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.
Right. I made a joke at your expense so that means the lies you tell are excused. If you would just stop telling lies about this story I wouldn't have to keep calling you out.
Right. I made a joke at your expense so that means the lies you tell are excused. If you would just stop telling lies about this story I wouldn't have to keep calling you out.
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)?
Nothing is this simple and relative to the topic quite a fallacious question.
If a thug is brave enough to steal your vehicle while you are there, then you have to assume them dangerous and getting ready to attack you. They are, after all, committing a violent crime since you are present. Thus, it's perfectly reasonable for you to defend yourself and shoot the crook before they shoot you.
Nothing is this simple and relative to the topic quite a fallacious question.
If a thug is brave enough to steal your vehicle while you are there, then you have to assume them dangerous and getting ready to attack you. They are, after all, committing a violent crime since you are present. Thus, it's perfectly reasonable for you to defend yourself and shoot the crook before they shoot you.
It's called self defense.
Nope, not self defense. You're not present if you're at home and asleep, or getting ready for bed, or zoned out in front of the TV. The crime took place at around 1:00 a.m. The thieves may routinely strike at that time, thinking most people are asleep then. It would be an erroneous assumption that the thieves are getting ready to attack someone who's in the house and assumed to be asleep. Notice that in the case in question, the thieves did not attack the car owner & his brother when they rushed outside and then jumped in another car. So there was no "self-defense" to be invoked. You're just wrong all around. The brothers could have shot out the rear tires at any time, including when they were in hot pursuit. Taking a life was not necessary at any point. Hopefully the grand jury will figure that out.
The brothers could have shot out the rear tires at any time, including when they were in hot pursuit.
If they had a shot gun it would be very difficult to shoot out a tire while in hot pursuit. If they had a pistol, it would be incredibly hard to the point of it being a very lucky shot. Meanwhile, who knows to where the bullets might ricochet off.
I'm assuming most of your gun knowledge comes from tv and movies?
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.
