Doctor pulled a gun on protesters.

[Guest trigem]

Just because I have a gun permit doesn't mean I can point my gun at my neighbors as I move back and forth from my car to my house. The fact that some of you argue on the side of the permit holder, only shows ignorance on gun laws and general lack of respect for the public.

+1

[Guest clownsdd]

Again, the issue has nothing to do with abortion or religion.

All this being said, this particular instance might be an advantage to the open carry laws in TN as much as some of us don't care for oc.

Conjecture: what if the guy had just walked thru the crowd with his gun on his hip? Completely legal, but someone in "the crowd" might have complained.While not brandishing or threatening, the point would have gotten across.

I know, but just food for thought?

Edited October 5, 2010 by clownsdd

[Fivestring63]

I guess what really worries me about this is, say he uses the defense of "Fear for his life".

Even though he probably will lose, How can he lose? Can the judge read his mind on how he felt

that day? If he does lose, then that would make it hard for somebody else to use that defense again.

Another thing that worries me is he had to post a bail. If he was justified why was he even charged

without a trial first?

I guess what I'm saying is, if anytime you have to use your weapon, Are you going to be automatically

charged and pay big money even if you are in the right?

[DaveTN]

I guess what really worries me about this is, say he uses the defense of "Fear for his life".

Even though he probably will lose, How can he lose? Can the judge read his mind on how he felt that day?

You just hit on something many people don’t understand…. No one cares how he felt or how you feel in a shooting. The question is would a "reasonable person" feel they were in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm. Here is the order of “reasonable people”… the cops on the scene, the cops investigating the case, the DA, possibly a Grand Jury and possibly ultimately a Jury or Judge.

Another thing that worries me is he had to post a bail. If he was justified why was he even charged without a trial first?

Because the cops and the DA don’t believe his story and they want to send him to prison.

I guess what I'm saying is, if anytime you have to use your weapon, Are you going to be automatically charged and pay big money even if you are in the right?

No, but that depends on you. You have to think long and hard and decided what you want to do. If you refuse to make a statement there is only one side to the story and it is not yours, and yes it is going to cost you. On the other hand if you say something stupid it can be used against you. And even if you aren’t charged criminally, that doesn’t mean you won’t be sued civilly. Don’t you ever wonder why the laws on killing someone aren’t cut and dried? Because most everyone wants you to know that if you pull the trigger your freedom may be taken away and your family may be financially devastated.

[Fallguy]

Good answers Dave!!

[dats82]

It seems like a bunch of folks are getting their feathers ruffled over this. I am not saying who is right or wrong, but according to the second story, he did not point the gun at anyone. It says he "brandished" the gun, and one of the protesters called the cops. Riddle me this, if there is an anti who has an issue with something you do to make a living, and they see you pull a gun from the glovebox of your vehicle and put it one your hip. Do you think they might twist that into something threating and that they might say that you brandished the weapon? Bottom line is this sounds like it could be an interesting story either way, but to flame the Dr. or protestors either one is jumping to conclusions about something that, frankly, we know almost nothing about.

[DaveTN]

It seems like a bunch of folks are getting their feathers ruffled over this. I am not saying who is right or wrong, but according to the second story, he did not point the gun at anyone. It says he "brandished" the gun, and one of the protesters called the cops. Riddle me this, if there is an anti who has an issue with something you do to make a living, and they see you pull a gun from the glovebox of your vehicle and put it one your hip. Do you think they might twist that into something threating and that they might say that you brandished the weapon?

There is no such thing as brandishing a gun in Tennessee. As a former cop (not in Tennessee) let me assure that if you hold a gun up to show it to someone you are trying to intimidate; that is aggravated assault. It would make no difference to me if you pointed it or not. Like any other crime it will be cleared through interviews of suspects and witnesses.

So.. What assurance do you have that a hater would make an untruthful complaint against you? None.

It’s one of the many, many reasons I don’t open carry. Have innocent people been convicted? You bet, but that’s true of any crime.

It seems like a bunch of folks are getting their feathers ruffled over this. I am not saying who is right or wrong, but according to the second story, he did not point the gun at anyone.

Bottom line is this sounds like it could be an interesting story either way, but to flame the Dr. or protestors either one is jumping to conclusions about something that, frankly, we know almost nothing about.

It's what we do here.

We Judge people on little or no facts. Sometimes we simply make up facts as we go along.

We are not a court. If you are here you are being tried in the court of public opinion. As long as the discussion/debates stay civil it is simply entertainment. Sometimes the laws are discussed and you may learn something. Sometimes you will see posts by people that are clueless, you just need the intelligence to be able to tell the difference and move on.

[GKar]

Remember, this incident occurred in South Carolina, not TN...not sure what the possible diffferences in the laws there may bring to bear. Dr. Boyle still practices medicine in Bristol, and apparently in the Charleston, SC area as well...could that have played into the decision to require bond (ie, pretty obvious he would be leaving the SC area periodically). Seems an article appearing in one of the local papers listed the ages of the protestors as 60, 50 and a juvenile, all male. Boyle pointed the gun at them from inside his vehicle, and has been charged with "pointing a firearm at any person", which is a felony in SC. The protestors indicate they were standing in public right-of-way, attempting to hand out literature. They indicated that, if Boyle felt threatened, he could have called the office security guard - who sometimes stands and talks with the protestors, according to their account.

If he is inside his vehicle as the accounts suggest, it seems a bit of a stretch to justify felling threatened to the point of justifying pointing a gun at someone who is unarmed and standing outside the vehicle. His 3000 lb car would have been a much more effective weapon anyway, no?

[East_TN_Patriot]

... if the Doctor has a lawyer he has probably told him to keep his mouth shut (Which I believe is a mistake if he was in the right)

I respectfully disagree with you on that point. As a former cop, I am a firm believer that people should exercise their right to remain silent. Nothing good comes from the accused giving a statement without the advice of their attorney. The police will ask the questions that give them the evidence they need and not the questions that could be exculpatory in nature. The media will cherry pick parts of the statement to paint the picture they want to portray. Then you are tried in the court of public opinion and there is no justice for the accused. If I was in this situation, I would say nothing more than the very basic account of events, ask for my attorney, and then keep my mouth shut.

Regardless, the fact remains that it was a 3 on 1 encounter and that alone is enough for me to lean towards the side of the doctor. Heck, if I was being approached by 3 people, I would be on edge (perhaps not enough to draw my weapon, but enough to be very much on guard). The facts will come out.

[partypilot1]

I agree that those you have listed were heinous but over the millenia I would be willing to bet that religion was used as a justification to kill more than 1 million. The crusades were a religious war and by all estimates it alone was responsible for over 1 million, although not as high as what you mention but this is but one conflict in time. Now when you consider people are being killed everyday, and have been for millenia, because of their religion I suspect it is far more than 115 million.

Dolomite

Just a quick statistic for you, off thread, but very valid.... In the comprehensive list of the history of human warfare, in the Encyclopedia of Wars by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod documents 1763 wars, of which 123 (7%) have been classified to involve a religious conflict. Of these 123, 66 wars involved Islam.

[DaveTN]

I respectfully disagree with you on that point. As a former cop, I am a firm believer that people should exercise their right to remain silent. Nothing good comes from the accused giving a statement without the advice of their attorney. The police will ask the questions that give them the evidence they need and not the questions that could be exculpatory in nature. The media will cherry pick parts of the statement to paint the picture they want to portray. Then you are tried in the court of public opinion and there is no justice for the accused. If I was in this situation, I would say nothing more than the very basic account of events, ask for my attorney, and then keep my mouth shut.

Being prepared for what happens after a shooting (Or an armed encounter) is as important as preparing for the shooting itself. Defending yourself in criminal and civil cases could destroy you financially; going to jail could cost you your life. Trying to find an attorney after working hours when you have just killed someone (if you are not prepared) is usually not going to have a good outcome.

I can’t see me waving a gun at three protesters walking up to my vehicle; therefore I won’t have these kinds of problems. If someone can see themselves doing that; they might want to have an attorney on speed dial.

Regardless, the fact remains that it was a 3 on 1 encounter and that alone is enough for me to lean towards the side of the doctor. Heck, if I was being approached by 3 people, I would be on edge (perhaps not enough to draw my weapon, but enough to be very much on guard). The facts will come out.

That isn’t a fact. They way I read the story there was no encounter.

If I’m at the gas pumps and three gang bangers start walking towards my vehicle can I start waving a gun around?

Will we see the “facts†on this case? Doubtful. If the DA decides there isn’t enough to go to trail; he will drop the charges. If he is charged chances are the Doctor will make a plea agreement.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Being prepared for what happens after a shooting (Or an armed encounter) is as important as preparing for the shooting itself. Defending yourself in criminal and civil cases could destroy you financially; going to jail could cost you your life. Trying to find an attorney after working hours when you have just killed someone (if you are not prepared) is usually not going to have a good outcome.

I can’t see me waving a gun at three protesters walking up to my vehicle; therefore I won’t have these kinds of problems. If someone can see themselves doing that; they might want to have an attorney on speed dial.

That isn’t a fact. They way I read the story there was no encounter.

If I’m at the gas pumps and three gang bangers start walking towards my vehicle can I start waving a gun around?

Will we see the “facts” on this case? Doubtful. If the DA decides there isn’t enough to go to trail; he will drop the charges. If he is charged chances are the Doctor will make a plea agreement.

That's the way I see it, also.