Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
randall146

USA Shootings

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, msommer said:

Well, it seems like you haven't since you say you are still against abortion

I think you missed something- I did say I was not pro abortion, but I don’t think it should be legislated. It’s a personal decision made for whatever reasons they are made. I’m not for it, but I shouldnt have any say unless I’m involved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, pinkham13 said:

Thanks for being open minded. Apparently there were rifle clubs in high schools. We didn’t have mass school shootings back then. But people are drugged up and crazy these days.

https://observer.com/2016/03/must-pack-heat-the-case-for-mandating-gun-ownership/

 

11 hours ago, pinkham13 said:

Yup. Drugs are more of a problem than guns to me. Take away the business and clamp down on prescription drugs. Everybody seems to be on something one way or another.

 

11 hours ago, pinkham13 said:

Exactly. Guns were a respected part of culture then. Now it’s a gang glam rap video or Scarface or video game. 

I've posted several stats/links that say the majority of mass shootings have nothing to do with any of this stuff that you are mentioning here.  

Edited by KarmaPolice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Snorkelson said:

Well the data supports the idea. Im trying to provoke thought, seems I’m only provoking you. 

It is an interesting idea, and IMO one that people like SC need to try to reconcile in their head who are putting the goalposts to stopping all violence but are very much against abortion being an option.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, timschochet said:

We would have gotten background checks if it wasn’t for this stupid impeachment. 

No.   McConnel wasn’t bringing it to s vote.  You’re so gullible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎29‎/‎2019 at 8:36 AM, pinkham13 said:

Thanks for being open minded. Apparently there were rifle clubs in high schools. We didn’t have mass school shootings back then. But people are drugged up and crazy these days.

https://observer.com/2016/03/must-pack-heat-the-case-for-mandating-gun-ownership/

I grew up in rural Wisconsin.  We could hunt and trap right out of our back door.  On land we owned we were unrestricted, by age, from hunting with or without adults, but we nevertheless had adult supervision.  In Junior High they offered a course over the Winter break which we called Christmas break. It was a hunters safety course.  Upon obtaining a certificate one could hunt public lands at 14 without supervision.  I got the certificate.  I did not hunt public lands without supervision until I was 16, my Dad's rule, not the States.  My Junior High had a rifle team.  My Senior High did not.  My Junior High required us to take industrial arts, wood shop, metal working, and electrical training.  One of the approved or pre-approved wood shop projects was a gun rack for your pick up, which you were sort of presumed to be getting some day.  In High School, during hunting season, it was common to see pick ups parked in the student lot with guns in the gun racks. We never had an adverse incident.

Those times are gone now.  That same community is now suburban.  No rifle teams anymore.  No gun racks in student parking with guns.  I do not know whether hunters safety is still taught.  I imagine so, but I do not know.  Sometimes the past has to be left there, in the past.  I do note that those parents who passed down a hunting culture to us in those distant times were very involved in their kids lives and activities.  More so than I generally see in this day and age.  I think kids then were more socialized, by parents, extended families, but having multiple siblings they learned conflict and conflict resolution through, by playing unsupervised sports and learning to ref themselves, including the ultimate compromise, the "do over".  Kids today, coming from smaller families and having less direct interaction with family and peers and more on line interaction seem to me to have less coping mechanisms at the same age.  They are more isolated and subject to living in their heads than even were we, who lived in ours.  They ruminate, unguided by adults, and that allows them to travel some dark and lonely paths. 

Do they still have the Big Brothers/Big Sisters Program, or is that old fashioned?

 

 

 

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2019 at 9:41 AM, pinkham13 said:

Exactly. Guns were a respected part of culture then. Now it’s a gang glam rap video or Scarface or video game. 

guns haven't changed

people have

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, timschochet said:

We would have gotten background checks if it wasn’t for this stupid impeachment. 

we have background checks

didn't you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2019 at 9:54 AM, Snorkelson said:

I, and most gun control advocates on this board, are not arguing for a ban.

yes Democrats want bans - at least BETO was honest - did you read what he said ?

https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/beto-says-constitution-not-protect-gun-owners-confiscation

 

Quote

I’ve met those who survived and those who lost a family member. That belongs on the battlefield and now in this country.  When it comes to those weapons, the answer is yes. When it comes to firearms used for hunting and self-defense, the answer is no. I don’t want you or anyone else to get into the fear mongering that some have fallen prey to saying the government is going to come and take all of your guns. What we are talking about exclusively is weapons of war that should remain on the battlefield.

ok that sound like tanks, bazookas, fully auto rifles, landmines etc, right ?

but then Beto shows huw stupid he and the anti-gunners are by saying this ..

Quote

the high-impact, high-velocity round fired from those weapons when it hits your body expends all of kinetic energy destroying everything inside.

I have a 1970 Remington semi-auto, .243 .... shoots a 89 gr bullet high speeds and if it hits solid bone will explode on impact .............. BTW dispersing KE is exactly what some ammo is designed to do - its called stopping power. Others are designed to pass through. 

that "high impact, high-velocity" "kinetic energy" as fear words ..... and if passed laws with that wording happened? would ban almost every semi-auto rifle in the USA

 

Beto knows it - democrats know it, anti-gunners know it ........... they just almost all lie about their true goal which is gun bans, ignore the violence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, McJose said:

Study says “stand your ground” laws actually lead to more homicides

https://www.vox.com/2019/9/27/20887403/stand-your-ground-laws-homicides-crime-self-defense

"guns killed nearly 39,000 Americans in 2016"

no, guns didn't kill anyone. People killed themselves and people killed other people. words matter

also

"Still, the RAND researchers are very cautious"

 

nice anti-gun piece . ..... but not a valid source so much is it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, -fish- said:

As you’ve been shown multiple times, it is far more likely that a gun owner will be injured or killed than ever use their gun in self defense.  Your anecdotes are meaningless.

This particular post is just gibberish.  Nonsensical even for you.  Cars!  Inanimate objects!  

Fallacies and lies.  Every time.

that's not a known fact - you don't know how many unreported incidents of using guns to stop crime exists. You are guessing to support your views. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Those times are gone now.  That same community is now suburban.  No rifle teams anymore.  No gun racks in student parking with guns.  I do not know whether hunters safety is still taught.  I imagine so, but I do not know.  Sometimes the past has to be left there, in the past.  I do note that those parents who passed down a hunting culture to us in those distant times were very involved in their kids lives and activities.  More so than I generally see in this day and age.  I think kids then were more socialized, by parents, extended families, but having multiple siblings they learned conflict and conflict resolution through, by playing unsupervised sports and learning to ref themselves, including the ultimate compromise, the "do over".  Kids today, coming from smaller families and having less direct interaction with family and peers and more on line interaction seem to me to have less coping mechanisms at the same age.  They are more isolated and subject to living in their heads than even were we, who lived in ours.  They ruminate, unguided by adults, and that allows them to travel some dark and lonely paths. 

people changed

exactly right - and we can fix that too .... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, -fish- said:

Home defense.   Except more likely murder. 

so the victim of a crime is now the criminal? 

you have an interesting view of things .... where was the personal responsibility of the criminal? what about his choices?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

so the victim of a crime is now the criminal? 

you have an interesting view of things .... where was the personal responsibility of the criminal? what about his choices?

One does not shoot into the dark at a fleeing person.  Once the danger has abated there is no right to fire.  he is, by his own admission (If one can believe a press report) a criminal.  He had no right to fire, he discharged recklessly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

One does not shoot into the dark at a fleeing person.  Once the danger has abated there is no right to fire.  he is, by his own admission (If one can believe a press report) a criminal.  He had no right to fire, he discharged recklessly.

we don't know all the story - was the first shot the one that mattered? second shot was in the air right ?

you are again missing the other thing ... the criminal and the intent there and the responsibility of going onto someone elses property, robbing with intent to do who knows what?  when you do that, expect to be shot right ? or do you want everyone to have open doors and invitations for robbery/violence ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

we don't know all the story - was the first shot the one that mattered? second shot was in the air right ?

you are again missing the other thing ... the criminal and the intent there and the responsibility of going onto someone elses property, robbing with intent to do who knows what?  when you do that, expect to be shot right ? or do you want everyone to have open doors and invitations for robbery/violence ? 

Sorry, not going to play your game.  Second shot was reckless whether or not it hit the fleeing criminal.  We don't execute for property crimes.  We do allow deadly force when life or limb are threatened.  Maybe if the criminal was advancing upon him after he verbally confronted him , the criminal, from a distance, as the homeowner claims that shot was justified, but the shot into the dark at someone fleeing, nope, reckless and that makes him too, the homeowner, a criminal. You do not shoot into the dark, unsure of your target or of bystanders.

As for expecting responsible use of deadly force that is not the same as saying we have an open door policy to robbers and home invaders, not remotely.  The citizen turned criminal had the right to make a citizen's arrest, an arrest using force commensurate with the situation which did not include recklessly risking an execution for what was, at that time, nothing more than a trespass.  Deadly force there would not have been remotely authorized for law enforcement and it certainly was not for the homeowner as to someone then well off of his property and fleeing.

Weeks ago I promised I would not engage you because , well, whatever points you have, points I myself have sometimes made, at least as to some of them, are destroyed by your taking matters beyond the pale of reason or law.  I am going to go back to that stance.  My time is best spent on others.

 

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Sorry, not going to play your game.  Second shot was reckless whether or not it hit the fleeing criminal.  We don't execute for property crimes.  We do allow deadly force when life or limb are threatened.  Maybe if the criminal was advancing upon him after he verbally confronted him , the criminal, from a distance, as the homeowner claims that shot was justified, but the shot into the dark at someone fleeing, nope, reckless and that makes him too, the homeowner, a criminal. You do not shoot into the dark, unsure of your target or of bystanders.

As for expecting responsible use of deadly force that is not the same as saying we have an open door policy to robbers and home invaders, not remotely.  The citizen turned criminal had the right to make a citizen's arrest, an arrest using force commensurate with the situation which did not include recklessly risking an execution for what was, at that time, nothing more than a trespass.  Deadly force there would not have been remotely authorized for law enforcement and it certainly was not for the homeowner as to someone then well off of his property and fleeing.

Weeks ago I promised I would not engage you because , well, whatever points you have, points I myself have sometimes made, at least as to some of them, are destroyed by your taking matters beyond the pale of reason or law.  I am going to go back to that stance.  My time is best spent on others.

 

the criminal's intent absolutely makes a difference - this was posted as a suggestion that the victim of a crime had become a murderer - I don't know how the courts will see it, what evidence is around etc etc, neither do you

that criminal though, he chose to be a criminal. he knew taking that chance he did he'd confront someone with a gun maybe ... maybe even be shot and killed. He gambled, he lost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

so the victim of a crime is now the criminal? 

you have an interesting view of things .... where was the personal responsibility of the criminal? what about his choices?

There is a reason that the shooter is being charged with murder.   If you can’t understand that, you shouldn’t be allowed to own a deadly weapon.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, -fish- said:

There is a reason that the shooter is being charged with murder.   If you can’t understand that, you shouldn’t be allowed to own a deadly weapon.   

As is usual he will not get off of his talking points to acknowledge he is wrong.  He knows you don't get to discharge your weapon into the night when there is no reason therefore, so he wants to concentrate on the original perpetrator and forget that the homeowner did something stupid and reckless.  Bad luck he hit the perpetrator, or maybe he did so earlier and he bleed out in the park, but if the blood trail started close to the shooter, in a zone of danger, well I don't imagine there being charges.  Good luck to the Homeowner that he did not hit some kid in the park or open space there making out with  the Mayor's daughter.  This gun owner was wrong, criminally wrong, and Stealthy damn well knows it but he tries to sell his claptrap anyhow.  He weakens all his points with this crap.  He is the last person anyone would want defending gun owners or the second amendment, unless one wanted to ridicule that side.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

As is usual he will not get off of his talking points to acknowledge he is wrong.  He knows you don't get to discharge your weapon into the night when there is no reason therefore, so he wants to concentrate on the original perpetrator and forget that the homeowner did something stupid and reckless.  Bad luck he hit the perpetrator, or maybe he did so earlier and he bleed out in the park, but if the blood trail started close to the shooter, in a zone of danger, well I don't imagine there being charges.  Good luck to the Homeowner that he did not hit some kid in the park or open space there making out with  the Mayor's daughter.  This gun owner was wrong, criminally wrong, and Stealthy damn well knows it but he tries to sell his claptrap anyhow.  He weakens all his points with this crap.  He is the last person anyone would want defending gun owners or the second amendment, unless one wanted to ridicule that side.

if he's convicted of murder then yes, he did wrong based on evidence

if he's not convicted, will you admit you are wrong in passing judgement with knowing only 1 article of information ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

if he's convicted of murder then yes, he did wrong based on evidence

if he's not convicted, will you admit you are wrong in passing judgement with knowing only 1 article of information ?

What if he's not convicted and they the family sues him for wrongful death and wins?  

It should be a no-brainer to understand that you can't shoot at someone that is no danger to you, and you definitely don't shoot blindly into the night.   But you're so desperate to argue that guns are always good that you can't admit that they are misused, and when they're misused people die.   There are plenty of reasonable gun owners in the world.  DW is one.  Henry is one.   My next door neighbor is one.   You aren't.   And you make other gun owners look bad.

Edited by -fish-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, -fish- said:

What if he's not convicted and they the family sues him for wrongful death and wins?  

It should be a no-brainer to understand that you can't shoot at someone that is no danger to you, and you definitely don't shoot blindly into the night.   But you're so desperate to argue that guns are always good that you can't admit that they are misused, and when they're misused people die.   There are plenty of reasonable gun owners in the world.  DW is one.  Henry is one.   My next door neighbor is one.   You aren't.   And you make other gun owners look bad.

then he's like OJ Simpson 

you can't say the homeowner wasn't in danger - the guy had a pick axe right?  stepped towards the homeowner who was elderly and likely not able to physically fight. what did the thug say the homeowner victim ? 

I don't know - you don't know .... the courts will figure it out though

had he not had a gun and shot, he might also have been pick axed to death - a victim of violence. That's ok with you I guess? why? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

yes Democrats want bans - at least BETO was honest - did you read what he said ?

https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/beto-says-constitution-not-protect-gun-owners-confiscation

 

ok that sound like tanks, bazookas, fully auto rifles, landmines etc, right ?

but then Beto shows huw stupid he and the anti-gunners are by saying this ..

I have a 1970 Remington semi-auto, .243 .... shoots a 89 gr bullet high speeds and if it hits solid bone will explode on impact .............. BTW dispersing KE is exactly what some ammo is designed to do - its called stopping power. Others are designed to pass through. 

that "high impact, high-velocity" "kinetic energy" as fear words ..... and if passed laws with that wording happened? would ban almost every semi-auto rifle in the USA

 

Beto knows it - democrats know it, anti-gunners know it ........... they just almost all lie about their true goal which is gun bans, ignore the violence

What does him expressing his opinion on it and saying he's not advocating a ban have anything to do with Beto and "anti-gunners"?  You seem to be obsessed with Beto 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

then he's like OJ Simpson 

you can't say the homeowner wasn't in danger - the guy had a pick axe right?  stepped towards the homeowner who was elderly and likely not able to physically fight. what did the thug say the homeowner victim ? 

I don't know - you don't know .... the courts will figure it out though

had he not had a gun and shot, he might also have been pick axed to death - a victim of violence. That's ok with you I guess? why? 

he's being charged with murder because he was in no imminent danger and killed someone.   I get that you don't understand how laws work, but if you're advocating that gun owners should be able to kill people at will without any threat of danger you're deranged.   At this point you're defending an accused murderer because you're so desperate to always be on the side of more gun use.

if all gun owners were like you, I'd be in favor of eliminating all guns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, -fish- said:

he's being charged with murder because he was in no imminent danger and killed someone.   I get that you don't understand how laws work, but if you're advocating that gun owners should be able to kill people at will without any threat of danger you're deranged.   At this point you're defending an accused murderer because you're so desperate to always be on the side of more gun use.

if all gun owners were like you, I'd be in favor of eliminating all guns. 

Remember way back the article that he posted about the 2 dudes who fought, separated, fought, separated, then one got a gun and shot the other?  You are talking to a guy that posted that as an example of self defense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

then he's like OJ Simpson 

you can't say the homeowner wasn't in danger - the guy had a pick axe right?  stepped towards the homeowner who was elderly and likely not able to physically fight. what did the thug say the homeowner victim ? 

I don't know - you don't know .... the courts will figure it out though

had he not had a gun and shot, he might also have been pick axed to death - a victim of violence. That's ok with you I guess? why? 

As the burglar dropped his pickax and ran toward a nearby park, Meyer fired another shot "into the night" in the direction of the park.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

What does him expressing his opinion on it and saying he's not advocating a ban have anything to do with Beto and "anti-gunners"?  You seem to be obsessed with Beto 

he's honest - well, he's also a liar but honest in what his goals are right now - its refreshing, and the Democrats at his rallies roar with applause :(
 

he's the face of this honest new movement for Govt bans and confiscations - you'll it more and more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

As the burglar dropped his pickax and ran toward a nearby park, Meyer fired another shot "into the night" in the direction of the park.

 

after the first shot ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Remember way back the article that he posted about the 2 dudes who fought, separated, fought, separated, then one got a gun and shot the other?  You are talking to a guy that posted that as an example of self defense. 

I'm pretty sure I didn't - look that one up please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

I'm pretty sure I didn't - look that one up please.

yeah, you did.  because half the time you don't even read the garbage fox news stories you post.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

after the first shot ?

Yeah, we are talking about the 2nd shot into the dark after the person dropped the weapon and ran as being the problem.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -fish- said:

What if he's not convicted and they the family sues him for wrongful death and wins?  

It should be a no-brainer to understand that you can't shoot at someone that is no danger to you, and you definitely don't shoot blindly into the night.   But you're so desperate to argue that guns are always good that you can't admit that they are misused, and when they're misused people die.   There are plenty of reasonable gun owners in the world.  DW is one.  Henry is one.   My next door neighbor is one.   You aren't.   And you make other gun owners look bad.

Nice.  Stealthy gets a win, by his definition now that the has moved the goal post and he has ignored that I initially ceded that this was all on a press report and nothing more so we were presuming for arguments sake the facts but not arguing that those facts were established even if the homeowner is only convicted of reckless endangerment, unlawful discharge, and manslaughter because he will not have been found guilty of murder. Even if after three criminal convictions he is also found civilly liable.  and of course I never argued it was murder, just criminal.  Good job by him again of ignoring, obfuscating, and moving the goal posts rather than simply ceding that one does not shoot into the night at unknown targets when a trespasser is fleeing.  I am just glad he is not teaching any use of force classes to gun owners or firearms safety to youngsters. The instance presumed in the story is an example of what not to do, yet he defends it.  Had the homeowner stopped after the first shot he would have a point, but the homeowner, by allegedly, his own admission did not stop there.  I guess neither the homeowner nor Stealthy are capable of holding their wad when required.  They just go off spraying into the night and on this forum.

 

We need a wet clean up in aisle 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Yeah, we are talking about the 2nd shot into the dark after the person dropped the weapon and ran as being the problem.  

As I said, he is not worthy of direct engagement since he violates all of the rules of rational discourse.  I will indirectly mock him from time to time as time allows, but engagement, nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Nice.  Stealthy gets a win, by his definition now that the has moved the goal post and he has ignored that I initially ceded that this was all on a press report and nothing more so we were presuming for arguments sake the facts but not arguing that those facts were established even if the homeowner is only convicted of reckless endangerment, unlawful discharge, and manslaughter because he will not have been found guilty of murder. Even if after three criminal convictions he is also found civilly liable.  and of course I never argued it was murder, just criminal.  Good job by him again of ignoring, obfuscating, and moving the goal posts rather than simply ceding that one does not shoot into the night at unknown targets when a trespasser is fleeing.  I am just glad he is not teaching any use of force classes to gun owners or firearms safety to youngsters. The instance presumed in the story is an example of what not to do, yet he defends it.  Had the homeowner stopped after the first shot he would have a point, but the homeowner, by allegedly, his own admission did not stop there.  I guess neither the homeowner nor Stealthy are capable of holding their wad when required.  They just go off spraying into the night and on this forum.

 

We need a wet clean up in aisle 4.

did you not read the article ?

it reads that he said don't come closer, the guy with the pick axe did, he shot him, then as he ran off shot another blast into the air. That's the story as it reads ... he didn't shoot the man running away per the story. yes, shooting into the air is careless. if he shot the guy in the back, then I'm thinking its murder, I'd be inclined to say that yes. Facts will come out in the courts of law

 

 

Meyer told police he saw someone trying to break into his storage shed around 5 a.m. after hearing a noise outside. He then grabbed his gun, went out and yelled that he'd shoot if the person came closer, according to the affidavit. 

The person took several steps toward him, Meyer told investigators, so he fired. As the burglar dropped his pickax and ran toward a nearby park, Meyer fired another shot "into the night" in the direction of the park. Investigators wrote the suspected burglar posed no threat of serious bodily injury once he ran off, based on Meyer's account. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

Yeah, we are talking about the 2nd shot into the dark after the person dropped the weapon and ran as being the problem.  

if he hit anyone with that shot yes, that's a problem

and very well might be why they arrested him, the guy has buckshot all in his back

or not 

 

we don't know other than what the article says

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

if he hit anyone with that shot yes, that's a problem

and very well might be why they arrested him, the guy has buckshot all in his back

or not 

 

we don't know other than what the article says

It's a problem that he decided to fire at him as he was running, regardless if he hit somebody. 

Sorry, it stops being self defense after the person drops their weapon and runs.  0 reason for that 2nd shot.  

Edited by KarmaPolice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

It's a problem that he decided to fire at him as he was running, regardless if he hit somebody. 

Sorry, it stops being self defense after the person drops their weapon and runs.  0 reason for that 2nd shot.  

you don't know that  he "fired at him" ,,, the article said he shot into the air

right?   now you can assume that, but all we know is what the article says, right ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2019 at 1:05 PM, Stealthycat said:

A man acted in self-defense when he fatally shot another man at a northwest Atlanta park Saturday night, police said.

 

I don't know what would have happened  ..... what we DO know is that police determined it was in self defense.

 

On 1/2/2019 at 10:56 AM, Stealthycat said:

OK, I will admit that on a quick scan SC himself didn't state that it was self defense.   Just decided to post it in a back and forth about good guys with guns/the positives of having a gun, and didn't seem to argue against it being self defense.   So IMO either saying that was a proper use of a gun, or just throwing a bunch of links up without reading them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KarmaPolice said:

 

OK, I will admit that on a quick scan SC himself didn't state that it was self defense.   Just decided to post it in a back and forth about good guys with guns/the positives of having a gun, and didn't seem to argue against it being self defense.   So IMO either saying that was a proper use of a gun, or just throwing a bunch of links up without reading them.  

which would you like to talk about ? is one of the above NOT self defense ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

 

OK, I will admit that on a quick scan SC himself didn't state that it was self defense.   Just decided to post it in a back and forth about good guys with guns/the positives of having a gun, and didn't seem to argue against it being self defense.   So IMO either saying that was a proper use of a gun, or just throwing a bunch of links up without reading them.  

And...

”well the article doesn’t tell us everything, right?”

vs

”here are a bunch or articles that back up my point.  Take them as gospel”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

which would you like to talk about ? is one of the above NOT self defense ?

 

I highlighted the wrong one, it was the 3rd one I was referring to - where it said:

 

A preliminary investigation into the shooting indicates Bell got into an argument and physical fight with another man inside the park, Chafee said. They separated, but they were involved in another confrontation a short time later.

At some point, police said, “one of the males produced a firearm and shot the other.”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

you don't know that  he "fired at him" ,,, the article said he shot into the air

right?   now you can assume that, but all we know is what the article says, right ?

well, there's the part where he got charged with murder.  not investigated, not held, charged.   but hey, guns!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

I highlighted the wrong one, it was the 3rd one I was referring to - where it said:

 

A preliminary investigation into the shooting indicates Bell got into an argument and physical fight with another man inside the park, Chafee said. They separated, but they were involved in another confrontation a short time later.

At some point, police said, “one of the males produced a firearm and shot the other.”

 

 

ok are you saying you know more than the police? if they deemed it self defense, I can't argue with that without knowing far more than I do

Based on the investigation, police are treating the shooting as self-defense and have not made any arrests, police spokeswoman Lisa Bender said Wednesday in a statement. 

 

about the only shooting I can think of I highly disagree with the result of , was the Tulsa lady cop shooting that man that one night, She got off best I remember :( 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

ok are you saying you know more than the police? if they deemed it self defense, I can't argue with that without knowing far more than I do

Based on the investigation, police are treating the shooting as self-defense and have not made any arrests, police spokeswoman Lisa Bender said Wednesday in a statement. 

 

about the only shooting I can think of I highly disagree with the result of , was the Tulsa lady cop shooting that man that one night, She got off best I remember :( 

 

 

Fair, so you admit the example of the dude firing at the fleeing criminal is murder then since we don't know more than the police do and he was charged with murder.  

Edited by KarmaPolice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If not a gun he'd have just as easily killed the guy with a hacky sack.

Edited by Apple Jack
  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.