|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
GWC&Gun assaults & ends up shot in Huntsville, AL
Guy with camera at a shoot that may have been inappropriate for the location gets pissed at having this pointed out, grabs a gun, threatens others and ends up getting shot. http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index … _hunt.html None of the news articles I've read identify the photographer. I have an information request in with the Huntsville PD. Anyone around Huntsville have any more info? *** update *** The goal of this post was to inform and protect the MM community, not to start a debate on guns. The news reports do not identify the photographer. It was my hope that someone from the Huntsville are might be able to provide more details. If the photographer is a MM, then models should be warned of his potential temper and the mods notified for reviewing the status of his profile. I have requested more information from the Huntsville PD information officer and will get the ID of the photographer as soon as possible. Don't forget we have a couple of traumatized models out there who could use some prayers and positive support... but again, we don't know who they are or if they are even part of MM. Please keep this on topic without a spiral into arguing about gun control. Jun 13 14 11:30 am Link One of the things that I kept pointing out to the gung-ho gun crowd was a fallacy in their thinking. Jun 13 14 11:56 am Link photoimager wrote: Responsible individuals (and the overwhelming majority are responsible) in the "gung-ho gun crowd" have long been in favor of measures which will keep guns out of the hands of unstable and irresponsible persons. The NRA has fought for years to try and prevent gun crimes and promote gun safety. The biggest danger is violence committed by unstable persons with mental illness and getting their potentially dangerous condition reported into the "system" so that the mandatory background check (already in place) will prevent their legally purchasing firearms. Jun 13 14 12:24 pm Link I could be wrong but I would think gun debates would be frowned upon in the forums. Jun 13 14 12:46 pm Link The Grand Artist wrote: Isn't open debate one of the things that forums are all about? Jun 13 14 01:06 pm Link The Grand Artist wrote: Light and Lens Studio wrote: Yeah, but see, this here is the PHOTOGRAPHY forum, not the "gun" forum. Or, perhaps more appropriately for this board, the "off-topic" forum. Jun 13 14 01:11 pm Link I'm surprised there's no mention of Model Mayhem anywhere this time GWC sounded totally insane.. Jun 13 14 01:19 pm Link Karl JW Johnston wrote: And the father started shooting after the other man hid behind his SUV. Shot out his windows, then shot below the truck to hit him. Not the acts of a responsible gun owner. Jun 13 14 01:27 pm Link -JAY- wrote: Yep, kinda makes you wonder where those rounds finally landed after they went through the windows..... All was needed was another self appointed deputy to join the shooting. Scary thought! Jun 13 14 01:36 pm Link Light and Lens Studio wrote: ^^Fantasy Land^^ Jun 13 14 01:39 pm Link It was me!! Big misunderstanding!! m'bad! Jun 13 14 01:44 pm Link photoimager wrote: Folks, let's not ruin this thread with getting on our soapboxes. Please discuss the story as-is. Thanks. Jun 13 14 01:45 pm Link Light and Lens Studio wrote: Not this one... check the rules Jun 13 14 01:48 pm Link Ok...I read the story. BOTH of them are asshats. I have no problem with Weil getting his gun out. I have a LOT of problems with him discharging his weapon. What I think should have been done was take cover and WAIT for law enforcement. Shooting out tires? come on man!! You have his fucking SUV license plate. If he gets away, let the cops find him. Jun 13 14 01:54 pm Link I think Weil kept people from getting hurt, but he went too far if the man was trying to leave. And I legally carry everyplace not prohibited by law. Jun 13 14 01:59 pm Link Light and Lens Studio wrote: That's not the case at all. Jun 13 14 02:22 pm Link Stephen Fletcher wrote: Nobody would have been hurt if Weil had just let things go and not tried to "protect the children from the lewd activities" Jun 13 14 02:22 pm Link I think its ridiculous that any random redneck can buy a gun, and even more pathetic that there are people who defend this "right". Jun 13 14 02:37 pm Link -JAY- wrote: That is it in a nut shell! Nothing else needs to be said. Jun 13 14 02:40 pm Link -JAY- wrote: I think the declaration of "I'm going to kill everyone" and pointing a gun at a crowd, then going to hide behind his SUV, (where he can't be seen) could've been indicative that the GWC was getting in a position to hide and then blast everyone from a defensive position...so I'm glad it turned out the way it did, where nobody innocent got hurt. IMO it sounds like you're defending the wrong guy. Jun 13 14 02:42 pm Link Daniel Leon wrote: We have the right to keep and bear arms. You are a Canadian you know nothing aboot it. Jun 13 14 02:46 pm Link Hey guys! There are appropriate issues here. As others have said, let's keep the discussion on what went down, not on whether or not we support gun laws. Otherwise, everyone will lose the chance to discuss when the thread gets locked. Jun 13 14 02:55 pm Link Karl JW Johnston wrote: The little part about "I am gonna kill everyone" did not seem to be confirmed by witnesses. It was Weil himself that decided what was a appropriate or inappropriate photo shoot and he decided to try to end it. Jun 13 14 03:01 pm Link Karl JW Johnston wrote: A) the father, the one who shot this man, is the only one saying that "I'm going to shoot everyone" was ever said. Jun 13 14 03:03 pm Link -JAY- wrote: They're probably both in the wrong but I'm more inclined to accept that no kids and innocent people getting mowed down by a guy who takes a full automatic to a park is a situation that turned out good enough. Jun 13 14 03:09 pm Link Karl JW Johnston wrote: Since he didn't fire his gun what makes you think it was a full auto? A Tec 9 is a semi automatic although early models were easy to illegally convert to full auto. Jun 13 14 03:11 pm Link Rays Fine Art wrote: In other words it's only okay when a mod starts a controversial topic to argue over.. typical MM Jun 13 14 03:12 pm Link Karl JW Johnston wrote: I'm just taking the position that there's nothing confirmed. Jun 13 14 03:14 pm Link Karl JW Johnston wrote: Why believe what the father said? The article was written by a man who only spoke with the father. Jun 13 14 03:16 pm Link -JAY- wrote: the "good guy" also has history. Jun 13 14 03:20 pm Link Daniel Leon wrote: You're turning this into Soapbox...please don't Jun 13 14 03:21 pm Link Here's one of the biggest issues I have with the situation. It's all from one side, and everything we hear comes after the two engaged in an escalated fistfight unsubstantiated reports state the father is the one who initiated / escalated Until I hear otherwise, I'm going to believe that the one who did not shoot the other person simply got his gun as a display of self defense. From the article from the father's point of view: At this point, both men were near their vehicles. Weil grabbed his .40-caliber Glock handgun from a secret trunk compartment. Again, he ordered the man to drop his weapon and get on the ground. He also yelled for someone to call Huntsville police. If I get in a fight with someone, and get my gun for self defense, I won't drop it, you hit me just a second ago, why should I drop it? "At no point did he ever drop the weapon or put his hands up to surrender," said Weil. "He made it much harder than it had to be." Again, you were fighting a minute ago. I wouldn't drop my gun if someone I had just been fighting with was pointing his at me. Weil said the man ducked behind his SUV, a maroon Ford Excursion with tinted windows. Unable to see what was happening, Weil said he shot out the windows and then approached the man's vehicle. So you shot randomly at a man who was hiding from you, with no outward signs of aggression. got it. "He's still not presenting his hands or weapon," said Weil, "so I shot down and low." He has no reason to present his hands or weapons to a hostile aggressor. You are no the police. Weil said he shot out the tires to prevent the man from escaping. He was no longer a threat (if he had ever been one in the first place) "I didn't want to kill this guy, but he was not listening," said Weil. "Finally, he surrenders and shows me his hands." He never had to listen to you in the first place. Jun 13 14 03:40 pm Link There is a lot missing in this Story. 1. We do not know if the guy that got shot was a GWC, in the derogatory sense. We only know he exercised poor judgement in brandishing a weapon. 2. We do not even know if the models were scantily clad or not. All we have id the shooters opinion. I have had the cops called on me for shooting a "scantily" clad model when the scantiest thing we shot was a tea length formal with a full compliment of undergarments. 3. I really feel bad for the models. Jun 13 14 03:43 pm Link My first though was "OHHHH.. It's Alabama." It's hard to believe it's 9 hours away from Lizard Lick, N.C. Jun 13 14 03:53 pm Link Photographer learned a lesson: don't pull a gun if you aren't prepared to use it. He can think on this in the hospital. Two knuckleheads endangering the lives of the public... over a "scantily clad" photo-shoot. Jun 13 14 04:04 pm Link I'm not going to make a statement one way or the other on the gun control debate, but I should point out that the issue is a LOT more complicated than people on either side of the table say it is. The original intention of the Second Amendment was not just to allow everyone to have guns - it was to require that all white males belonged to the local militia(today's National Guard), and that they would all own guns. This was the original intent, and was enforced for about a decade before it was given up. Which means that if you own a gun, and are not or have not been a National Guard member, then you are already benefiting from the Second Amendment in a way that wasn't the original intention. Either you got a free gun, or you dodged mandatory service. At that point, there are no 'guaranteed rights' to claim - we're arguing about what rights should be now. I'm not arguing with anyone, and I'm not agreeing with anyone. All I'm saying is that this conversation is far from cut-and-dry, as there is a lot more information out there than what either side chooses to present. So if we're going to talk about that then let's do it elsewhere, where it's not supposed to be about photography. Karl, I have to side with Jay here. The only eyewitness we have right now is the guy that shot the photographer, Weil. What that man says is just a degree above irrelevant, because it's against his best interests to make the photographer look like a good guy. I'm not saying that Weil is a liar - everything he said could be 100% true. I'm just saying that he may have left out the part where the photographer plead with him, or any words from his mouth other than, "I will kill everyone," or that the gun that was "possibly" a T9 was made out of plastic. For all we know, the photographer said, "It's just a prop!" and ran to hide in his car when Weil went after him and shot out the tires. Or maybe none of that happened. But it could have, and Weil doesn't have to tell anybody. He can't lie if asked directly, but there's no legal obligation to incriminate yourself. Or hell, maybe he is lying. Maybe 'everyone was scared' means that there were fifteen people there, and two or three freaked out. Maybe the girls jumped out of the car not because the photographer was threatening everyone with a gun, but because nobody wants to be in a car that is being shot at. Weil's words are also oddly specific and he tells a story that makes him sound like he knows exactly what he's talking about. Since the article said he never made it into the service, then that leaves two possibilities in my mind: either he's a competitive shooter or keen enthusiast, or he just wanted to be a hero and is filling in the story with words and lingo he saw on TV. As far as bringing the gun(real or prop) to a shoot in a public area ... that's just stupid. Even in States with open-carry laws, there are no 'wave the gun around like an idiot' laws. The photographer is at least guilty of a misdemeanor. Weil, we won't know until other people step up. Jun 13 14 05:30 pm Link Weil, sounds like a loose canon. I'd like to know exactly what the girls were wearing or not wearing for the shoot. If it was inappropriate Weil should have just called the cops and let them handle it. I see no conformation that the photographer had a gun. Jun 13 14 05:34 pm Link Sorry if I'm repeating, but as the story was told, the GWC was backing up and backing up and backing up and backing up and then hid behind his truck. The father pursued and then began shooting through the windows when there was NO threat. As per the story, at least his son, and probably everyone else safely retreated and were NOT in harms way. Why the father was not charged is, well, I'm speechless. He chased and gunned down a retreating person, that by the facts of the story, at least those in the article linked, was probably using the gun to puff his chest. When it was met with equal force he backed off. The father should have stood his ground or retreated until police arrived. Jun 13 14 05:59 pm Link Michael DBA Expressions wrote: The Grand Artist wrote: Yeah, but see, this here is the PHOTOGRAPHY forum, not the "gun" forum. Or, perhaps more appropriately for this board, the "off-topic" forum. Hey, Dude, it isn't my post. I do agree that "Off Topic" would be more appropriate. Photography talk is stretching the point pretty thin. Jun 13 14 06:10 pm Link The story just doesn't add up. Jun 13 14 06:14 pm Link |
