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.
No doubt the anti-gun crowd will try to make hay with this.
Sure, a good guy with a gun inadvertently shot this fellow in the head, but otherwise his vehicle could have been stolen right out from under him and the bad guys could have gotten away.
I only read the first page, but lets back this train up a second here. What if, the guy with the gun had shot and killed the carjacker square in the head.. .. ..
Then what ?
If he would have gotten caught, he wouldn't have got the death penalty for grand theft auto .
We have a inocent guy who committed murder against someone who was, committing a felony ?
Well, I just finished reading the whole thread and I saw nowhere in the thread that anybody could prove that the car owner was NOT in danger of losing his life from the two attacking him.
Given that, if you were nearby and armed and you thought the car owner was possibly about to lose his life to the attack, would you just turn and run?
Even though he was a poor shot and hit the victim in the head, he may have actually saved his life. We may never know, unless the victim comes out and says he was afraid he might have died otherwise.
I can understand the shooter's concern that, since he did shoot the victim, he was afraid for his own sake, and gathered evidence that might implicate him. Doesn't make it right, but sure makes more sense to me.
What if one of the two carjackers had the victim on the hard asphalt repeatedly banging his head on the ground, before the shooter stopped the attack? Intent and outcome are not one in the same.
What if one of the two carjackers had the victim on the hard asphalt repeatedly banging his head on the ground, before the shooter stopped the attack? Intent and outcome are not one in the same.
As long as we're spinning "what ifs," PedroMartinez had a more entertaining "what if:" What if the shooter was one of the hijackers, he intended to shoot the car owner, and he picked up his brass because he's a criminal.
No doubt the anti-gun crowd will try to make hay with this.
Sure, a good guy with a gun inadvertently shot this fellow in the head, but otherwise his vehicle could have been stolen right out from under him and the bad guys could have gotten away.
As long as we're spinning "what ifs," PedroMartinez had a more entertaining "what if:" What if the shooter was one of the hijackers, he intended to shoot the car owner, and he picked up his brass because he's a criminal.
...as long as we're spinning "what ifs."
That would actually be a good plan, I'm sorry to say!
I can understand the shooter's concern that, since he did shoot the victim, he was afraid for his own sake, and gathered evidence that might implicate him. Doesn't make it right, but sure makes more sense to me.
What makes sense to me is immediately rendering aid.
He didn't. He ran away. And that tells me all I need to know about his intent. He didn't care about the victim - he was all jazzed to finally have an excuse to start throwing lead at a human target. When he incompetently botched that, his immediate thought was to flee the scene, thereby breaking the law, and caring not one whit about what happened to the guy he shot in the head.
Why you feel so compelled to defend this self-absorbed idiot is beyond me.
What makes sense to me is immediately rendering aid.
He didn't. He ran away. And that tells me all I need to know about his intent. He didn't care about the victim - he was all jazzed to finally have an excuse to start throwing lead at a human target. When he incompetently botched that, his immediate thought was to flee the scene, thereby breaking the law, and caring not one whit about what happened to the guy he shot in the head.
Why you feel so compelled to defend this self-absorbed idiot is beyond me.
Can't rep you again, but couldn't have been summarized better!
What makes sense to me is immediately rendering aid.
He didn't. He ran away. And that tells me all I need to know about his intent. He didn't care about the victim - he was all jazzed to finally have an excuse to start throwing lead at a human target. When he incompetently botched that, his immediate thought was to flee the scene, thereby breaking the law, and caring not one whit about what happened to the guy he shot in the head.
Why you feel so compelled to defend this self-absorbed idiot is beyond me.
Did you speak to the shooter and he told you this, or are you just making an assumption?
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.
