially, that’s how we lost.

No, vivo, I categorically reject the “wrong part of town” mindset.

There is NO “wrong part of town” for a law abiding citizen.

The “wrong part of town” is for those who break the law and disturb the peace…and that “wrong part”, for them, is EVERYWHERE.

As Lincoln is supposed to have said when his generals told him that the Confederate invaders were “driven from our soil”:

” Why didn’t they pursue them? Don’t they get it? It’s ALL ‘our soil’”.

Free your mind and you @ss will follow.

Aug 29, 2009 - 7:11 am 95. ThankGFE:

I’ve lived in Billings, Montana, and am happy to report that, as a woman, I carry a 9mm, not necessarily for its deadly force, but simply for the practical ability to defend myself against the criminal element. I enjoy the lightweight construction of the 9mm and learned how to use one with some accuracy. As any reasonable person, I chose where I lived and where I recreated with personal security as the over-riding factor when I first moved to Billings.

Now for a bit of my experience living in what I believed to be a low-crime city: A woman was attached walking to her car by a male with a knife who slashed her several times, front and back; slashed on the front because she foolishly (I kid, where was her great equalizer?) tried to defend herself, slashed on the back because she foolishly attempted flight; she lives to tell the tale. The offender just stated in court the reason he did what he did was because he needed $100 dollars to pay a debt. HMMM, that sounds almost as bright as “Vivo’s” attempts at cogent analysis on any given topic. Moving on, that same garage is one I have parked in many times when I worked for a company in the downtown Billings business district. If that were only one crime perpetuated against innocents, it would be one too many. Crime does not seem to be reserved for cities with a huge populous.

I can assure you, I have never felt safer than when I have my 9mm snuggled securely against my side or in my purse ready to hand should I need a trusted friend in any perilous situation. There is something to be said for living life unafraid and enjoying it.

Aug 29, 2009 - 8:01 am 96. arby63:

If someone who outweighs me by 160 pounds hit me in the faced and knocked me to the floor then I would have shot him MORE THAN once. We will now have to wait for the facts. But here is one fact: No one can legislate self-defense. Until you have had your had smashed in by someone in what appears to be a “workplace argument” then you should shut up.

Aug 29, 2009 - 9:13 am 97. Daniel:

Mr Owens rights a good article that lays out both sides well but seems to have a slant against Constitutional freedoms.

“Craig Schmidt walks the streets of Billings a free man — at least for now — after shooting a man in the face over a work-related argument that escalated to gunplay. Somehow, I don’t think that is the kind of outcome that the Montana legislature had in mind.”

It appears he is in favor of keeping Schmidt guilty until proven innocent.

It is important to note, Craig Schmidt did NOT shoot anyone over a “work-related argument”. He shot someone because he was knocked to the ground by a punch in the face delivered by an aggressive man that was 100 pounds heavier.

I am a 6′ 1″ 260 pound Marine. If someone my size knocked me to the ground with a punch I would feel threatened with bodily injury.

Aug 29, 2009 - 9:52 am 98. Bilgeman:

arby63:
“If someone who outweighs me by 160 pounds hit me in the faced and knocked me to the floor then I would have shot him MORE THAN once.”

I had a shipmate once who spent 7 years in the Maryland House of Corrections in Jessup, (aka: “The Cut”), for shooting more than once.

He was jumped by two guys. He shot one guy, who dropped, and then he shot the other guy in the back as that guy was running away.

Whatever your or my opinions on the matter are irrelevant, because the jury found him guilty.

Let me make this as plain for you as I possibly can.

You shoot ONLY to STOP the threat.

When the threat stops, you STOP shooting.

All the tough talk can very likely put you down by law in a place you don’t want to be in for a very long time.

For God’s sake, man. Talk like that makes you your own worst enemy…and mine.

Cool it, will ya?

Aug 29, 2009 - 9:58 am 99. Inrptrn:

This law should be passed in every state.

Violent crime would drop significantly.

For the people that would go too far in defending themselves we have investigations into the lawfulness of their actions. If they abuse the use of self defense they go to prison. It’s quite simple really.

Aug 29, 2009 - 8:58 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: