• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Gym Shooting in Knoxville.

Fallguy

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
715
Location
McKenzie Tennessee, USA
imported post

From Knoxnews.com




Gym shooter won't be charged; police say victim started fight
By Don Jacobs
Originally published 10:15 a.m., November 29, 2007
Updated 10:15 a.m., November 29, 2007


Authorities this morning said a man who fired a pistol into his assailant's stomach at an Northeast Knoxville fitness center does not face a criminal charge, but the wounded man might.

Knoxville Police Department spokesman Darrell DeBusk said no charges are expected against Kristopher Kitts, 29, who shot Erik Knight, also 29, once in the stomach with a .22-calber pistol.

Knight was taken to the University of Tennessee Medical Center with the non-life threatening wound, DeBusk said. Knight was listed this morning in critical condition.

DeBusk said Knight attacked Kitts about 6:30 p.m. Wednesday in the Rush Fitness Complex, 3001 Knoxville Center. Knight knocked Kitts down and was choking Kitts, DeBusk said, when Kitts reached into his pocket and pulled out a pistol.

DeBusk said Kitts has a carry permit for the weapon.

While DeBusk said prosecutors in the Knox County district attorney's office deemed no charges would be filed against Kitts, the spokesman said Knight may face a criminal offense because of the incident.

DeBusk declined to discuss what prompted the attack at the gym.

More details as they develop online and in Friday's News Sentinel.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

Fallguy wrote:
DeBusk said Knight attacked Kitts about 6:30 p.m. Wednesday in the Rush Fitness Complex, 3001 Knoxville Center. Knight knocked Kitts down and was choking Kitts, DeBusk said, when Kitts reached into his pocket and pulled out a pistol.

DeBusk said Kitts has a carry permit for the weapon.

While DeBusk said prosecutors in the Knox County district attorney's office deemed no charges would be filed against Kitts, the spokesman said Knight may face a criminal offense because of the incident.

DeBusk declined to discuss what prompted the attack at the gym.

Sounds like a clear case of self-defense. Knight is lucky that Kitts wasn't carrying a more normal/recommendedcarry gun, I think.

I wonder why DeBusk would not inform on the reason for theattack.
 

expvideo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
1,487
Location
Lynnwood, WA, ,
imported post

The perp was choking the CCer, he pulled his gun and shot the perp in the stomach. Why does the media label the perp a "victim" in the title of the article?
 

expvideo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
1,487
Location
Lynnwood, WA, ,
imported post

HankT wrote:
Fallguy wrote:
DeBusk said Knight attacked Kitts about 6:30 p.m. Wednesday in the Rush Fitness Complex, 3001 Knoxville Center. Knight knocked Kitts down and was choking Kitts, DeBusk said, when Kitts reached into his pocket and pulled out a pistol.

DeBusk said Kitts has a carry permit for the weapon.

While DeBusk said prosecutors in the Knox County district attorney's office deemed no charges would be filed against Kitts, the spokesman said Knight may face a criminal offense because of the incident.

DeBusk declined to discuss what prompted the attack at the gym.

Sounds like a clear case of self-defense. Knight is lucky that Kitts wasn't carrying a more normal/recommendedcarry gun, I think.

I wonder why DeBusk would not inform on the reason for theattack.

Probably because it's none of the media's business. Besides, there is no good reason to be choking some guy at the gym, no matter what started it. Even if the incident spawned from the real victim saying something about the size of the perp's genitals, and perverted things about his sister, he still wasn't justified in reacting by choking him.
 

MetalChris

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
1,215
Location
SW Ohio
imported post

expvideo wrote:
The perp was choking the CCer, he pulled his gun and shot the perp in the stomach. Why does the media label the perp a "victim" in the title of the article?
Another reason why I just LOVE the media! :)
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,586
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

HankT wrote:
Sounds like a clear case of self-defense. Knight is lucky that Kitts wasn't carrying a more normal/recommendedcarry gun, I think.

I wonder why DeBusk would not inform on the reason for theattack.
So, would you say shooting his unarmed attacker was a good strategy in this situation? (I know you won't admit it, but I had to ask...)
:cool:
 

Fallguy

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
715
Location
McKenzie Tennessee, USA
imported post

YES!!

As long as he felt his life was in danger and if someone was choking me and I couldn't get them off me....I'd shoot them!!
 

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

For the first time in a while in this forum, sounds like a clear-cut and justifiable (not just "legal") self-defense case.

Makes me think, though, about carrying while at the gym. Normally I don't have anything on me because I can't have objects digging into me while lifting.

Maybe the reason the shooter only had a .22 on him was because it was the only gun comfortable enough to wear while exercising? I'm sorry, I love my .44 and all, but I'm not gonna wear it while bench pressing...
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
HankT wrote:
Sounds like a clear case of self-defense. Knight is lucky that Kitts wasn't carrying a more normal/recommendedcarry gun, I think.

I wonder why DeBusk would not inform on the reason for theattack.
So, would you say shooting his unarmed attacker was a good strategy in this situation? (I know you won't admit it, but I had to ask...)
:cool:


HankT's renowned Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense:

It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.[suP]©[/suP]

remains unscathed. Based on the information reported so far, though, it was a good thing for the chokee to have shot the choker if he was in reasonable fear of his life or servious injury. Shooting him wasa good tactic. I'm with Falllguy's point: if a guy is choking me and I can't get him off and I am in reasonable feer of death or severe injury I would shoot the chap if I could.

And not with a measly .22.

I'm pretty sure I would be able to get the guy off me. I would try very hard because I would hate to shoot an unarmed man. It's a bad strategy to do so.
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,586
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

HankT wrote:
CA_Libertarian wrote:
So, would you say shooting his unarmed attacker was a good strategy in this situation? (I know you won't admit it, but I had to ask...)
:cool:


HankT's renowned Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense:

It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.[sup]©[/sup]

remains unscathed. Based on the information reported so far, though, it was a good thing for the chokee to have shot the choker if he was in reasonable fear of his life or servious injury. Shooting him wasa good tactic. I'm with Falllguy's point: if a guy is choking me and I can't get him off and I am in reasonable feer of death or severe injury I would shoot the chap if I could.

And not with a measly .22.

I'm pretty sure I would be able to get the guy off me. I would try very hard because I would hate to shoot an unarmed man. It's a bad strategy to do so.
So, how can something be a good tactic, and yet a bad strategy at the same time?

The point I'm making is that unarmed people can pose threat to life and limb. There are exceptions to your rule, and this is one of them.

Like I said, I don't expect you to be capable to admit it. Thanks for being a good sport and proving me right.
 

Marco

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
3,905
Location
Greene County
imported post

Therenowned Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense:
Plays both sides of the fence.;)

If the shooter is acquitted of wrong doing it is good tactics or an accident,however if he is found to be guilty or if the accident was avoidable he is a goof with a gun.


it isn't a good idea to shoot unarmed people but sometimes it is necessary:exclaim:
most people will regret shooting anyone armed or not (media andlegal system):p

they will hang you out there to be whipped
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,831
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

Going to have to agree with Hank here.

It's kind of like: Killing civilian non-combatants in war is bad strategy.

However, if you have 10 high value enemy combatants battened down in a house with 2 civilians blowing the heck out of you with heavy small arms fire, it may be a tactical necessity to call in an air strike and destroy the house, thereby killing everyone, including the 2 civilians.

Strategically we continue the policy of Killing civilian non-combatants in war is bad strategy, and recognize the tactical reality that sometimes it is necessary to violate that strategic tenet.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

deepdiver wrote:
It's kind of like: Killing civilian non-combatants in war is bad strategy.

However, if you have 10 high value enemy combatants battened down in a house with 2 civilians blowing the heck out of you with heavy small arms fire, it may be a tactical necessity to call in an air strike and destroy the house, thereby killing everyone, including the 2 civilians.

Strategically we continue the policy of Killing civilian non-combatants in war is bad strategy, and recognize the tactical reality that sometimes it is necessary to violate that strategic tenet.
It's very much like that.

Thank you, sir, for your apt analogy.
clapsmiley.gif
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

Agent19 wrote:
Therenowned Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense:
...


it isn't a good idea to shoot unarmed people but sometimes it is necessary:exclaim:
most people will regret shooting anyone armed or not (media andlegal system)...

Yah, that's pretty good too, A19.

As shown above, deepdiver understands it too.

Not too hard to do....with an open mind.


Understanding the different levels of strategy and tactics is a must. Once having that, it's pretty straightforward.

Remember, it's been over two years sinceHPCSD[suP]©[/suP] was finalized and brought into this world, exclusively at OCDO. It has never, not by anyone, sane or nutty, been successfully challenged.

Thanks A19. Thanks deepdiver. We owe you guys a debt. Hopefully, we canpreventsome unfortunate outcomes/tragedies to armed law abiding ciitizens...
 

protector84

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2007
Messages
625
Location
Arizona, U.S.
imported post

I have routinely seen you quote your postulate but I have never seen it in entirety. Do you have a link to the entire postulate? Thanks.
 

protector84

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2007
Messages
625
Location
Arizona, U.S.
imported post

Ok, I thought your postulate actually consisted of some detailed information at least the length of an essay. Unfortunately, it appears your postulate is nothing more than the mere statement "It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person" where you have quoted various news articles to support your postulate. That is similar to me going around advertising some famous postulate as "It is a bad strategy to stand close to a cliff while intoxicated." Next, please.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

protector84 wrote:
Ok, I thought your postulate actually consisted of some detailed information at least the length of an essay. Unfortunately, it appears your postulate is nothing more than the mere statement "It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person" where you have quoted various news articles to support your postulate. That is similar to me going around advertising some famous postulate as "It is a bad strategy to stand close to a cliff while intoxicated." Next, please.

Here's another one: It is a bad strategy to be a lazy reader.
 
Top