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.
I just saw this and thought how typical it is these days where the victim is being blamed for the actions of a criminal that leads to his death.
A trio of thieves was trying to steal a car, the owner comes out of his house, he fires a single shot from his legally owned firearm, the crooks flee and one dies from the gunshot.
What is telling in this article and another I saw is that there are more words given to the grieving family of the criminal than the victim of their crime.
They say things like "He did not have to come out and shoot him,” she said. “It was a car! All he had to do is call the police."
I think most of us would say well the criminal didn't have to go to the guys house to steal his car.
What is wrong with people? That car could have been everything to the owner and his family allowing them to go to work and grocery shopping etc... What Right does a criminal have to steal that?
This shooting followed another where an armed teen was shot trying to car jack an armed driver. They had a shoot out on the street.
Of course both of these legal gun owners are now in hot water and face a legal battle to not only retain their guns and money but to keep themselves out of jail.
Why are they blaming the victims for their actions when the criminals are making a dangerous choice in theirs?
Well, putting the scumbags family on camera wailing is good click-bait.
In many cases they're in grief, it's not quite fair or ethical to shove a camera in their face.
Additionally, some of these families are scumbags too and are also thieves, druggies etc.
I REALLY like how you correctly noted that the car could be the guys everything. We have a number of hand-wringer wealthy posters that have insurance and would be inconvenienced by having to get a new car and pay the deductible.
They are grossly out of touch with a poor family with only liability insurance that need the car or lose their job, their house\apartment etc. and wind up on the street.
Shooting in the back eh they might have 'a' case if that indeed was the case and they never were face to face along with how fast it actually went down.
BUT a car is NOT just a material thing that can be replaced by insurance. And to operate under tha assumption and wanting a third party to pay for and take the brunt of the responsibility for the criminal's crimes is wrong in itself.
A car is not just a thing. People put their life into a car taking care of it, paying for it and things like insurance. Anyone who simply washed and waxed a car just once should appreciate just some of the effort to keep a car. Or if the do repairs and upgrades themselves.
To top it off this wasn't a teenager this was a 51 year old man. By the time a half century old man is participating in crimes like this I'd say they were on borrowed time to begin with.
One last thing. The criminals crime ended when they crashed into a school bus.
I just saw this and thought how typical it is these days where the victim is being blamed for the actions of a criminal that leads to his death.
A trio of thieves was trying to steal a car, the owner comes out of his house, he fires a single shot from his legally owned firearm, the crooks flee and one dies from the gunshot.
What is telling in this article and another I saw is that there are more words given to the grieving family of the criminal than the victim of their crime.
They say things like "He did not have to come out and shoot him,” she said. “It was a car! All he had to do is call the police."
I think most of us would say well the criminal didn't have to go to the guys house to steal his car.
What is wrong with people? That car could have been everything to the owner and his family allowing them to go to work and grocery shopping etc... What Right does a criminal have to steal that?
This shooting followed another where an armed teen was shot trying to car jack an armed driver. They had a shoot out on the street.
Of course both of these legal gun owners are now in hot water and face a legal battle to not only retain their guns and money but to keep themselves out of jail.
Why are they blaming the victims for their actions when the criminals are making a dangerous choice in theirs?
Well, a thread on here a few weeks back told of a young couple stealing a van, she was driving erratically, he fell out, she ran over him and he died. Then they blamed the owner of the van.
They are grossly out of touch with a poor family with only liability insurance that need the car or lose their job, their house\apartment etc. and wind up on the street.
That's why in Texas stealing items like Cows, Horses, a mans tools, his truck will get you shot and traditionally be an accepted reason. Those are things he uses to make a living and put food on his table. It could mean the difference of feeding his family or not.
We also assume if someone breaks into your home they are there to do you harm and you can shoot, no questions asked.
They say things like "He did not have to come out and shoot him,” she said. “It was a car! All he had to do is call the police."
oh I'll bet if Santiago caught someone stealing his car....he would shoot
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.
