Posted on 07/23/2004 7:07:35 PM PDT by Mulder
Nothing will screw up your aim and your judgement like being shot in the head. I'm glad all the innocent people in this story survived.
Mr Beck found time to obtain a gun. Seems he didn't concern himself with the responsibility to learn fire discipline, in particular to withhold fire when innocents are in that line of fire. This all should have occurred prior to this incident.
True enough that we should all be well practicised and think all these things through in theory as well as we can. How well we have taught our mind to think determines how well we will do when pressed.
However, much you would have condemned this man, a grand jury that heard all the facts did not find ~him~ to be the criminal in this case.
Anyway, I searched Google News and naturally the MSM are completely ignoring the race of everyone involved, perhaps one of the most important motivating factors in the way people react to one another in America. And the media is totally silent about it . . . Way to go. Well, I'm sure I could win a bet on who's who and what's what in this story, and on what motivated Logan to shoot Beck in the first place and what caused Denmark to be angry about Beck not being charged.
You write a good movie character .... unfortunately, there's not always time for that in the world this guy lived in.
That's not an argument, it doesn't even make any sense.
It does however sound like a putdown, which is what it is.
Comeback when you've got something to argue with. You and your girly putdowns are a waste of time.
Ha! I suppose you think girly is an insult don't ya? For a man you are a bit thinned skinned about being merely questioned about your perception of things.
The reason those laws are in place is to disuade and punish wreckless and negligent behavior in whatever form it takes. This guy's action injured someone, could have killed them, and was unjustified. It was a materialization of that "wild west" display the grabbers predicted. It really shouldn't be encouraged, or dismissed.
Chasing down and shooting at a perp is one thing. Shooting with others in the fore, or background is another thing entirely.
Your colored glasses make us look bad. I made no such assumptions in this case. But then, race isn't my motivating factor on judging right and wrong.
Pure unadulterated bias.
"However, much you would have condemned this man, a grand jury that heard all the facts did not find ~him~ to be the criminal in this case."
A Jury heard all the facts of the OJ case and let him off, what's your point?
I understand his rage..not anger, RAGE, and my point is that in a just, orderly society we must be responsible for what we do. Rage thinks only of itself. Rage doesn't care about anyone else. Rage can't rule the day.
I wouldn't have hung this guy but I would rather a decision that underlines the importance of each of us, in a siruation however trying, remembering that there are others around us who may suffer for what we do.
Hell, we USED to.
But I didn't say you did. And I don't have colored glasses. I'm just not ignoring the elephant in the room.
I've watched you argue that on this thread, and it's a compelling argument for any civil case, and I am a person who downright ~loathes~ the state of the civil case in this country. We are too sue-happy when anything bad that happens makes us see $$$$ immediately.
We don't have ~all~ the facts the jury did, but my philosophy is to not jail people as criminals for accidents. I have to make the leap to criminal intent before I want to take up jail space with a man like this.
"For a man you are a bit thinned skinned about being merely questioned about your perception of things."
You don't question, you don't argue YOU PUTDOWN. You imply cowardice or a lack of character or some such.
"Girly" is only a negative if you don't happen to be one or are in a situation that requires some other reaction. I have heard females legitimately use the term.
I haven't questioned your character at all, nor implied cowardice.... uninteresting, maybe.
You argued some points.... I argued some points.... I'll still take your word for it that you're a MAN when it counts, and you believe this guy wasn't. Now.... anything else?
.... uninteresting, maybe.
There she goes again!!!!
Same here.
The criminal intent in this case is to deliberately ignore the obvious and imminent risk to life he was placing that woman in. It's like storing your dynamite out on the front lawn overnight, because the basement flooded and the neighborhood kids grabbed it while you were sleeping. It's the magnitude of the ignored consequences that make it criminal. The only defence is mental defect.
Obviously Florida is different than Texas. In Texas, we're damned near encouraged to shoot bad guys, but if you were to discharge your pistol 17 times and shoot bystanders, you'd go down in a heartbeat.
Nope.... it's not nearly that deliberate or predictable. I don't have a clear indication what this scene looked like, the angles, distances, views or the skill and clarity this guy had. It would be a tough call, and this jury made it this way. This one guy was deemed to be undeserving of charges by that jury that discussed it just like we are but in more detail. No matter what issues we grapple with here, we have a lot more time for analysis and 20/20 hindsight at our disposal than he had at the time. We can't measure him against whether his actions were perfect, rather whether they were ~reasonable~.
From being shot in the head.
I'd bet that those here willing to fry the shooter would totally lose their mentally facilities just by being shot at, much less taking a round to the head.
Trust me, you will get over me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.