"If there must be shooting in our streets,
it's safer to leave it to professionals."
Posted on 03/17/2002 2:28:16 PM PST by Fred Mertz
Edited on 05/07/2004 6:46:35 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
For some reason, the C-J (Courier Journal) thinks that one mistake should cost the rest of us our God given rights.
How many lives were saved in Kentucky by CCW????
Besides that, how many articles has this rag ran on people who have used a gun to prevent themselves from becoming a victim?
You're the reporters... go find out.
And be sure to let us know what you find.
(fat chance)
To the left wingers, it only takes one example to prove their point. If one teenaged girl committed suicide in 1968 because she was pregnant and abortion was illegal at the time, therefore, a few million babies should be killed in the womb. Let's turn that tactic around--if one case can be cited where a victim of an assault could have prevailed had he or she been carrying a concealed weapon, then there should be no question about it being a good thing.
It's even more doubtful that the scores of lives saved by having concealed carry laws will matter one whit to gun grabbers and their sychophants, such as the liberal rag from which this story originates.
Like the FBI? LOL!!!!
It might also have ended up with both of them dead, or both of them becoming best friends, or Mary Poppins appearing and whisking them off to Never-Never Land. We can speculate all we want about what might have happened, but the facts remain the same--some hot head reached into someone's car with the intent to do harm and got a rude welcome.
Oh, really?
What if the "innocent" guy who stopped, got out of his car and ended up being shot, had instead jerked DuPont out of his car and beat him into a coma?
Then what? Would they say he should've defended himself? Should have. Could have. Only if he would have.
And the the criminals...don't forget the criminals
It's always difficult to speculate without all the facts, but it seems to me something nasty was already going on - and Morris was the perpetrator of it. He is the one that approached DuPont - who was sitting in his car. After all, he went into the window up to his elbows.
"Driving errtically" can mean a lot of things, but most likely one guy (Morris) trying to keep the other one (DuPont) from passing. Or, maybe DuPont had already "passed" and somehow pissed off Morris, who passed him and then forced him from the road. Did Morris then get out of his car to "teach DuPont a lesson"? It sounds like it. And when he reached into DuPont's car (remember, Morris is younger, probably a much younger and stronger man) he got more than he bargained for. He probably meant to beat Dupont within an inch of his geezerie old life and DuPont didn't want to buy that beating.
It seems Morris could have avoided all this by driving on and not taking into his hands whatever bloody revenge he had in mind for whatever slight he perceived.
How many of you older men out there are anxious for a bare-handed brawl with a larger, younger, obviously violent man in the middle of the road? Morris probably got what he deserved, although for some reason the jury didn't see it that way. Morris quite likely saved his own life, if not at least his health.
I vote for Morris.
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.