Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So two people with guns shooting at an unarmed men. If car had theft insurance were they shooting to avoid paying out a $500 deductable, did they at any time call police.
I had a car stolen years ago and it ended up at a chop shop with some shady Mafia looking characters. My buddy tipped me off where it was. I go to cops I know where car is and give him location. He goes you have insurance? I go yea, then he asks whats my deductable which I say five hundred bucks.
He says based on location and neighborhood you think me and my Partner with wives and kids are walking into a possible Mob owned business by ourselves rising a shootout where I might die cause you are out five hundred bucks. Forgetabout it. And dont go down there either. Got turned over to RICO unit of FBI who last I head send someone down there to take a look
Chasing stupid cars and risking everyones lives is stupid. Even the thief. What if I did go down there and through some miracle they go to shoot me drop the gun I grabbed it and start shooting and kill the car thief. it is a car mister!!! These brothers are idiots. They are lucky that car chase did not kill people or a stray bullet did not hit anyone.
I re-read article. So they chase truck and truck crashed. Ok Truck is done. Call Cops. Why did they leave their vehicle to shoot the driver.
Also was the other person in Surbruban shooting in self defense or did he shoot first.
Also why were they not just aiming for the tires etc.
Also was the driver they shot the one with the gun? It appears the other person had the gun. If the unarmed guy hit crashed and was at a standstill did they shoot him to prevent him from running away.
I know in many homeowner finds an unarmed thief downstairs in middle of night, the thief jumps out window without taking anything to escape and homeowner shoots him as he is attempting to get away.
Courts rule that illegal and prosecute homeowners. You had no fear of bodily injury as he was running away and only you had a gun and to top it off he is not even stealing anything.
Once the car crashed and the driver had no gun why shoot driver? I can see shooting at other guy in a still running vehicle with a gun IF he is shooting at you. But even then if he is trying to get away why shoot, the surbuban is not your car. So what if he drives off.
The fact the theif's accomplice was firing is not mentioned in people's post for some reason.
Because it's not a fact. That hasn't been reported anywhere that I've seen. Certainly not in the OP's article. The brothers' story is that the accomplice in the Suburban pointed a gun at them and at that point they began firing on the stolen truck. Isn't it a little convenient that the thief who happened to get away is the only thief with a gun and that he apparently never fired so no ballistic evidence could ever be found? And isn't a little ridiculous that the brothers felt their lives were threatened so they fired on the thief that didn't point a gun at them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
You're making the assumption that the brothers were focused on killing the thieves.
We know that thieves stole the truck. We know the brothers were chasing the truck while calling 911.
We are told that the thieves pointed a gun at the brothers, and at that point they made a decision to take action to defend themselves.
Here you go lying again. How would the thieves, plural, in two separate cars point a gun, singular, at the brothers? I think the fact that the thief who didn't have a gun is dead and the thief who apparently did have a gun and allegedly brandished it at the brothers is free shows that they were focused on killing someone, not simply recovering the truck.
Last edited by MordinSolus; 02-12-2015 at 11:24 AM..
Here you go lying again. How would the thieves, plural, in two separate cars point a gun, singular, at the brothers? I think the fact that the thief who didn't have a gun is dead and the thief who apparently did have a gun and allegedly brandished it at the brothers is free shows that they were focused on killing someone, not simply recovering the truck.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
Again, we don't have all the facts and it's just wild speculation going on here.
Yes, the known facts are very limited.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaypee
I expect to see gun battles between deadbeat car owners and repo guys in Texas as they both assume to be "right".
We were also told that when conceal carry was passed we'd have gun battles in the streets, but that didn't happen.
After Joe Horn put an end to two thug burglars, we heard that if he got off, there would be gun battles in the streets, but that didn't happen.
Everyone who's chimed in on this thread, I'd like you to answer a simple question with a simple "yes" or "no":
Do you think it is reasonable to kill someone for stealing a car (this is their only crime, they haven't assaulted you or threatened your person)?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
