• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

Credible threats of suicide will be reported to the police along with identifying user information at our disposal, in addition to referring the user to suicide helpline resources such as 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-273-TALK.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 2/8/18)
See more
See less

KY: sale of horse gone wrong; farm owner shot and killed

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Jumpin_Horses View Post
    michigan too... we also have the no retreat law.. I think that means we dont have to give them the opportunity to run....
    Um no the no retreat law means YOU don't have to try to get away from the person attacking you before you tear their behind up. It has nothing to do with letting them run away or giving them an opportunity to run away.
    And the Castle Doctrine is nothing new, it comes from English Common Law and has been around for years. You have always always always had the right to defend yourself in your home, hotel room you may be staying in, as a guest in someone elses home, anywhere that could be considered a temporary or permanent residence.

    Some of you people need to spend less time posting and more time looking up laws and educating yourselves before you post about them.
    "Perhaps the final test of anybody's love of dogs is their willingness to permit them to make a camping ground of the bed" -Henry T. Merwin

    Comment


    • Originally posted by equinelaw View Post
      Well, I hope it gets cleared up because right now I do not know who I can shoot and who I cannot.
      I always thought it was "shoot em all and let god sort em out" but now a new rule has emerged.

      Now you must ask if they are police before shooting them. Might as well be a hooker!
      You don't have to ask jack. If you think you need to defend yourself, do it, but be able to justify it.


      We have a saying, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6"
      "Perhaps the final test of anybody's love of dogs is their willingness to permit them to make a camping ground of the bed" -Henry T. Merwin

      Comment


      • But here an off-duty leo was involved, and he'll walk, even if the rumors of shots to the back, unsubstantiated as of yet, are true. Let a civilian try that and it's prison for sure.
        Simply not true. IIRC you're an attorney? A criminal one? If so, you should know that prison or not is determined by the judge and the jury and not the circumstances...those are given by the attorneys with the help of professionals in various sciences.
        The shots in the back come into play *if* they were the fatal shots. If one of the frontal shots were determined to have been the COD then the extra shots to the back will not matter. Shooting a corpse is not jury-worthy. Also depends on the order of shots fired...who's to say the first shot didn't cause the person to drop their firearm and they were turning to retrieve it when a back shot hit?

        Huh, so warning shots, drop your weapon, all that stuff is no longer needed? You see someone with a gun and its an automatic death sentence even if they are not firing at you?

        And these guys are so sharply trained just just the sight of a gun pointed at them makes them fire uncontrollably> Hope they don't take their kinds hunting or stuff like that.
        In law enforcement, military and advanced protection training...warning shots are for those fleeing a scene or for those not armed with deadly projectile weapons such as firearms. (warning shot fired at someone approaching with a knife) Deadly force is justified if the person isn't even holding a gun but reaching for one. IN many to most cases, deadly force is justified if the person was reaching for something and it's later determined it wasn't a firearm. A PO is not supposed to wait to see what the person is reaching for...or to wait to see if they shoot first. And deadly force is also justified if they're aiming a gun at someone else, holding a visible firearm and seeming to be ready to aim it at people other than the PO, etc. A PO does not have to be shot at in order to return fire.

        Does anyone read anything on how many LEOs are lost annualy to gunfire? Have someone point a deadly weapon at you and let me know if you start going through a check list in your head on whether or not you can use deadly force. Tell the tons of widows and widowers who lost their LEO spouses to gunfire that the public has the right to determine when and why and how they defend themselves. And stop watching TV shows to determine what exactly deadly force is...try walking a few beats in a LEOs shoes in dangerous area and let me know how everyone will react when someone is holding a firearm.
        Just because she was a horse person and a female does not mean she was probably harmless. He astoundingly waited until she loaded the chamber before firing...most would have shot the second they saw a deadly weapon pointed at them.
        And even though I am not a LEO...had I been there with MY spouse and child and someone was holding a gun in their hands...they'd probably be shot also. Because I'm not only trying to save my own life but the life of my family. Anyone "off" enough to use a firearm pointed at people picking up a freaking horse (they weren't trying to steal it at gunpoint or threatening her safety in any way that I've read) is most likely going to shoot my child and spouse after shooting me and that's something nobody should have to think 3 times about before reacting to.
        Was it justified? If the reports are correct and she definitely pointed a firearm at someone and then "cocked the trigger" it's justified. A person has the right to protect themselves. How was the person supposed to leave? Back away slowly, turning your back on a loaded firearm held by an unstable person is insane. He had his wife and child with him. He was not trying to take the horse by gunpoint. He didn't pull his weapon first from what I've read. And besides on TV...no LEO in this country shoots guns out of hands or uses a warning shot with a cocked firearm pointed at him/her.
        You jump in the saddle,
        Hold onto the bridle!
        Jump in the line!
        ...Belefonte

        Comment


        • training

          ever done the FATS ? [firearms training simulator]

          a wall sized video display with real shoot/don't shoot situations.
          you have a gun with compressed air recoil and later video play back to show where the shots went. fractions of seconds to decide on the use of lethal force.

          good training has an equal number of shoot and don't shoot situations
          so as not to train in a bias to shoot.

          gratitious extra shots are not legal and count against you.
          civilians would probably slide on that, not so sworn officiers.

          I've done the training, I don't envy those who have to deal with it for real
          more hay, less grain

          Comment


          • I did that and MOUT.

            The first time I completed a MOUT exercise I sat down and said a little prayer that I NEVER had to do that for real.
            Brothers and sisters, I bid you beware
            Of giving your heart to a dog to tear.
            -Rudyard Kipling

            Comment


            • This is probably irrelevant...

              But.

              Have you ever had a gun trained on you?

              How do you know if someone is bluffing or not?

              I had a gun held to my head once. I was unarmed. I was told I would have my brains blown out and be chopped into little pieces. He was bluffing.

              now? If I were armed? And someone pointed a gun at me? My training (that I've paid for) says that I shoot. Empty my clip at someone who has raised a gun to me because in theory--you do not train a weapon on someone you do not intend to kill. Therefore...if a gun is trained on you, you shoot. Period.

              Not really relevant here I guess...other than, if I were in this guys shoes and somoene pointed a gun at me, I'd assume they intended to kill me. And at that point, it's game on.
              A good horseman doesn't have to tell anyone...the horse already knows.

              Might be a reason, never an excuse...

              Comment


              • Have you ever had a gun trained on you?
                Yes.
                I gave him my money.
                Janet

                chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle and Tiara. Someone else is now feeding and mucking for Chief and Brain (both foxhunting now).

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jaegermonster View Post
                  If someone is pointing a gun at you and you are armed and don't fire back, you need to get shot just for being stupid. As a police officer, we have to believe that playtime is over if someone is pointing a weapon at us. We don't always have a chance to issue commands and all that. The best thing for folks to do is not go around pointing guns at other peopple and they don't have these kinds of problems.
                  Off duty officers have the same rights to defend ourselves as the general public.
                  And no, no warning shots. That crap is only on TV. Bullets land somewhere, warning shots are dangerous.
                  What rights or authority officers have and when they have it depends on their particular state law and their department.
                  No I don't think anyone fires "uncontrollably", too much drama in that statement.

                  You probably should stick to equinelaw.
                  That's is how other posters explained it to me. They are conditioned to fire at the sight of a gun pointing at them and soot back without thought. You got a problem with that talk to them.


                  C&C was a prosecutor in a large dangerous city for 20 years. I am quite sure she does not get her ideas from "TV". I am also quite sure there are many civil suits for unjustified shootings by police. That ain't on TV either.

                  I don't care what is going through your mind. If you are on my property and acting in a manner that I feel puts me in danger I have the right to shoot you. If you are not identified as a police offer then I am hearing I should just draw my gun and blow you away with as little warning as possible or I will be the one dead.

                  Thanks for coming and sharing that with us! It since to know you want the world a safer place for all us non LEO's


                  Now as for "shooting to wound". I do not expect anyone but an excellent shot with quite a bit of training could do that. I expect most LEO's are there to protect the public and do have massive amounts of training. How many shots would have stopped this women exercising her valid legal right to carry and gun and defend her home? I don't know.

                  I would not expect anyone who pays for a course in shooting to be able to do more then hit the largest mass and run. I would not expect soldiers to have an interest in the outcome of their shots either.

                  But you cannot make it a rule that aiming a a gun at any person who is a LEO is subject to the death penalty with no consequences for the shooter. because we know damn well if she had shot first she'd be tried with vigor for murder. And she was within her legal rights.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jaegermonster View Post
                    You don't have to ask jack. If you think you need to defend yourself, do it, but be able to justify it.


                    We have a saying, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6"
                    Well then "we" must have not noticed that was already posted on that thread and was taken form a thread last week were we wisely told a person to not sneak in at midnight and load up her horse. TV has re-runs. You must be TV!

                    Your way worked out so much better. Only 1 dead instead of none!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MistyBlue View Post
                      Simply not true. IIRC you're an attorney? A criminal one? If so, you should know that prison or not is determined by the judge and the jury and not the circumstances...those are given by the attorneys with the help of professionals in various sciences.
                      The shots in the back come into play *if* they were the fatal shots. If one of the frontal shots were determined to have been the COD then the extra shots to the back will not matter. Shooting a corpse is not jury-worthy. Also depends on the order of shots fired...who's to say the first shot didn't cause the person to drop their firearm and they were turning to retrieve it when a back shot hit?



                      In law enforcement, military and advanced protection training...warning shots are for those fleeing a scene or for those not armed with deadly projectile weapons such as firearms. (warning shot fired at someone approaching with a knife) Deadly force is justified if the person isn't even holding a gun but reaching for one. IN many to most cases, deadly force is justified if the person was reaching for something and it's later determined it wasn't a firearm. A PO is not supposed to wait to see what the person is reaching for...or to wait to see if they shoot first. And deadly force is also justified if they're aiming a gun at someone else, holding a visible firearm and seeming to be ready to aim it at people other than the PO, etc. A PO does not have to be shot at in order to return fire.

                      Does anyone read anything on how many LEOs are lost annualy to gunfire? Have someone point a deadly weapon at you and let me know if you start going through a check list in your head on whether or not you can use deadly force. Tell the tons of widows and widowers who lost their LEO spouses to gunfire that the public has the right to determine when and why and how they defend themselves. And stop watching TV shows to determine what exactly deadly force is...try walking a few beats in a LEOs shoes in dangerous area and let me know how everyone will react when someone is holding a firearm.
                      Just because she was a horse person and a female does not mean she was probably harmless. He astoundingly waited until she loaded the chamber before firing...most would have shot the second they saw a deadly weapon pointed at them.
                      And even though I am not a LEO...had I been there with MY spouse and child and someone was holding a gun in their hands...they'd probably be shot also. Because I'm not only trying to save my own life but the life of my family. Anyone "off" enough to use a firearm pointed at people picking up a freaking horse (they weren't trying to steal it at gunpoint or threatening her safety in any way that I've read) is most likely going to shoot my child and spouse after shooting me and that's something nobody should have to think 3 times about before reacting to.
                      Was it justified? If the reports are correct and she definitely pointed a firearm at someone and then "cocked the trigger" it's justified. A person has the right to protect themselves. How was the person supposed to leave? Back away slowly, turning your back on a loaded firearm held by an unstable person is insane. He had his wife and child with him. He was not trying to take the horse by gunpoint. He didn't pull his weapon first from what I've read. And besides on TV...no LEO in this country shoots guns out of hands or uses a warning shot with a cocked firearm pointed at him/her.
                      Misty, why would you even ask if she was an attorney? When she talked about her many many years as a prosecutor you told her to shut up about it. As a federal clerk she did the research and she wrote the opinions. As a prosecutor she knows a damn bit more then most of the rest of us what really goes on. Just because she is nice, never for one second think she is stupid. She WAS the one who decided who would be tried and who wouldn't, for over 20 years. You can argue with her opinions and her advice, but she has one hell of a legal mind and the top class experience to know exactly what she talking about. When she says "they" think "we" and when she says "we"think "me". You know her name Go look at how many opinions have her name on them as lead prosecutor.


                      And once again, you miss the point. Wearing the uniform or identifying your self as a LEO is warning that you are not to be shot at or threatened. Its is illegal to even threaten a LEO if that fact has been made obvious.

                      But this was just some guy in her place at night and in her state she had the right to shoot him. Her mistake was to not just do it. We do not know what did happen, what might have happened or what could have happened, but every time it is reinforced that baking away slowly is not an option to even try, then its one step closer to just draw and shoot no matter what.

                      Had she followed the advice given here she could have legally blown him away in front of his family. One of them was going to die and as an unidentified LEO he had no more legal right to be the survivor then she did. Would everyone be happier if she followed this advice and shot him with no warning? It was the warning that got her killed. She had no obligation to treat him as a LEO. He was not identifiable as such.

                      How horrible if he had tried to back away and she lowered the gun could it have been. That gun was not going to be any more ready to shoot then it already was.


                      There simply has to be an option that does not require people to be dead. Having an on duty identifiable cop is one option. Taking on step backwards to see if that will help is another.

                      It sounds like he did try to comply with her demands, but again, as they say "make sure there is only one side of the story if you shoot someone"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by BuddyRoo View Post
                        This is probably irrelevant...

                        But.

                        Have you ever had a gun trained on you?

                        How do you know if someone is bluffing or not?

                        .

                        Not really relevant here I guess...other than, if I were in this guys shoes and somoene pointed a gun at me, I'd assume they intended to kill me. And at that point, it's game on.

                        Yes.
                        I'm not willing to take that chance. I have to assume they are not bluffing.
                        I shot him.
                        "Perhaps the final test of anybody's love of dogs is their willingness to permit them to make a camping ground of the bed" -Henry T. Merwin

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by equinelaw View Post
                          Well then "we" must have not noticed that was already posted on that thread and was taken form a thread last week were we wisely told a person to not sneak in at midnight and load up her horse. TV has re-runs. You must be TV!

                          Your way worked out so much better. Only 1 dead instead of none!

                          Actually I did see it on this thread after I posted it. Lost interest in the other thread apparently before it was posted there. But it's not a new saying. I actually heard it at work. I first heard it in the police academy. I've been a cop for 20 years.
                          "Perhaps the final test of anybody's love of dogs is their willingness to permit them to make a camping ground of the bed" -Henry T. Merwin

                          Comment


                          • Can you guys go join a little "I love me" BB or something so you can pimp for each other?

                            I thought the link the OP provided was interesting and very sad, but last time I checked this wasn't a BB to bitch about law enforcement, especially from people who can't tell which end of a gun to point away from them.

                            It's painfully obvious that what some of you really want to talk about is yourself and your political views. At least make it horse-related for crying out loud, it would be a tad bit more interesting.
                            Brothers and sisters, I bid you beware
                            Of giving your heart to a dog to tear.
                            -Rudyard Kipling

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by equinelaw View Post
                              Huh, so warning shots, drop your weapon, all that stuff is no longer needed? You see someone with a gun and its an automatic death sentence even if they are not firing at you?

                              At the PD I work for it sates right in the SOP's that a warning shot is not allowed. Remember, what comes up must come down.

                              As for the person who keeps stating that he should have taken an on duty deputy with him. Here you would need a Writ of Assistance from the court for a civil standy. Officers and Deputies can not decide ownership of property (which horses are)

                              Comment


                              • Well, I can tell you that if I had to hire a lawyer, it wouldn't be equinelaw.

                                Talk about drawing conclusions about a situation you know very little about. And then using it as a rant against law enforcement officers. Not a great way to promote your skills.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by equinelaw View Post
                                  That's is how other posters explained it to me. They are conditioned to fire at the sight of a gun pointing at them and soot back without thought. You got a problem with that talk to them.


                                  C&C was a prosecutor in a large dangerous city for 20 years. I am quite sure she does not get her ideas from "TV". I am also quite sure there are many civil suits for unjustified shootings by police. That ain't on TV either.
                                  According to your blog, you are a "newbie attorney" so you should not be relying on other posters on an internet bb to explain the law to you, IMHO.

                                  And I don't need you to explain to me how cops are "conditioned". We are not automatons. I probably know more about police training than you do, seeing I have been a cop for 20 years and am one of the ones doing the training. I am certified to teach firearms, taser, baton, chemical weapons, groundfighting, knife fighting, and although it's not relevant to this thread, i can also teach DUI, Radar, Vascar and Laser. I have served as a consultant on many of the training manuals and scenarios used by machines such as the FATS and other sim machines used by law enforcement agencies nationwide. So come tell me again about how cops are trained.


                                  LEO or not, this guys job had noting to do with what happened. He was faced with a person pointing a gun at him and stating she was "going to end it right now". Anybody who wouldn't shoot first if they had a chance deserves to get shot and eliminated from the gene pool. He just happens to be a cop so now everybody wants to hang him.
                                  "Perhaps the final test of anybody's love of dogs is their willingness to permit them to make a camping ground of the bed" -Henry T. Merwin

                                  Comment


                                  • No longer horse-related.

                                    Comment

                                    Working...
                                    X