These cases raise the issue of whether armed citizens have the legal — and moral — right to fight back...[More]Perhaps in your diseased minds, Nancy A. Fischer and Gene Warner.
Those of us who aren't amoral, deluded and just plain pussies do not share in your self-imposed disabilities/rationalization for personal prejudice, ignorance and cowardice, and don't equate possible questionable judgment in some DGUs to be a moral indictment against them all.
That's the issue people should be raising when they read your blathering paean for helplessness.
Reworded: What the hell is wrong with you two?
[Via Cemetery's Gun Blob]
9 comments:
The problem here is the homeowner who was arrested actually hit the target 14 out of 15 times. If it had been only ones doing the shooting they likely would have shot hundreds of holes in everything but the target.
No wonder he got arrested.
Self defense is a God-given right, and defending the weak is a Biblical concept. Of course these atheistic morons hate ideas like that. I would expect no less of such morally bankrupt troublemakers.
I would love an opportunity to be in the position to give these two, the choice of whether or not to morally or legally resist my intentions.
let's see, these cretins had already burglarized him once, then returned. The cops had been advised after the first burglary who the likely suspects were. Yet the burglars returned. Were free to return and still committing crimes.
He grabs one, the other tries to flee. Why the Hell would he not shoot? It appears to me to be incumbent on him to discourage a third attempt, which 14 gunshots in your vehicle is apt to do. Further, by doing so, he just may have saved lives from future extinguishing by these two who should by now be discouraged. Not as good an outcome as them being removed from society, but it appears society's keepers (cops) were loath to do that until someone did their job for them.
Give the man a civic citation for doing good work and leave him alone.
Of course, this is Yankee country of the yellow underwear, so that isn't likely to happen.
In any defensive shooting, I give the benefit of the doubt to the person who is NOT on someone elses property and who isn't known as an aggressor or a thief. The "law" should have the courage to do the same.
Should Mr. Cherry be charged he needs to sue the police immediately for failure to due their duty. As stated in the report the police knew who the druggie burglars were and that they would likely return. As the police they have a duty to arrest these known criminals. To charge Mr. Cherry for trying to do their job is criminal and just how a liberal politician acts and thinks. It is a common rule of law to stop a fleeing criminal if you have reason to think that they pose a continued risk to you and the public. It is believed by Mr. Cherry that they had a stolen gun and that they would continue to do this until stopped. It would be reasonable to assume that in their drug desperate state that they may shoot someone if confronted in a home. Add to this that he shot to stop the car not to kill. No Bill this guy. Oh wait, this is New York state. Sorry Mr. Cherry, your going to fry there.
And, of course, if an Only One fired at a car and killed people, he or she wouldn't be charged with a crime.
No matter what transpired before the shooting.
Some animals are more equal than others...
The best quote of the article: "If his attorney can prove that he was in imminent fear of this guy using deadly force against him, then he will be justified".
What happened to the presumption of innocence and the state compelled to prove guilt?
Oh wait, that may only apply to the presumed burglars, not the homeowner.
kenlowder: Not happening. IIRC, this was one of the levers of the recent Heller case; the courts ruled in a separate (but related) case that the police have no obligation to protect you as a person -- merely to 'serve the public trust as a whole'.
Yeah, the logic escapes me too.
Post a Comment