Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Mass murderer Buford Furrow | Main | Constitutional right to self-defense »

Note for film-makers

Posted by David Hardy · 6 November 2006 02:47 PM

If filming a scene in a public place, involving a woman handcuffed in a car, bloody bodies all over, and an actor viciously pistol-whipping the remaining victim....

Inform your local police first. If a squadcar happens to drive past the filming scene, there may be misunderstandings.

1 Comment | Leave a comment

Jingolaw | November 7, 2006 8:50 AM | Reply

Most frightening sentence:

“deputies said the only reason they didn't shoot was because they saw a cameraman.”

Uh,...didn’t shoot...whom, exactly? Had the Cameraman not been there (or had the officers not noticed the cameraman amid the stress of coming upon this horrific scene) would the officers have shot the man doing the pistol-whipping? This seems terribly reckless, since to (effectively) pistol-whip, one’s victim must be in very close proximity; too close, I suspect to warrant shooting the whipper without endangering the whippee.

Perhaps they would have shot some of the victims strewn on the ground on the notion that they should do SOMETHING, and those folks already looked dead, so what could be the harm? Maybe they would have shot the victim of the pistol-whipping so as to squelch the motive of his attacker? Just maybe they would have shot the girl handcuffed to the car because “They’ll NEVER suspect that!”

Maybe by “shoot,” they meant “approach the scene intending to prevent a felony in progress.” Unfortunately, the two concepts are often conflated.


P.S. Obviously, I’m just teasing, here. I understand that the officers were confused and may have felt in danger (legitimately), and the person giving the statement to the press was exaggerating a bit.

-Jingolaw

Leave a comment