Reply With Quote
Um, he told the police exactly what he did. That's why he was charged.
If they were thieves, yes. I'm happy they are dead. Better not break into my place.
However, if he did go about the shooting with unjustified revengeful intent, then he should be prosecuted. By this, if he actually did shoot to kill after they were no longer a threat.
With the media like it is today, we are likely not to know the truth unless we sit in on this case when it is in court.
Um, he told the police exactly what he did. That's why he was charged.
And the police never lie...
Like I said...
Hearsay!
i'm contradicting myself when i say what he did was harsh, acknowledging i would had shot them but not to death, but i have no sympathy for thieves and therefore don't care one way or the other if those fools were shot over and over again until the lights went out for both of them.
If you shoot. You shoot to kill. Period. At least three shots center mass. You do that, because today, some coke crazed maniac may have a weapon, and still feel no pain and kill you if you don't at least disable them.
Wild Conjecture is at it again.
The ! makes it look less stupid.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 11-28-2012 at 04:48 AM.
I'll be the first to defend castle doctrine but this guy is toast. No matter the cir stances you don't go for a "nice clean kill shot" when the unarmed intruder is down and shot multiple times and gasping for breath.
Tell us how you really feel Javert!
Yep Hearsay!
The police hear what he say
lol...
you have amazing powers.
You can actually shoot someone - and then magically and/or telepathically WILL that bullet to steer clear of all major organs and only wound the victim!
Amazing!
you're reaching man, in every in' thread.
not like i'm a master in guns or shooting or anything but that statement you pointed out... with lack of better wording, i should've said i wouldn't had continued on like that dude did and give that girl a clean kill shot under the chin.
btw, you pig! hopefully one of the s prisoners you deal with gets a hold of your ass one of these days.
lol...ok!
Agreed. You always shoot to kill, but the guy ed up by a) not calling the police IMMEDIATELY and b) moving the bodies. Those two factors alone make the charges against him warranted.
underappreciated post
#FREEBYRONSMITH
this is what's wrong with many gun toters. They think they have to shoot to kill. When in reality, if they would take some Threat Neutralization target classes, they could learn to use a gun to stop the threat with non-deadly shots. In this case, if they were coming down the stairs, he was in perfect position to shoot them both in the leg area and thus NEUTRALIZE the threat. This would have given him the option, nay...luxury, of then deciding to either 1) call the cops or 2) shoot them again with deadly force.
You're still making this re ed argument?
you're a dumbass
in A!
You get enough of this training and you can actually control the bullets trajectory and do a lot of minimal damage. For example, if you really practice- you can actually just graze the heart and sometimes- if you take this training class three or four times--you can actually time it so that the bullet grazes the heart between heartbeats!
This head is whacked. (unless you were making fun of CTOA)
Personally I wouldn't kill an intruder unless he was firing at me. I would however try to shoot out his knee caps. Or graze his carotid arteries in between pulses.
Why would you NOT want to shoot to kill intruders or criminals? Why the would you want them to live? So our tax dollars can pay for them to live in prison. Shooting to kill is the whole point. ing pussified world we live in.
some of yall are ing re ed. like seriously
i think you've been watching too many ty movies lately
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
