Bullets come from guns not missiles. From Wikipedia: (In common military parlance, the word missile describes a powered, guided munition, whilst the word rocket describes a powered, unguided munition. Unpowered, guided munitions are known as guided bombs. A common further sub-division is to consider ballistic missile to mean a munition that follows a ballistic trajectory and cruise missile to describe a munition that generates lift.)
Although I would expect the liberal gun hating media to demonize everyone that uses a gun to defend themselves and furthermore project that any person that would use a gun is a right-wing teaparty gun toting wacko. I'm surprised that they did not try to link him to a militia group. I just object to the word missile in the article. It paints a picture of this guy pulling out an RPG and trying to blow away the truck. The article said that both of the drivers would face charges. James Bringham the truck driver is charged with attempted second degree murder and Gabriel Poventud is charged with attempted murder so clearly both drivers are at fault and both handled the situation poorly. He did escalate things by pulling up to the truck and pointing his gun at the driver. That was a stupid thing to do.
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
...Jesus Christ and the American G.I.
One died for your sins; the other for your freedom.
| |  |
The word missile is not being used as a military term. It's being used as a dictionary word in the law which is far older than any military missile you're thinking of.Originally Posted by BigSlick
From Merriam Webster:
Main Entry: 1mis·sile
Pronunciation: \ˈmi-səl, chiefly British -ˌsīl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin missilis, from mittere to throw, send
Date: 1611
1 : capable of being thrown or projected to strike a distant object
2 : adapted for throwing or hurling missiles
Is there a way to look up CC permit on these guys That wouold be very interesting to know
The way I read the article the driver of the Jag was attacked with a deadly weapon and responded appropriately. Now the police are not going to agree with that but he was hit twice and run into the wall by the truck before he fired.
In Az you always hear the "don't get mad" stuff but every time a cop is hit, even totally accidentally, they charge the other driver with assault with a deadly weapon. I find that ironic.
But if he fired at the truck from the rear then the immediate threat to his life was over and he should have deesacalated. he's in big trouble and should be.
the guy in the truck says jag driver pulled a gun first,then the truck driver used the truck to defend himself
If I understand this correctly, the shooter fired at the rear of the truck. If so the truck was not facing him. The deadly threat was mitigated by the trucks position unless he started to back up. In that situation, deescalation was the proper call.
But who really knows what happened?
Either way both of these 2 morons are in deep doo doo, as they should be.
I don't know if I believe too much in the article. The police really need some independent witnesses.
If the Jag driver was shooting at the cab of the truck, even from behind he may have been right if he thought the truck driver was going to try to drag him along the wall.
I don't think I believe the dump truck driver's story to his father.
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
