Posted on 05/21/2020 3:17:38 PM PDT by conservative98
Let me explain this to you again.
One gunshot is "deliberate act." Three gunshots to kill this violent man with whom he was struggling for the gun, is not.
Again, if the man intended Arbery be dead, Arbery would never have gotten close enough to grab the gun.
You may not grasp this simple fact about shotguns, but it remains true non the less.
Someone needs to take you shooting. I think once you are familiar with the sort of weapons involved, you will realize that a man intending to kill someone with a shotgun simply does it.
One shot. One kill.
One shot. One kill.
= = =
Then why carry more than one round when going after one perp?
What are three (at least) for?
You can repeat that crap until the cows come home and it still isn't going to make any sense whatsoever.
Someone needs to take you shooting. I think once you are familiar with the sort of weapons involved, you will realize that a man intending to kill someone with a shotgun simply does it.
I own a shotgun, a rifle, and a pistol and fire all three frequently enough to maintain proficiency. And I have never accidentally fired two shots into anyone. But that's just me.
If you don't understand it, it's because you chose not to understand it. If it is your intention to kill with a shotgun, you only need one shot.
And I have never accidentally fired two shots into anyone. But that's just me.
Are you saying you fired one shot "accidentally" into someone? Did they survive? :)
“Then why carry more than one round when going after one perp?
What are three (at least) for?”
The real question is..... what moron carries only one shell in a multiple shell shotgun?
Then why carry more than one round when going after one perp?
What are three (at least) for?
Are you for real, Ned Bob? "Shoot him, Ned. He's coming right for us!" smh
You've never even held a shotgun in your own hands have you?
At the end, the father was on the phone with 911.
However, he did not call 911 for at least 3-4 minutes of his chase. Just at the very end.
They have not yet released any phone calls between any of the parties!
LOL! Or else it's illogical to begin with.
If it is your intention to kill with a shotgun, you only need one shot.
But three were fired into Arbery. And you claim the second and third were accidents. That's what I find so idiotic.
I made no such claim at all. The first one was an accident caused by surprise, and very likely caused by Arbery in jerking the barrel forward while Travis held the gun.
The other two were intended to kill him, but because of the struggle for the gun they were not well placed until the final shot.
I was testing the logic of #221
And he hasn’t answered my question, so I assume he can’t.
You are correct. Fill the magazine (and even carry extras).
Being in Calif., if I ever had a shotgun, it is the victim of a boating accident.
See #223
You are right.
Now, about the moron, if you are a poacher, you only take one. One surprises any listeners. More than one gives away your position.
But that does not apply here.
OOPs see #230
oops see #230
I will note your post and review it with interest as this plays out. In strict read of the law (which will happen in such a high profile case), I suspect the normal operating margins you note will be disallowed. Strong case for “they didn’t see him do anything wrong, case closed” trumping “that’s how we always do it”.
“Arbery didn’t suffer from too much fear. He suffered from too little.”
good point.
that’s because you’ve never been attacked while weilding it! your argument sux
What you are missing is that Arbery recognized McMichael as Law Enforcement from his previous brushes with the law and imagined his only hope of staying out of prison was to murder both McMichaels, thus preventing anyone from being able to identify him.
That is why he didn't stop and wait for the police to question him as you or I would have done.
Do you fill your tank, or only enough for one trip?
That's funny. I actually had better things to do till now. :)
Owner retroactively gave “authority”.
You seriously believe that the owner gave retroactive authority to a corpse, and that impossibility somehow affected the legal status of something on the prior date of February 23, 2020?
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.