Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Charles Martel
That's not the same thing as threatening to shoot a person, you know.

There's no threatening involved. My actions would be a REACTION to gunfire. No premeditation whatsoever. The only threatening would have come from Wyatt Earp.

43 posted on 08/26/2008 6:21:19 AM PDT by impeachedrapist (Ssshh! I'm a liberal plant AND a stalker!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]


To: impeachedrapist
"There's no threatening involved. My actions would be a REACTION to gunfire. No premeditation whatsoever. The only threatening would have come from Wyatt Earp."

You ought be very careful of the threats or assertions involving the use of a firearm because you CAN lose your right to own one for just such irresponsible demonstration. The man made a decision to use deadly force against two animals he perceived to be an immediate danger. In most states, unless you are sure the gunfire is or has been deliberately directed toward you, any intentional aggression you make toward him with a brandished weapon could render you a felon, whether you use any force or not.

80 posted on 08/26/2008 6:48:18 AM PDT by azhenfud (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

To: impeachedrapist
My actions would be a REACTION to gunfire. No premeditation whatsoever.

You seem to think that the second dog was killed in its owner's back yard. It's more likely that both were shot in "Wyatt Earp"'s yard, then one managed to wriggle back under the fence before assuming room temperature.

Hearing gunfire on your neighbor's property is NOT sufficient cause to start shooting at people. It would not be self-defense, and would be considered negligent homicide at the very least.

81 posted on 08/26/2008 6:49:03 AM PDT by Charles Martel (Liberals are the crab grass in the lawn of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

To: impeachedrapist
There's no threatening involved. My actions would be a REACTION to gunfire. No premeditation whatsoever.

And you have to gall to call someone else reckless. Wow. Isn't it better for those armed to have some idea of why and what they are shooting at? We're not talking the streets of Sadr City, after all.

103 posted on 08/26/2008 7:09:55 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson