Posted on 01/20/2007 12:19:26 PM PST by jmc1969
A "drop knife" would be suitable. The problem here was shooting the fellow in front of the daughter.She is a druggie and she is not going to keep the proper sequence of events straight.
Maybe not, but if it gave his daughter a second chance to straighten out (and it sounds like it), then maybe good will come of it.
I heard it suggested that one should immediately take a nap or have a few cups of coffee after shooting a robber, violent thief, invader or other criminal.
It gives the shooter time to calm down and gather his thoughts together. Such as remembering to say that he was in fear for his life when he pulled the trigger six times.
This also gives your attorney time to reach the scene and
time to get his thoughts together.
However the most beneficial part of this is that it gives the criminal enough time where no matter what the emergency crews do for him, he will remain dead.
You said -- "Tongue definitely NOT in cheek- If that were my underage daughter I would have shot the fellow. I would have arranged a better scenario and he would have had a weapon in hand or nearby. My daughter would not have seen the deed and he would not trouble my family anymore."
There were several things that the father above could have done more than he did. For one, the article mentioned that he didn't even bother to pick up his daughter from that drug treatment place (I think she went for evaluation). He allowed her friends to take her directly to this guy. So, was he mad at himself for not picking up his daughter and he decides to shot this guy out of his misdirected anger? I don't know about that. But, I do know that he shot him illegally. And that put him in jail.
Now, in terms of what you're saying -- this definitely sounds like something premeditated -- i.e. "there would be plans in effect to make it look different than it was." Now, that will get you a *very long sentence*. Yes, indeed.
But, actually, the more troublesome aspect of this kind of thinking is simply that it shows the Liberal Left -- that, yes indeed, gun owners are "wild and crazy" and will violate the law if it has something to do with their family "honor" or "protecting" their family. In other words, guns owners are *not law abiding* as they are "portrayed" by their associations. They do think they can dispense "frontier justice". They are actually mentally unbalanced to the point where they think that they can, indeed, take the law into their own hands and actually *get away* with a crime -- by "planning it right" or "covering it up" or "making sure the perp can't talk anymore". Yep, that sure does show that gun owners are *law abiding*.
Yep, give more ammunition to those who say that gun owners are "crazies", don't respect the law and can't be trusted to do the right thing.
I see you've advanced the case of the liberals by a wide margin today -- by your *assurances* that you are *not kidding*. Congratulations...
One day, I'm sure we will be discussing your article in the paper, as the sentence is handed down. Another "piece of evidence" for the liberal left.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Sounds like justice to me and besides he needed killing anyway. A dirtbag wont get that close to my daughter and when she does reach 30, Im still going on her first date with her and the "Target".
Bush should pardon the man and then send in elite commandoes to liberate him from the frigid dungeons of the monarchist North!
Hey, do you expect me to actually read the whole article?
I think the man demonstrates excellent parenting skills, especially for a Canadian.
You said -- "However the most beneficial part of this is that it gives the criminal enough time where no matter what the emergency crews do for him, he will remain dead."
Well, I was reading along on your comments until I got to this part. It would seem that there are a lot of people here who seem to be lacking in the niceties of the law.
Let's take this from another angle. Let's say that the police were the ones to do the shooting. They got a call about a burglar, and they caught him escaping and he pointed a gun at them. He was shot and wounded seriously and was bleeding profusely, but still alive. Now, they look at him and decide if they just give him a "rest" of about 30 minutes before they call the ambulance crew, they won't have to worry about him surviving.
I'll guarantee you that whomever those police officers were, to do that -- would be up on criminal charges -- in leaving that man to die -- no matter the fact he was caught in the middle of a crime and pointed a gun at them.
There would be a public outcry to hang those policemen, who made that decision and waited for him to die before calling the ambulance.
BUT -- on the other hand -- here you are saying that, perhaps the policement couldn't get away with it -- but I can. So, that's the best way to do it. I'll commit the crime and since no one will know -- no big deal.
What do we have here? Is this "yet again" another example of how some gun owners are really *not* law abiding and are actually "crazies" who think that they are a "law unto themselves" simply because they have a gun and can shoot someone. Yes, that's the image that is being portrayed here.
I think we have -- yet again -- another winner for the liberal left. If the comments keep coming in, the liberal left ought to have a whole collection of proof that the gun owners of America actually consist of "wild west yahoos" who have no respect for the law, and think they create the "law on the ground" at the end of their gun barrel. I'm sure that's the image that you want to create.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Yes, thats pretty much the way I see it and no dating or marriage to lawyers.
Walker should say "pardon me" and the governor should say "sure!"
You have already forgotten the first four words of my post, "I heard it suggested".
My attitude towards this matter is that I have no intention of ever shooting anyone but should I ever have to, I will do my best to make sure he is dead before he hits the ground. I do not believe that it is inherent upon me to wound someone who is threatening my life.
You said -- "I do not believe that it is inherent upon me to wound someone who is threatening my life."
No, indeed not. It's lawful for you to defend your life with deadly force. I don't think anyone was arguing against that point.
However, if your shot goes a bit astray, what would not be legal would be to let the guy lay there and die first, before doing anything about it. Now, I can think about all sorts of "lines" from other people, saying stuff like "Who would know..." or "What if no one is around..." and you name it.
In other words -- it would seem to me that "gun owners" actually have *no moral compass* in regards to preserving life (even after defending one's own life). And it would seem that "gun owners" are intent on making sure a perpetrator is dead -- "if they can get away with it." But, those same owners *know* if someone is around and watching, that they *cannot* get away with it.
How does this portray gun owners to the general public and to the liberal left. Well, as totally irresponsible and not worthy to have and own guns. That's how it makes it appear. It shows them to *not* be law abiding, but rather, acting like "criminals" -- in that just like criminals do what they do *if* they can get away with it -- so do gun owners do what they do *if* they can get away with it. So, criminals and gun owners have the *same moral compass*.
That doesn't put oneself in good company...
Regards,
Star Traveler
I'd only fault him for being sloppy. 5 shots? Why not a simple double-tap...
I have a pretty good batting average in the courtroom. Of course, I've never had to deal with liberal Canadian judges.
You said -- "If I had been one of the "witnesses" I would've been struck with a sudden and severe case of amnesia..."
Another great "law abiding citizen" I see.
I guess it's too much, especially these days, in our country, to expect anyone to be law-abiding. That's so "passe" it seems. The new standard is more like, "Say whatever you want to and make it up as you go, as long as you can get away with it."
Of course the "libs" have perfected such an attitude. I guess it was only natural that the conservatives should "join in on the fun". It's no fun being law-abiding any longer. Why should the libs have all the fun?
While we're at it, let's do away with the oath in court that says, "Do you swear to tell the truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth?"
It should now read, "Do you think it might be possible for you to tell us what you think, to the extent that your amnesia will allow, your political persuasion permits and to the point where you materially, financially and personally gain -- your version that is in your own head?"
The next question is "What's coming next, after that?"
Well, I can tell you..., I think I read it somewhere in the Bible. It had something to do about a "perverse generation" and what God was going to do about it. I hope we're not there yet...
Regards,
Star Traveler
--I have a pretty good batting average in the courtroom.--
I see then that you follow the advice of getting good lawyers.
Well, the father's biggest mistake here was to shoot the guy in front of a bunch of his friends and customers who would not be the friendliest witnesses for the defense. His second biggest mistake was doing it in Canada rather than in the rural south, where there is an unwritten two part test that the jury applies, even if it isn't part of the formal charge:
1. Did the decedent need shooting?
2. If so, did the right person kill him?
A promise from me to all violent criminals.
I do not have any intention to preserving the life of someone who just tried to kill me or my wife.
>>How does this portray gun owners to the general public and to the liberal left. Well, as totally irresponsible and not worthy to have and own guns. That's how it makes it appear.<<
I disagree. I think it portrays them as people who will do their best to kill anyone who attempts to harm them or their family. They are not portrayed as soft wimps who are inclined to have second thoughts while a criminal bleeds to death.
Would I wait until someone is certainly dead before I reported a shooting? No, but I would probably take time to light a cigarette though, especially if I was the one who shot him.
Would I mess with a crime scene. No, why do that when it would certainly be viewed with suspicion by a grand jury thereby increasing the odds that you would have to go to trial.
Witnesses are a bad thing.
Another great "law abiding citizen" I see.
Are you referring to our President?
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.