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.
Here's the meat of the story. The homeowner heard something in the darkness and shot at it. He had no idea what he was shooting at. And we are supposed to be okay with that.
I'm not.
No, the story, which left out many details, states that they could not tell that the people they were shooting at were law enforcement. It does NOT state that they were just randomly firing at noise in the darkness. It does NOT say that they could not see what they were shooing at. It only says that they could not identify their target as being law enforcement. We don't know if they saw silhouettes of men with guns drawn or the layout of their home. If they had a private fenced in yard with a bunch of men in it who were obviously not supposed to be there.
Legal or not, the fact that these people were not still charged after shooting at police leads me to believe that their more to the story and the police were in some way at fault.
Ah, so you can shoot into the darkness as long as you're only shooting on your own property. And the bullets stop at the property line, so if they weren't on his property they were in no danger, right? And no one else who might have been walking down the street was in any danger, either, from a fool shooting into the darkness. Uh, huh.
Except that the story does say the homeowner stated he couldn't see them in the darkness, so none of this is relevant.
Here's the meat of the story. The homeowner heard something in the darkness and shot at it. He had no idea what he was shooting at. And we are supposed to be okay with that.
I'm not.
The homeowner stated nothing, so you don't know that.
Darkness is relative. The story does not say just how dark it was, or what the homeowner saw. It certainly does not say that" [h]e had now idea what he was shooting at." That's your made-up conclusion. Nor does it say that he "heard something in the darkness." More made-up conclusion.
Excellent example of magical thinking from the left. Thanks.
The homeowner stated nothing, so you don't know that.
Darkness is relative. The story does not say just how dark it was, or what the homeowner saw. It certainly does not say that" [h]e had now idea what he was shooting at." That's your made-up conclusion. Nor does it say that he "heard something in the darkness." More made-up conclusion.
Excellent example of magical thinking from the left. Thanks.
I suppose the story should have said it was "sorta dark" or "really really dark" or "kinda dark". :roll eyes:
And the story states that the "homeowner didn't know they were deputies." I guess the story should have identified what the homeowner thought they (the deputies) actually were. Dogs? Goats? Raccoons? Chupacabras? Was he just shooting for fun and there actually happened to be somebody out there.
I guess we will never know.
Last edited by eddie gein; 06-21-2014 at 06:00 PM..
Darkness is relative. The story does not say just how dark it was, or what the homeowner saw. It certainly does not say that" [h]e had now idea what he was shooting at." That's your made-up conclusion.
Read it again. The deputies themselves stated "the homeowner did not know they were deputies because of the darkness." So if he didn't know they were deputies, he didn't know who he was shooting at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
Nor does it say that he "heard something in the darkness." More made-up conclusion.
So you are postulating that he was just randomly shooting, and not shooting in response to the deputies making a search? Yeah, that is soooo much better!
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
Excellent example of magical thinking from the left. Thanks.
Magical thinking, I couldn't have said it better myself. I would have a little more respect for gun advocates if they would at least acknowledge that there are a lot of stupid people out there with guns who shouldn't have them. But I don't ever expect even that modicum of common sense anymore.
You can't let those dirty stinking pot smoking hippies get away or they may end up raping your daughter. Good for the cops in being so diligent in chasing these degenerates down and shooting them if need be.
What, you don't shoot a few shots into a dark room before entering, to 'soften it up'?
many 2nd advocates contend that all citizens should have the ability to own and use whatever the nation's military has for the individual soldier.
Fragmentation grenades would have been more effective than firing into darkness. You toss a frag at those people in the dark and there would be no return fire from those deputies.
Claymores at the property line with trip wires would have been the best self defense. Just make sure you put the side that says "Face towards enemy" facing outwards. Then the homeowner could have just kept his gun holstered and called the body wagons.
In Texas, "He needed killin" is a legal defense in some circumstances.
All tongue in cheek, dear friends.........just tongue in cheek.
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.
