It works, but they just won't admit it - Page 3
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31

Thread: It works, but they just won't admit it

  1. #21
    I guess it depends on what state you're in because in SC it is the threat of any life, not just your own, that you are allowed to defend.

    I don't know, because I wasn't there, but I feel like I would have had my gun to that guys head without a thought of what might happen in the aftermath. Shoot or not, but he was gonna stop the attack.

    I'd hate to be carrying knowing that it's only my life I could defend in this situation.


  3. OMG! We agree on something. ^^^^^^
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  4. #23
    I know. I'm freaked too! :-)


  5. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Murfreesboro, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Lowjiber View Post
    I wonder how it must feel to the person writing the first article, knowing he/she is omitting facts because of personal bias. To know in your heart that you're wrong, but continue anyway must be pretty depressing when looking in a mirror.
    They are not omitting facts, merely telling a higher truth all for "THE GREATER GOOD". When they look in the mirror they are never depressed, just smugly self-satisfied.

  6. I believe this woman and man found themselves to be extremely lucky.

    I have a friend that is a police officer up there, and I think he patrol's that area doing private armed security. I'll definitely bring up this topic the next time I chat with him.

    There is nothing new about newspapers being political about their writings. The whole idea of a newspaper in the beginning of the United States was to produce weekly literature for a political party.

  7. That is dispicable

    The extent of the media's bias never ceases to amaze me.

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Santa Fe Area, New Mexico
    Gotta ask, Devils advocate thing and all. You approach the vehicle to render assistance with weapon drawn and the BG has his knife to the woman's throat. You yell for him to drop it or you'll shoot. He slits her throat, you pop a round off into his head killing him. Now you have 2 dead people. Would your D.A. / prosecutor call it a clean shoot? OR would it be argued that do to your intervention 2 people are now dead. Just asking???

    And ya all need to quit playing nice-nice. It's getting sicking.
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." --author and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

  9. #28
    If you "get off", it will depend, first, on the political orientation of the DA.

    Which will still not indemnify you from a "wrongful death" lawsuit on behalf of the person who inherited a new breathing slit, possibly because of your interference. (Maybe this is why the Police have trained hostage negotiators!)

    (AHEM!) "There is NO plausible proof that the victim of this event would have been killed if YOU, Mr. Defendant, had not stuck your nose into the incident. Therefore you are culpable, to some extent, for the tragic death..... yada yada." (... and I would not care to bet into the odds of the jury NOT buying into that line of "reasoning".)

    Put those probabilities into your "calculated action matrix" to see what develops.

    Same with the Denny's business. If no shots are thus far fired in the robbery attempt and YOU start the exchange of gunfire...... whatever happens from that point forward is, absolutely and totally, your instigation and responsibility. YOU escalated the situation, no one else. (.... and "I thought my life and limb might be in danger" isn't going to "get it". You will need plausible, tangible, admissable proof!) If you are lucky and dispatch the BGs with no other injuries/fatalities, you might get a medal from the local Government. If it goes down any other way..... well, it will be YOU looking at the short end of a sticky situation, not to mention a weak defense.

    Just sayin'.

    Is it justice? Depends. Is it "right"? Who knows. All I know is that if I ever have to use my weapons to defend myself, I am most assuredly ONLY going to do it when I can be sure of "a righteous shoot" in not only My eyes, but in the eyes of anyone who might look askance at my use of weapons with the power to, technically, end my freedom or sue me to pauperism.

    That, too, is "self defense".

    Fanatics of any sort are dangerous! -GG-
    Which part of "... shall NOT be infringed..." confuses you?
    Well now, aren't WE a pair, Raggedy Man? (Thunderdome)

  10. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Sure glad I don't have to worry about such legal "complexities".

    Course depending on the distance, I would have just shot the guy in the head without a word spoken.

  11. #30
    yep, if he had CUT her, then got shot or whatever, GUESS who she and her family are going to sue the PANTS off of?

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts