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.
Sorry, but as much as you feel that can't agree that it was self-defense, the district attorney disagrees with you. I think I'll go ahead and take his opinion over yours. (Don't worry - you'll be okay in time. I've disagreed with others in the past, and most of them came through it just fine.)
No worries-well not apart from the fact that maybe it's about time you had a new DA and that your justice system is warped beyond belief when a decision on a killing doesn't have to go to a jury.
C'mmon-even you can't believe that when someone is shot it is right that one man makes a decision about what happens to the person who shot them. Sorry-that is not justice.
I have not seen evidence in any report that supports your statement that the kid was pointing a weapon at him before he shot.If you have then please provide a link.
So are you saying that 76 year olds don't get angry, or just that he was acting out of an emotion other than anger? If so then what would that emotion be?
I suggest that you don't understand the meaning of pre-meditated-what you are talking about sounds more like clairvoyance.
This is what I said
The thing I find most frightening is that many people who are justifying what he did will be gun owners
actually you agreed with me!
While many who do own support him,
I reiterate that he was a victim of crime and that the perpetrators were in the wrong,however 2 wrongs don't make a right and I don't believe that he was acting in self defence, but that he was, like the rest of you, sick of these types.
What use would he have been to his wife if he had ended up dead too? He was very foolish if (as we are led to believe) they were armed,younger than him and a group.
The reports state that the thugs were approaching him. They are posted in this very thread.
I did not say that 76 YO people do not get angry, what I DID say is that unlike the younger people of today, they do not act out on emotion. That can only come with age and wisdom and the patience that such graces you with.
No, I didn't agree with you about being afraid that gun owners supported what he did. What I said is that, your point is moot. Weapon owner or not, most feel this man was justified in what he did. There is nothing foolish in what this man did. He knows/knew his strength. Kudos to him!
Instead of getting real about the issue and that issue is that had these thugs not done what they did, none of this would have happened. THAT is the issue here. But the good news is this is one less punk that can torture someone else.
No worries-well not apart from the fact that maybe it's about time you had a new DA and that your justice system is warped beyond belief when a decision on a killing doesn't have to go to a jury.
C'mmon-even you can't believe that when someone is shot it is right that one man makes a decision about what happens to the person who shot them. Sorry-that is not justice.
and these punks on their own decided that they were going to torture this man and his wife and that is ok?
Sad that you aren't calling out the thugs. Bleeding hearts...
Justice is that the thug is dead. Justice for this family and others. Now the punks are on notice.
Susan and Baybook . . . I have a question for you both.
If the perps had broken into Mr. McClure's house and he had shot them on his own premises, would you then feel that all the terms of the law had been met to call this a justifiable homicide? And, further, would you then feel that the grand jury and DA were correct in not bringing charges against Mr. McClure?
...maybe it's about time you had a new DA and that your justice system is warped beyond belief when a decision on a killing doesn't have to go to a jury.
C'mmon-even you can't believe that when someone is shot it is right that one man makes a decision about what happens to the person who shot them. Sorry-that is not justice.
C'mmon - even you can't believe that the decision is really made by one man. He's not an island. He's not making this decision in a vacuum. He knows very well what the people think and want, and has many people in his ear giving their opinions. Yes, he can go against what the majority believes/wants, but that would be political suicide and he knows it. IF the majority agree that he blows it on calls like this, we will have a new DA. However, I think he clearly has the support of the people on this. Justice, schmustice. (Hey, "schmustice" ain't easy to say. If I were in the tongue-twister making business, I'd be using that.)
Susan and Baybook . . . I have a question for you both.
If the perps had broken into Mr. McClure's house and he had shot them on his own premises, would you then feel that all the terms of the law had been met to call this a justifiable homicide?
If they had been shot while committing the crime this would never have been a discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821
And, further, would you then feel that the grand jury and DA were correct in not bringing charges against Mr. McClure?
Do I think he should have been charged with murder and sent to jail. Of course not. Something far lesser... Not sure, I"m conflicted over that, but that really wasn't my issue.
Again, my issue is that once he and his wife were no longer in danger, he should have called the police and not chased after the assailants. Neither he nor his wife were in danger when he left his home and drove around the corner looking for the assailants. At that point he became the agressor and imo that was the wrong thing to do.
There is something wrong with a society that chooses to justify bad behavior and poor decision making as long as the behavior is on our side. It is a far different thing to say that he was correct because now there is one less thug in Charlotte than to say he was wrong but there were extenuating circumstances that came to play. It is not ok for the individual to hand out justice on their own.
It's really to bad that some people are unable to have a rational discussion on a controversial issue without playing to the lowest common denominator. Everything in life is not black/white or 180/360.
Again, my issue is that once he and his wife were no longer in danger, he should have called the police and not chased after the assailants. Neither he nor his wife were in danger when he left his home and drove around the corner looking for the assailants. At that point he became the agressor and imo that was the wrong thing to do.
You call him "the agressor". Do you think the thugs at that point would've been justified in shooting Mr. McClure? In self-defense maybe? This is a serious question.
I get that you think it was a bad decision to "chase after" the assailants. But he did. There's nothing illegal about that. His stated purpose was to keep them from getting away, or something like that. The point is, he says he was not going after them to exact revenge, and the DA believes that. But after he found the assailants, he was in danger again -- according to him and the DA. At that point is he just supposed to accept whatever the assailants decide to do to him? Is that the price for making what you consider to be the bad decision to follow them?
If they had been shot while committing the crime this would never have been a discussion.
Do I think he should have been charged with murder and sent to jail. Of course not. Something far lesser... Not sure, I"m conflicted over that, but that really wasn't my issue.
Again, my issue is that once he and his wife were no longer in danger, he should have called the police and not chased after the assailants. Neither he nor his wife were in danger when he left his home and drove around the corner looking for the assailants. At that point he became the agressor and imo that was the wrong thing to do.
There is something wrong with a society that chooses to justify bad behavior and poor decision making as long as the behavior is on our side. It is a far different thing to say that he was correct because now there is one less thug in Charlotte than to say he was wrong but there were extenuating circumstances that came to play. It is not ok for the individual to hand out justice on their own.
It's really to bad that some people are unable to have a rational discussion on a controversial issue without playing to the lowest common denominator. Everything in life is not black/white or 180/360.
Okay, you didn't really answer my question, did you?
I didn't ask you if you felt Mr. McClure should be sent to jail. I asked you - would you have a problem with "the injustice" of this if the perps had been shot on Mr. McClure's property, since the core of your argument is that you have a problem with the shooting taking place off his property. That is the core of your contention, is it not? You feel Mr. McClure had no right to defend himself off his property. Correct?
And may I add, if you are responding to me, I have never said anything that would indicate I am justifying anyone's behavior. I clearly outlined why I felt the law was on McClure's side and indeed, you did not respond to my argument. And I certainly never argued that this worked out great cause there is one less thug in Charlotte, altho I do believe that all that seems to get through to these wild miscreants is violence. Pretty sad, eh?
You call him "the agressor". Do you think the thugs at that point would've been justified in shooting Mr. McClure? In self-defense maybe? This is a serious question.
I get that you think it was a bad decision to "chase after" the assailants. But he did. There's nothing illegal about that. His stated purpose was to keep them from getting away, or something like that. The point is, he says he was not going after them to exact revenge, and the DA believes that. But after he found the assailants, he was in danger again -- according to him and the DA. At that point is he just supposed to accept whatever the assailants decide to do to him? Is that the price for making what you consider to be the bad decision to follow them?
I'm about done with this. I don't see what in my logic would make you think that it would be ok for the assailants to shoot him if he followed them. I'll assume you really are serious. You can't call self defense while in the middle of a criminal act. But for the fact that they were committing a crime....
But you can't use that excuse past Part 1. And the victim doesn't get to say I can do what I want, because they started it. After McCLure left his home, imo, that is now Part 2.
As you said,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timm
I get that you think it was a bad decision to "chase after" the assailants. But he did.
You want me to deal with what happened. He put himself in danger this time. He was wrong.
I'm not really concerned with what rationale the DA used because we both know that some decisions are made with public opinion at the forefront. The next election is 2010 I believe.
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.
