1911Forum banner

Well this was a bunch of bad ideas rolled into one

16K views 215 replies 61 participants last post by  BHPower 
#1 ·
#190 ·
I'm just thankful that another yahoo with a CCL wasn't walking up just at the moment the gun shots were being fired. We could have had a nice "shootout at the OK coral" between two save the day heroes. Who would have been justified in that situation? Or how about if a cop happened to be walking up on the gun shots? Theres multiple ways that this could have gotten ugly very quickly.
 
#192 · (Edited)
You know after thinking about this a bit I've changed my mind. I've decided to go out this weekend and pull over drunk drivers at gunpoint. These dirt bags are breaking the law. I might also go out and make citizens arrests (at gunpoint) for anyone I perceive to be walking into federal property with concealed guns. These damn criminals have to be stopped!!............................................SARCASM.

I think its my right!! I think its my obligation to society!!
 
#196 ·
We have no idea WHERE it went after it ht the snow.... any attempt to draw a conclusion from the available information is pure speculation
 
#197 ·
Once again I agree with what you are saying, but he is still within his rights. His biggest mistake was he fired at the wrong wheel, he should have targeted the steering wheel. "Deadly Force" should always result in death. Don't initiate it if you don't intend to carry it out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#201 ·
Legqlly "right" and ethiclly or morally "right" are two very differnent things. Nor do I believe that firing rounds at a fleeing vehicle is a "reasonable " action as required by law- just because the prosecutor chose not to pursue this issue doesn't mean that the actions necessarily falls completely withing the confines of law.


As an extreme example, in parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan, a father is well within his "rights" to kill his daughter for 'dishonnoring' the family ... does that make such an action "right" in your view....?

Lets look from a differnent direction:

Take the event, exactly as we know it to be, with the available reports and video. Transport it to a differnent jurisdiction, CA, MA, NY, or possibly an even more friendly jurisdiction, where the act of detaining another at gunpoint isn't lawful, and use of force is more strictly scrutinized...

Now the "good guy" is in jail, held without bail, charged with felony assault, perhaps attempted murder, and several lessor crimes, reckless engagement, unlawful discharge of a firearm....

Would those that support this shooter and the outcome still support him if his actions were criminal in the jurisdiction? Or would you support his prosecution? Do his "right" actions suddenly become "wrong" based soley on a line on a map...?
 
#205 ·
I don't think its diluting the discussion; its expqnding upon it, using an existing event as a baseline. Its a natural evolution of looking at and analysing the event

This discussion, if limited soley to the specific facts of this case, was dead over a month ago. All of the facts have already been discussed at length; there's nothing new...
 
#207 ·
Yep, thats it, I'm a troll- after 7 years and almost 6500 posts of substance, none of which are "+1" nonsense...

We have differnent opinions, no more, no less.
 
#212 ·
My position as it relates directly to this subject is that, despite the lack of charges, the shooters actions were NOT in complete and total compliance with applicable law. The prosecutor chose not to pursue it; we don't know why... whether his actions were legal or not is debatable at best.
"The prosecutor chose not to pursue it..." What's still debatable then, even "at best"?
 
#213 ·
Because prosecutors regularly choose not to pursue violations of law for various reasons, just as the chose to prosecute very weak cases... the decision, while a potential indicator, doesn't necessarily define reality.

If NO discussion is permitted, why even allow such threads at all? Or lock them down when, after over a month, zero new facts have come to light, if we're going to limit discussion to "just the facts"... all of the facts were discussed long ago.

Discussion forums exist for precisely that reason- to discussion and share opinions on subjects, within the scope of the forum guidlines and subject matter. If one is incapable or disinterested in exploring relevant issues to a topic or event in detail, one doesn't have to participate.

Having dffering opinions isn't a personal thing, though some seem to take great offence at having their position challenged. Its discussion of the subject at hand, no more.
 
#215 ·
Who says i don't accept the prosecutors decision...? Its his decision, right or wrong. Because I don't necessarily agree with it doesn't mean I don't accept his authority and discretion to make the decision... ultimately, an event that occurred 2000 miles away has little impact on me.

If your position is this is a closed case- and has been for 5+ weeks, should the thread be locked? There's nothing factual left to discuss...

The only reason to leave it open for the last month or more is for analysis and opinion; the facts haven't changed.

We disagree on some of the core issues of this event; thats fine- thats why forums exist. I take no offense at dissenting opinions.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top