utbagpiper
Banned
Let me make this crystal clear, I am not talking about infringing on rights, I am talking strictly personal responsibility.
That's good. I've recently read that when it comes to choosing how to exercise rights: "In his opinion for HIM, he does not get the choice to decide for others, opinion or not."
It might be hard to imagine how a blind person safely uses a gun for self defense out in public. But it is hard for me to imagine how a blind person manages to navigate a busy city without getting lost or run down in traffic.
Likewise, it is hard for me to imagine how a deaf person properly handles a manual transmission in the absence of a tachometer. I shift largely by engine sound. But the deaf manage to drive manual transmissions without tachs quite well. I imagine they are more sensitive to the engine vibrations than I am. Or maybe they manage to memorize the proper speed to up and down shift in each gear. However they do it, they manage quite nicely and it certainly isn't my place to tell them they must drive only automatics.
(On a side note, while most of us adults figure loss of eyesight would be far more difficult to deal with than loss of hearing, I'm told that when it comes to learning in youth, lack of hearing is far more difficult to overcome than is being blind. We learn with language and our language is far more verbal/auditory than it is visual. Most of us learn letters and words through sound. To the deaf, without the connection to a sound, those letters and words are just so many scribbles on a page. Braille is a replication of printed English. ASL, in contrast, is its own language, with its own syntax. Hence, the deaf are much more a separate culture than are the blind. The blind speak English (in this country) while the deaf are much closer to speaking English as a second language.)
If a blind person unjustly kills a innocent person, would you give them a pass on the jury?
I would hold them to the same standard I would hold anyone else to: Reasonable Man Standard.
By that, I mean that if an LAC is being assaulted and takes a reasonable shot to defend himself against an actual crime that permits deadly force, but that shot misses or over penetrates and kills an innocent person, the homicide is legally and morally on the head of the criminal who caused the shot to be justifiably fired against him: felony homicide.
If an LAC takes a shot when it is not reasonably justified (comb in hand rather than knife and totality of circumstances do not justify a reasonable man fear for life/limb), he is guilty of some crime such as negligent homicide or perhaps worse.
So what is reasonable? Well, if a person can't see beyond 5 feet he best not be taking a shot at targets farther than that away.
I recently went shooting with a church group. One member of the group couldn't hold the gun steady. He suffers from some form of tremors. Would I ban him from carrying a gun? No. But he best not attempt a defensive shot much beyond 5 feet because that is about the maximum range at which he can reliably hit a human sized target given his disability. For him, pepper spray may be a better self-defense option than a firearm. But he has to make that choice.
Ditto for the blind person. Or the person who is deaf. Or the person who was tired and hungry.
I don't drink. I know a lot of gun owners who do drink, but who won't imbibe a single drop while carrying. Utah law permits a person to drink while carrying so long as they are not over the legal limit for intoxication (0.08% BAC). I support both Utah law in this regard AND those who make a personal decision to err on the side of caution and not have a drop while carrying. If someone wants to have a drink with dinner while legally armed, I believe that is their right. While I recognize that some (cops, prosecutors, and potential jury members) might give that great weight if the person is ever involved in a questionable shooting, I'm personally not going to give it much weight so long as the person is below 0.08.
In each case of actual or potential disability I think individuals need to weigh their relative risks and options carefully. Not everything should be dictated by law. But if I'm called on to judge a shooting, I'm going to apply a standard reasonable man test. No penalty for being disabled, but not a pass either. If the conduct would have been within reasonable bounds for a typical person exercising reasonable care, then it passes the test. If the conduct fails that test, then it fails. That still leaves the question of motive. Negligence is difference than malice.
Charles