I can't say I agree with their methods, but this cracks me up...

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: dullard
I'd have to ask the question: what would happen if the shooter was a cop? Most likely if a cop gave a warning and the beting continued, a shooting would result in a temporary suspension of duties and an internal investigation - but the cop would never be prosecuted. Why should anything change if you replace "cop" with citizen?

Of course I'd never advocate citizens to shoot others. But since it is done, I don't think the shooter deserves much punishment.

Umm .. if the cop shouts "DROP THE PIPE AND STEP AWAY" and he keeps beating the girl, the perp gets a few shots to center-mass and the cop gets a medal for saving the girl's life.

I don't think this guy will get a medal, but I doubt there's a jury in the world that will convict him.

- M4H

 

[MaxDepth]

"The information is that a girl was being violently assaulted at the time of the shooting," Schwartz said. "We really need to talk to these guys to get their side of it."

And to offer them a job, I'm thinking.

 

This is what the second amendment is all about!

 

[Viper GTS]

Just to clarify, by their "methods" they should have stayed around rather than taking off.

Viper GTS

 

[Mr N8]

Donaldson may have been run over? How could they not tell?

Anyway, props to Pontiac avangers for taking a piece of scum out of this world.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: dullard
I'd have to ask the question: what would happen if the shooter was a cop? Most likely if a cop gave a warning and the beting continued, a shooting would result in a temporary suspension of duties and an internal investigation - but the cop would never be prosecuted. Why should anything change if you replace "cop" with citizen?

Of course I'd never advocate citizens to shoot others. But since it is done, I don't think the shooter deserves much punishment.

i dunno about where you live, but in seattle, whenever an officer fires his weapon, he's automatically placed on paid leave and an investigation is made.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: jumpr
This is what the second amendment is all about!

Glad to see you only hate the fourth!

- M4H

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Just to clarify, by their "methods" they should have stayed around rather than taking off.

Viper GTS

i dunno i think they were right to leave. you never know when they'll try to pin some bs on you and say you murdered him.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Just to clarify, by their "methods" they should have stayed around rather than taking off.

Viper GTS

I agree. They should have stopped, produced firearm and ran over to the guy whilst yelling out a clear warning - "DROP THE PIPE OR I'LL BLOW YOUR HEAD OFF, M-F'er" would suffice. Either way, the assault is stopped.

But hey, this is deliberation after the fact vs. snap decision. I won't fault them for it.

- M4H

 

[PanzerIV]

I feel no pity for this a-hole. When you assault innocent people with a weapon you are subject to whatever circumstances may happen upon you which in this case was being gunned down. Had he not made the decision to inflict harm upon others, especially a defenseless 16 year old, he would be alive today.

One less piece of crap to support in the penal system.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Just to clarify, by their "methods" they should have stayed around rather than taking off.

Viper GTS

i dunno i think they were right to leave. you never know when they'll try to pin some bs on you and say you murdered him.

That, and the inevitable lawsuits to follow.

It's the damn lawsuits that make people ignore crimes in progress just as much as fear of bodily injury.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Just to clarify, by their "methods" they should have stayed around rather than taking off.

Viper GTS

i dunno i think they were right to leave. you never know when they'll try to pin some bs on you and say you murdered him.

With an eyewitness testimony from the victim, I doubt that would stick.

- M4H

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Just to clarify, by their "methods" they should have stayed around rather than taking off.

Viper GTS

I agree. They should have stopped, produced firearm and ran over to the guy whilst yelling out a clear warning - "DROP THE PIPE OR I'LL BLOW YOUR HEAD OFF, M-F'er" would suffice. Either way, the assault is stopped.

But hey, this is deliberation after the fact vs. snap decision. I won't fault them for it.

- M4H

If I was being beaten with a metal pipe (one hit in the right place can kill) I'd want you to shoot first rather than give him another chance at a swing or two.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Just to clarify, by their "methods" they should have stayed around rather than taking off.

Viper GTS

I agree. They should have stopped, produced firearm and ran over to the guy whilst yelling out a clear warning - "DROP THE PIPE OR I'LL BLOW YOUR HEAD OFF, M-F'er" would suffice. Either way, the assault is stopped.

But hey, this is deliberation after the fact vs. snap decision. I won't fault them for it.

- M4H

Hey now, I didn't say that. Shoot him, run him over, whatever it takes, but don't just haul ass outta there afterwards. This whole investigation could be completely unnecessary if they were around to say "Yup, I saw that asshole beating this chick, & I shot him. Didn't mean to run him over, but my foot slipped off the clutch while I was reloading."

Viper GTS

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Just to clarify, by their "methods" they should have stayed around rather than taking off.

Viper GTS

i dunno i think they were right to leave. you never know when they'll try to pin some bs on you and say you murdered him.

With an eyewitness testimony from the victim, I doubt that would stick.

- M4H

Unfortunately, the lawsuits probably would.

 

[Kadarin]

From the story, it sounds like the outcome is a good thing.

 

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: jumpr
This is what the second amendment is all about!

Glad to see you only hate the fourth!

- M4H

Listen: I'm normally not a Bill-of-Rights-thumper. I personally feel that people jump to the BOR without even thinking of what they actually mean. If you can show me a gun enthusiast who HONESTLY feels that we have a well-regulated militia of non-enlisted gun-enthusiasts here in the United States, then I'll take back all the things I've said about why guns are dangerous. However, I feel that actions such as the vigilante justice are some of the things we need MORE of in the U.S.

I don't think everyone should go out and shoot the first person they see committing a crime, but I think that most people forget about the 'well-regulated militia' and just focus on the second part of the amendment.

I stated in the above-linked thread that I was exiting due to the breakdown of the rational, civil discussion, and I'm standing by my point. If you want my comment, see my posts in the thread.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: jumpr
This is what the second amendment is all about!

Glad to see you only hate the fourth!

- M4H

Listen: I'm normally not a Bill-of-Rights-thumper. I personally feel that people jump to the BOR without even thinking of what they actually mean. If you can show me a gun enthusiast who HONESTLY feels that we have a well-regulated militia of non-enlisted gun-enthusiasts here in the United States, then I'll take back all the things I've said about why guns are dangerous. However, I feel that actions such as the vigilante justice are some of the things we need MORE of in the U.S.

I don't think everyone should go out and shoot the first person they see committing a crime, but I think that most people forget about the 'well-regulated militia' and just focus on the second part of the amendment.

I stated in the above-linked thread that I was exiting due to the breakdown of the rational, civil discussion, and I'm standing by my point. If you want my comment, see my posts in the thread.

The way the Second Amendment is worded, membership in a "Well Regulated Militia" is NOT a requirement to own a firearm. If it were, women and old men would have been forbidden this right. They never have. And the "regulated" in the Second Amendment means "under the rule of law." Not trained or registered, just law abiding.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: dullard
I'd have to ask the question: what would happen if the shooter was a cop? Most likely if a cop gave a warning and the beting continued, a shooting would result in a temporary suspension of duties and an internal investigation - but the cop would never be prosecuted. Why should anything change if you replace "cop" with citizen?

Of course I'd never advocate citizens to shoot others. But since it is done, I don't think the shooter deserves much punishment.

i dunno about where you live, but in seattle, whenever an officer fires his weapon, he's automatically placed on paid leave and an investigation is made.

You just repeated exactly what I said. Did you mean to quote MercenaryForHire who disagrees with both of us?

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

luckily the situation wasn't reversed....there could be many reasons that he was beating the girl.....she could have done something terrible to him and he was exacting punishment.

Thankfully it appears he deserved what he got.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: dullard
I'd have to ask the question: what would happen if the shooter was a cop? Most likely if a cop gave a warning and the beting continued, a shooting would result in a temporary suspension of duties and an internal investigation - but the cop would never be prosecuted. Why should anything change if you replace "cop" with citizen?

Of course I'd never advocate citizens to shoot others. But since it is done, I don't think the shooter deserves much punishment.

i dunno about where you live, but in seattle, whenever an officer fires his weapon, he's automatically placed on paid leave and an investigation is made.

You just repeated exactly what I said. Did you mean to quote MercenaryForHire who disagrees with both of us?

I believe he was pointing out that it was an automatic result of the weapon fired, not by the assumption of any wrongdoing on behalf of the officer.

Viper GTS

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
luckily the situation wasn't reversed....there could be many reasons that he was beating the girl.....she could have done something terrible to him and he was exacting punishment.

Thankfully it appears he deserved what he got.

There is a reason to beat a 16 year old girl with a metal pipe? Please fill us in???

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

I believe he was pointing out that it was an automatic result of the weapon fired, not by the assumption of any wrongdoing on behalf of the officer.

Correct it is automatic. Which is why I said it would likely happen - but in the end the officer wouldn't be punished.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Then, police said, the car might have driven over the man.

Might have driven over the man? How do they not know the man was driven over?

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
luckily the situation wasn't reversed....there could be many reasons that he was beating the girl.....she could have done something terrible to him and he was exacting punishment.

Thankfully it appears he deserved what he got.

There is a reason to beat a 16 year old girl with a metal pipe? Please fill us in???

Didn't say there were many or that I disagreed with the situation but consider that you don't know what she may have done. Maybe she just ran over his child with her car, or something similar. He freaks out and attacks her. Could be any unknown reason....