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.
He shot at them on the street. Who could have been walking by? What other innocent homeowner could have been mowing the lawn? Getting the mail? Kids playing in the street?
If you are mowing the lawn at 3 am, you have much bigger issues to worry about...
I'm just sayin'
He shot at them on the street. Who could have been walking by? What other innocent homeowner could have been mowing the lawn? Getting the mail? Kids playing in the street? What if it he had mistaken a different group of teens for the thugs...McClure said the kid turned toward him...nothing about a gun, and they did not find a gun on the kid (read the article and not just the comments and you will see that yourself)....I don't think McClure should be punished much, a few months, some probation, a fine. I feel for him. But society cannot condone shooting in the street.
Forget the "what ifs." If a hoppy toad could fly, he wouldn't bump his butt.
Coped, I am not attacking you (b/c I fully realize you are looking at the public safety side of this situation) but the "what ifs" are irrelevant. This is not a philosophy class - this is real life.
The Facts:
1. No one else did get hit by a volley of bullets
2. He followed the thugs b/c he knew damn well that these miscreants were gonna get away w/ beating him and his wife up and stealing their goods. So he did not shoot at some "mis-identified" uninvolved innocent bystanders.
First of all, we do not know what the McClure family may have been dealing with as far as harassment or theft on their property prior to this incident.
Secondly, we do not know what was said to the McClures while these juvenile delinquent thugs (and yes, that is what they are - let's stop being PC and start being accurate) were beating and tying these elderly folks up in their own home. For all we know, they said things that made McClure fear that they would return. We don't have the whole story!!!!!
All good points, and you're right; we don't have the whole story. Things might change as more details emerge and my viewpoint concerning THIS particular incident might change as well. But as something of a "general" rule (if even such a thing exists here), I don't advocate property owners having shootouts in the street with robbers.
Quote:
And thirdly, we don't know what state of mind Mr. McClure was in when he picked up that gun and went to hunt down these thugs. We don't know if he served in Korea, for example, and had a flashback b/c of PTSD, do we? Yet we judge his actions.
I know this is a most serious situation, but I couldn't help but laugh a bit, thinking of comedians who impersonate Vietnam vets having flashbacks and just going berserk on the spot. But again, this is a valid point. My dad is a Desert Storm veteran, so I can sympathize here.
Quote:
And meanwhile, we hear the mother of the deceased delinquent excusing her son's behavior while castigating an old man who her son beat up, terrorized and robbed - and wanting justice. HUH? If her son hadn't been engaged in illegal behavior, he would still be alive, now wouldn't he?
From what I read, it was the mother of one of the other punks. But anyway, I have no words for whoever said it. That kid was wrong, period. No way to justify his actions at all. That's honestly where everything went wrong right there.
Quote:
Here we all are . . pointing to the letter of the law like referees arguing over a baseball game technicality . . . and the verdict seems to be . . . Dang, if the old man had just killed that POS kid while he and his wife were being brutalized, no foul. But <sigh> since he went after those antisocial cretins post being brutalized in his own home, "that changes everything."
Well, the letter of the law is important in some cases. As they often say, the devil is in the details. We'll just have to wait and see as more details emerge.
Quote:
The minute those marauding thieves decided to invade the McClure home, they put their lives on the line. They just didn't think these senior citizens would be able to DO A DAMN THING against four young, healthy gun-wielding miscreants. They figured this was a "sure thing" - terrorize the old man and his wife, slap 'em around, rip off the goods . . . and walk away laughing.
Well yeah, those punks had it coming one way or another, that's for sure. No argument from this corner.
Quote:
As far as I am concerned, a victim who responds to being victimized is engaged in self-preservation and reacting out of physical, mental and emotional trauma.
Well, that depends. For instance, a couple of months ago, my car was stolen. Thank God I wasn't in it at the time, but who knows, I could have been. I had the ability to possibly track down the person who did it, and honestly, for a second I actually DID think to do that in order to "teach him a lesson." Is it natural to feel that way? Yep. Would I have been justified in doing so? I don't think so. I know this is entirely different than the situation that is the subject of this thread, but that goes to show that it can't necessarily be a "one size fits all" deal.
You may be on to something! Maybe we can get the D.A. to reduce any charges to something like "Improper equipment" or a parking violation. No points- no increase in insurance rates. Just a fine. And, hell, I would be honored to pay it for him!
With this, I totally agree. I honestly don't even want him charged with anything, but if he does, this should be it. A $20 fine and let the courts waive it or something.
You should go back in this thread and take a good, long, hard look at the sequence of posts and who brought up the "What If " scenarios, first.
And if I did, you followed suit so I suppose that makes us even. But like I said, there's just one point we disagree on. We can agree to disagree about that point and just move on.
So, coped, by your judgement, no one should be allowed to defend themselves outside of the 4 walls of their home? I'll play your "what-if" game:
What if Mr McClure was walking his dog, or just taking a stroll down his street and one of these punks came up brandishing a gun and threatening him like they did in his house. If he feared for his life, would he still be unjustified in defending himself, simply because he was on the street?
If it is not against the law to follow these guys post-break-in to try to get a description, and he sticks to his story that "I thought he had a gun when he turned around and I was afraid for my life", I don't see how he gets convicted of anything.
When my neighbors house got broken into, while we were all out on the back deck having a drink, I chased the criminals as they left the home to try to get a description of the vehicle and the license plate information. I didn't really think about it, I just reacted. I don't think it's an unrealistic/uncommon reaction. This situation just played out a little differently at the end.
Bottom line, the what-ifs are why we have laws in place.
Like I said, the guy did what he felt he had to. I can't fault him for that. But, he was in the wrong, and he doesn't get a pass cause he's 76. Lock the thugs up for 50 years and give Mr. McClure a slap on the wrist...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mullman
If you are mowing the lawn at 3 am, you have much bigger issues to worry about...
I'm just sayin'
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.
