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.
You can try to assign these false proclamations to me all you want but you're wrong, ignorant of the law, and just generally stupid. I'm a gun owner. I go to the range regularly. I love shooting guns. I'm not scared of guns, I'm scared of irresponsible people with guns, like these 2 brothers.
Sell your guns. You don't need them, and they could end up in a Criminals hands, since I have serious doubts you would ever use the gun when needed. By the time you justified it, and checked all the Laws, the criminal would have your gun and money, and be gone.
Then they should've pulled over and stopped pursuing them, while staying on the phone with 911, "if their lives were in danger". They continued to put themselves in harm's way by continuing to pursue the thief "who pointed a gun at them". If anything would've happend to them, they would've brought it on themselves.
It was the thieves who put everyone in harms way by their actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
We will never agree on this. I feel that once a person threatens your life, you should be able to defend yourself with deadly force.
I've said many of times that I would have disengaged at that point, but I don't feel I have the right to say another person shouldn't defend their life and (not or, but and) property at that moment.
I understand your point of view, but this is something we will not agree upon.
Luckily, we aren't stuck in a jury room with each other going over it for days on end.
There's a Shell gas station (just one example) along the path they were more than likely traveling. All it takes is for one person to be pumping gas to be hit by a stray bullet.
And again with my security guard example. Why is it that security guards (and employees) are told to NOT pursue a shoplifter, even if they witnessed it, if they get outside of the store? Why would this situation, involving two civilians, be any different?
What if the Robbers had shot and killed one of the victims in the robbery? What if they ran over a neighbors child running away? What if, What if...
A Security Guards instruction is part of his condition of employment. A Security Guard is not the one losing his property. A Store is more worried about "Liability" than Justice or the Law. Lousy example.
Well, the grand jury is going to have an interesting time with the underlined. Clearly, this law was the catalyst for what transpired in this case, for better or worse. I still think that in this case, deadly force wasn't necessary, because they were tracking the thief and reporting his route and location to 911. Slam dunk for the police. Criterion #3 is not met in this case.
Indeed.
If anything, now that the law is known here, the apologists for the criminals posting here are sure fired up with the false outrage. The hyperbole, hypotheticals, fallacies and just plain insults, are out in full force.
But we do agree on this. Twice you've posted that they shouldn't have fired, they should have disengaged as soon as the gun was pointed at them.
No, at least twice I said I, as in me personally, would have disengaged. I have followed that by saying that what I feel is right for me doesn't necessarily apply to them.
Lol, I'm short-sighted because your entire premise is based on something that didn't even happen?
Like I said, if you can't understand the seriousness and potential ramifications of a situation like this, I can't help you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
I deleted the pointless insults. You don't go to a grand jury for speeding. LOL
These are more hypothetical situations that you have cooked up. You do not know that any of this has happened.
It's a hypothetical situation that they were speeding while chasing after someone who stole their truck? Really?
It's a hypothetical situation that they were driving erratically while chasing after someone who stole their truck? Really?
It's a hypothetical situation that they were shooting in a public space while chasing after someone who stole their truck? Really?
Who the hell chases/purses someone going the speed limit and driving cautiously? You do realize the article said they drove up next to the truck, firing off rounds - by your (LOL) logic (LOL), that would suggest the assailant wasn't speeding or driving erratically, either.
The people of C-D never cease to amaze me.
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.
