Gun Control & RKBA

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)

16. how is this different than

Tue Aug 14, 2012, 04:11 PM

Aug 2012

shooting a fleeing 14 year old in the back with a machine gun? Oh yeah the robber's parents wasn't "those kind of people"

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

71 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Burglar shot and killed while escaping ruled justifiable. [View all] GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 OP

I agree with you completely. Shooting someone at 120+ feet over belts and buckles is offensive to Hoyt Aug 2012 #1

Please document Reasonable_Argument Aug 2012 #3

Comments and posts made here by so-called law-abiding gun owners. Do you have something to Hoyt Aug 2012 #8

I've taken Reasonable_Argument Aug 2012 #17

Your esteemed instructors don't spend a lot of time going over SYG and other laws to help you decide Hoyt Aug 2012 #20

So then... Reasonable_Argument Aug 2012 #23

He's an ex-robber. Of course he doesn't feel it's ever right. X_Digger Aug 2012 #40

Having taken a class from Ayoob, ManiacJoe Aug 2012 #30

As an instructor, I can tell you know not of what you speak. SYG AND Castle Doctrine rDigital Aug 2012 #31

You're showing your usual ignorance and Lurks Often Aug 2012 #61

More unsubstantiated BS from you ProgressiveProfessor Aug 2012 #9

Sure they do, and the attendees eat it up. Look at the course descriptions and tell me they do Hoyt Aug 2012 #21

You don't know wtf you're talking about nt Reasonable_Argument Aug 2012 #22

Post removed Post removed Aug 2012 #25

Have you ever attented a class on concealed carry? spin Aug 2012 #33

My give a shit meter seems to be broken Travis_0004 Aug 2012 #29

+ abunch HALO141 Aug 2012 #53

If there was even the slightest Jenoch Aug 2012 #41

Wow, for once i agree with Hoyt... TPaine7 Aug 2012 #43

Don't you have a conflict of interest here? 4th law of robotics Aug 2012 #46

Armed robber is what he posted. Not quite the same. GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #49

I have used the terms interchangeably 4th law of robotics Aug 2012 #67

"My guess" rl6214 Aug 2012 #65

In cases of self defense, I can be skeptical. However Gman Aug 2012 #2

Shooting them in back fleeing at 30+ yards is OK with you? I guess greedy corporation, polluters, Hoyt Aug 2012 #11

how is this different than gejohnston Aug 2012 #16

Post removed Post removed Aug 2012 #18

It's my policy not to alert HALO141 Aug 2012 #24

Holy cow. Hoyt had a post hidden. I thought he was covered in more teflon than Gotti n/t shadowrider Aug 2012 #68

Huh! HALO141 Aug 2012 #69

Don't know, but the fact 2 people voted to leave it is very telling n/t shadowrider Aug 2012 #70

If you think it's OK to shoot people in the back over stuff, you've passed any liberal limits Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #26

Maybe the person couldn't "chase him down" or Missycim Aug 2012 #37

Thanks for making it clear the value you place on human life. Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #44

When you steal my stuff you are stealing more then things Missycim Aug 2012 #47

I'll take a thief over a killer, any day. Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #52

I do, thanks very much :) Missycim Aug 2012 #54

It isn't about "stuff." Kezzy604 Aug 2012 #56

I agree. Still doesn't excuse killing. Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #59

But if you kill him rrneck Aug 2012 #60

Well he was the one to gamble that Missycim Aug 2012 #62

Do you kill people who cut you off in traffic? rrneck Aug 2012 #63

+1 Sick of the GOP Aug 2012 #66

shooting someone in the back who is no threat to you gejohnston Aug 2012 #42

Right on! Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #45

Doing what you need to do to keep someone from stealing your stuff Gman Aug 2012 #48

Shooting someone in the back who is running away and presents no threat Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #50

Shoot to wound Politicalboi Aug 2012 #51

I've in Texas Gman Aug 2012 #55

exercising his 2A rights. He IS in the militia, correct? nt msongs Aug 2012 #4

The jury was wrong. No threat-No shoot. nt rrneck Aug 2012 #5

We can discuss Reasonable_Argument Aug 2012 #7

NRA backed -- and paid for -- law. Hoyt Aug 2012 #12

Look Reasonable_Argument Aug 2012 #15

Yes, it was legal. But it wasn't right. rrneck Aug 2012 #14

While it may be legal, it certainly is questionable in my opinion. ProgressiveProfessor Aug 2012 #6

Breaking that sentence down to its core, it says "Burglar ruled justifiable." slackmaster Aug 2012 #10

They said that about lynching back in the 40s/50s where I live too. Hoyt Aug 2012 #13

In the 1940s and 50s no newspaper editor would allow such garbage to be printed slackmaster Aug 2012 #19

Yeah, my grammar was rather poor with that sentence. N/T GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #35

Good post GSC. 5 in the back is murder in anyone's book Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #27

I think the DA may have been bound by the jury's decision. N/T GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #36

Nagle and Walla Walla should be embarrassed to COLGATE4 Aug 2012 #28

The moral of the story rDigital Aug 2012 #32

+1000 (n/t) spin Aug 2012 #34

I'm all for the use of deadly force to defend property. Atypical Liberal Aug 2012 #38

I would not try to read that much into this decision. ManiacJoe Aug 2012 #39

legally justifiable is not necessarily the morally right thing to do. Tuesday Afternoon Aug 2012 #57

Congratulations: You just won the thread! : ) +3 Points nt rDigital Aug 2012 #58

I agree with you here, should have just called the cops and dealt with it that way rl6214 Aug 2012 #64

The moral of the story? Don't be a criminal, it's hazardous to your health. nt rDigital Aug 2012 #71