Drunk teenager shoots at someone who could shoot back...and was a good shot...big mistake...

[2aguy]

Yes....this teenager learned a lesson...that is if he survives...perhaps if he survives he will get to rehab and turn his life around......until then....good shooting...

PA Concealed Carrier Defends Self Against Armed Thug Hits All His Marks Concealed Nation


PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA — An intoxicated 19 year old allegedly told a concealed carrier to get off his block before opening fire.

According to Philly.com, Officer Christine O’Brien confirmed that the concealed carrier responded with deadly force. While the 19 year old fled the scene, he later wound up at Temple University Hospital in critical condition. Apparently, the concealed carrier had decent aim – the 19 year old assailant had gunshots in his arms, abdomen and his neck.

When that kid wakes up, Philadelphia Police expect to charge him with aggravated assault amongst other charges. While they recovered the 25-year-old man’s gun, they haven’t been able to locate the 19-year-old’s.

The investigation is ongoing, and all signs point to the concealed carrier not being charged with any crimes.

 

[2aguy]

For you brain...a link from local news...

Armed man is wounded in shootout

Notice...the kid didn't die...yet....another self defense shooting without killing the attacker, yet.....

any thoughts on wether this kid is involved in gangs or crime?

 

[EatMorChikin]

With any luck he wont wake up, it will go from a good job to a fantastic job.

 

[Wake]

With any luck he wont wake up, it will go from a good job to a fantastic job.

And posts like these are what those on the Right call an embarrassment.

And it's not just the posts. You're an embarrassment, too.

Maybe you should keep your foul thoughts to yourself, before you get banned.

 

[EatMorChikin]

With any luck he wont wake up, it will go from a good job to a fantastic job.

And posts like these are what those on the Right call an embarrassment.

And it's not just the posts. You're an embarrassment, too.

Maybe you should keep your foul thoughts to yourself, before you get banned.

I have a right to express any thoughts I want. And pieces of shit like the kid in this story, have no right to live. And guess what? I don't give a fuck what you think!

You wanna show support for some puke, that shot at another human, simply because he was walking. Send the prick some flowers or something, but kindly fuck off.

And for the record, I would have calmly placed a simple tri pattern in his chest, he wouldn't be in a hospital. Pretty easy with a red dot!

I fucking hope he dies!

 

[Wake]

With any luck he wont wake up, it will go from a good job to a fantastic job.

And posts like these are what those on the Right call an embarrassment.

And it's not just the posts. You're an embarrassment, too.

Maybe you should keep your foul thoughts to yourself, before you get banned.

I have a right to express any thoughts I want. And pieces of shit like the kid in this story, have no right to live. And guess what? I don't give a fuck what you think!

And I have a right to point out just how low-blow, just how despicable, and just how immature your posts really are.

What were you thinking? Do you really think you're helping your cause by showing some sick, giddy delight in the possible death of someone else? All you're doing is alienating yourself from other people who agree with you on the gun issue. They don't want a hateful freak like you running his mouth hoping for someone to die, and calling it a good day. People like you are more often found in a mental facility. It's sick, it's toxic, and you're doing nothing but making people on your own side hate you.

But by all means oh wise one, continue on, and you'll see just what happens when you eventually cross that line and wind up banned. You won't be missed, if that's your way of thinking. Try having some class and common human decency before you start hoping for others to die, too, as if you get off on it. Sick.

You need to back-track from this approach on this forum, because I think you've made a mistake, and your words, your ammo, is going to haunt you for quite some time now if you're going to keep doing this. People here aren't that stupid. They remember. Give them a reason, and you'll become a laughingstock, treated badly, and rightfully so. If you're young, maybe you'll open your ears and knock it off. Don't repeat of other banned idiots. But if you don't want to listen to me, keep doing what you're doing, and live with the consequences of your actions.

 

[EatMorChikin]

With any luck he wont wake up, it will go from a good job to a fantastic job.

And posts like these are what those on the Right call an embarrassment.

And it's not just the posts. You're an embarrassment, too.

Maybe you should keep your foul thoughts to yourself, before you get banned.

I have a right to express any thoughts I want. And pieces of shit like the kid in this story, have no right to live. And guess what? I don't give a fuck what you think!

And I have a right to point out just how low-blow, just as despicable, and just as immature your posts really are.

What were you thinking? Do you really think you're helping your cause by showing some sick, giddy delight in the possible death of someone else? All you're doing is alienating yourself from other people who agree with you on the gun issue. They don't want a hateful freak like you running his mouth hoping for someone to die, and calling it a good day. People like you are more often found in a mental facility. It's sick, it's toxic, and you're doing nothing but making people on your own side hate you.

But by all means oh wise one, continue on, and you'll see just what happens when you eventually cross that line and wind up banned. You won't be missed, if that's your way of thinking. Try having some class and common human decency before you start hoping for others to die, too, as if you get off on it. Sick.

You need to back-track from this approach on this forum, because I think you've made a mistake, and your words, your ammo, is going to haunt you for quite some time now if you're going to keep doing this. People here aren't that stupid. They remember. Give them a reason, and you'll become a laughingstock, treated badly, and rightfully so. If you're young, maybe you'll open your ears and knock it off. Don't repeat of other banned idiots. But if you don't want to listen to me, keep doing what you're doing, and live with the consequences of your actions.

Banned for wanting a fucking piece of shit murdering asshole to die!?! Haha that is classic stuff sir! Have a good day, at least you gave me a good laugh today. And I'm not trying to help any cause, nice job trying to assume.

 

[Brain357]

For you brain...a link from local news...

Armed man is wounded in shootout

Notice...the kid didn't die...yet....another self defense shooting without killing the attacker, yet.....

any thoughts on wether this kid is involved in gangs or crime?

Notice it made the news.

I would guess this isn't his only bad deed.

 

[Brain357]

Yes....this teenager learned a lesson...that is if he survives...perhaps if he survives he will get to rehab and turn his life around......until then....good shooting...

PA Concealed Carrier Defends Self Against Armed Thug Hits All His Marks Concealed Nation


PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA — An intoxicated 19 year old allegedly told a concealed carrier to get off his block before opening fire.

According to Philly.com, Officer Christine O’Brien confirmed that the concealed carrier responded with deadly force. While the 19 year old fled the scene, he later wound up at Temple University Hospital in critical condition. Apparently, the concealed carrier had decent aim – the 19 year old assailant had gunshots in his arms, abdomen and his neck.

When that kid wakes up, Philadelphia Police expect to charge him with aggravated assault amongst other charges. While they recovered the 25-year-old man’s gun, they haven’t been able to locate the 19-year-old’s.

The investigation is ongoing, and all signs point to the concealed carrier not being charged with any crimes.

So this is good for you? A shootout in the street. Good thing nobody was hit by any strays. Guy should have got off his block and called the cops. A shootout in the street is dangerous for everyone in the neighborhood.

 

[Wake]

So this is good for you? A shootout in the street. Good thing nobody was hit by any strays. Guy should have got off his block and called the cops. A shootout in the street is dangerous for everyone in the neighborhood.

The guy being shot at by the other drunk man had a right to be on 'that block,' because he's a civilian, too, and these 'blocks' are public.

The young drunk man, in his drunken stupor, made a terrible mistake. I think it would be wise if we put the blame on this man and his actions, and the consequences thereof. The innocent man being shot at didn't ask for it: he did no wrong. If that man is armed, and someone is literally trying to kill him dead in the streets, does he not have a good reason to return fire in order to save his life? Is it expected that he is expected to only run, put his back to a fast bullet or two? I think we need to think this through, and try to keep it within reason.

 

[Ernie S.]

I wonder if the intended victim had a round chambered?

 

[Brain357]

So this is good for you? A shootout in the street. Good thing nobody was hit by any strays. Guy should have got off his block and called the cops. A shootout in the street is dangerous for everyone in the neighborhood.

The guy being shot at by the other drunk man had a right to be on 'that block,' because he's a civilian, too, and these 'blocks' are public.

The young drunk man, in his drunken stupor, made a terrible mistake. I think it would be wise if we put the blame on this man and his actions, and the consequences thereof. The innocent man being shot at didn't ask for it: he did no wrong. If that man is armed, and someone is literally trying to kill him dead in the streets, does he not have a good reason to return fire in order to save his life? Is it expected that he is expected to only run, put his back to a fast bullet or two? I think we need to think this through, and try to keep it within reason.

Shootouts in the street are a bad thing. Bullets go very far. It is possible the man did everything he could to avoid a shootout, but it doesn't sound like it. And certainly a street shootout shouldn't be glorified.

 

[Wake]

So this is good for you? A shootout in the street. Good thing nobody was hit by any strays. Guy should have got off his block and called the cops. A shootout in the street is dangerous for everyone in the neighborhood.

The guy being shot at by the other drunk man had a right to be on 'that block,' because he's a civilian, too, and these 'blocks' are public.

The young drunk man, in his drunken stupor, made a terrible mistake. I think it would be wise if we put the blame on this man and his actions, and the consequences thereof. The innocent man being shot at didn't ask for it: he did no wrong. If that man is armed, and someone is literally trying to kill him dead in the streets, does he not have a good reason to return fire in order to save his life? Is it expected that he is expected to only run, put his back to a fast bullet or two? I think we need to think this through, and try to keep it within reason.

Shootouts in the street are a bad thing. Bullets go very far. It is possible the man did everything he could to avoid a shootout, but it doesn't sound like it. And certainly a street shootout shouldn't be glorified.

Indeed shootouts aren't good things. Bullets do tend to go far.

In those split seconds, what more do you think the victim could have done? It's not as though he has a pocket-notebook filled to the brim with Brain's notes, ready to go. You try being shot dead and see how clearly you can think while bullets are flying at you, good sir.

I don't see anyone here glorifying a street shootout, either.

 

[Brain357]

So this is good for you? A shootout in the street. Good thing nobody was hit by any strays. Guy should have got off his block and called the cops. A shootout in the street is dangerous for everyone in the neighborhood.

The guy being shot at by the other drunk man had a right to be on 'that block,' because he's a civilian, too, and these 'blocks' are public.

The young drunk man, in his drunken stupor, made a terrible mistake. I think it would be wise if we put the blame on this man and his actions, and the consequences thereof. The innocent man being shot at didn't ask for it: he did no wrong. If that man is armed, and someone is literally trying to kill him dead in the streets, does he not have a good reason to return fire in order to save his life? Is it expected that he is expected to only run, put his back to a fast bullet or two? I think we need to think this through, and try to keep it within reason.

Shootouts in the street are a bad thing. Bullets go very far. It is possible the man did everything he could to avoid a shootout, but it doesn't sound like it. And certainly a street shootout shouldn't be glorified.

Indeed shootouts aren't good things. Bullets do tend to go far.

In those split seconds, what more do you think the victim could have done? It's not as though he has a pocket-notebook filled to the brim with Brain's notes, ready to go. You try being shot dead and see how clearly you can think while bullets are flying at you, good sir.

I don't see anyone here glorifying a street shootout, either.

I see a lot of glorifying in the OP. He loves shootouts.

I would guess the drunk guy said get off my block. The concealed carry guy who was armed chose not to which lead to a shootout. I think he would have been much better off trying to diffuse the situation without using a gun. He should have left and called the cops. Now possibly the guy just started shooting at him and there was nothing he could do. Even drunk people typically don't do that however so I am pretty sure there is more to the story. Either way I wouldn't be posting this like a great win for pro gun. They are lucky nobody else was shot. It was probably some stupid for both. But you do make good points.

 

[Ernie S.]

So this is good for you? A shootout in the street. Good thing nobody was hit by any strays. Guy should have got off his block and called the cops. A shootout in the street is dangerous for everyone in the neighborhood.

The guy being shot at by the other drunk man had a right to be on 'that block,' because he's a civilian, too, and these 'blocks' are public.

The young drunk man, in his drunken stupor, made a terrible mistake. I think it would be wise if we put the blame on this man and his actions, and the consequences thereof. The innocent man being shot at didn't ask for it: he did no wrong. If that man is armed, and someone is literally trying to kill him dead in the streets, does he not have a good reason to return fire in order to save his life? Is it expected that he is expected to only run, put his back to a fast bullet or two? I think we need to think this through, and try to keep it within reason.

Shootouts in the street are a bad thing. Bullets go very far. It is possible the man did everything he could to avoid a shootout, but it doesn't sound like it. And certainly a street shootout shouldn't be glorified.

Indeed shootouts aren't good things. Bullets do tend to go far.

In those split seconds, what more do you think the victim could have done? It's not as though he has a pocket-notebook filled to the brim with Brain's notes, ready to go. You try being shot dead and see how clearly you can think while bullets are flying at you, good sir.

I don't see anyone here glorifying a street shootout, either.

I see a lot of glorifying in the OP. He loves shootouts.

I would guess the drunk guy said get off my block. The concealed carry guy who was armed chose not to which lead to a shootout. I think he would have been much better off trying to diffuse the situation without using a gun. He should have left and called the cops. Now possibly the guy just started shooting at him and there was nothing he could do. Even drunk people typically don't do that however so I am pretty sure there is more to the story. Either way I wouldn't be posting this like a great win for pro gun. They are lucky nobody else was shot. It was probably some stupid for both. But you do make good points.

It is a fucking FANTASTIC win for the pro gun population. A drunk gangbanger taken off the street? Would be victim unhurt? No one else hit by stray bullets? Win win win.

 

[Brain357]

So this is good for you? A shootout in the street. Good thing nobody was hit by any strays. Guy should have got off his block and called the cops. A shootout in the street is dangerous for everyone in the neighborhood.

The guy being shot at by the other drunk man had a right to be on 'that block,' because he's a civilian, too, and these 'blocks' are public.

The young drunk man, in his drunken stupor, made a terrible mistake. I think it would be wise if we put the blame on this man and his actions, and the consequences thereof. The innocent man being shot at didn't ask for it: he did no wrong. If that man is armed, and someone is literally trying to kill him dead in the streets, does he not have a good reason to return fire in order to save his life? Is it expected that he is expected to only run, put his back to a fast bullet or two? I think we need to think this through, and try to keep it within reason.

Shootouts in the street are a bad thing. Bullets go very far. It is possible the man did everything he could to avoid a shootout, but it doesn't sound like it. And certainly a street shootout shouldn't be glorified.

Indeed shootouts aren't good things. Bullets do tend to go far.

In those split seconds, what more do you think the victim could have done? It's not as though he has a pocket-notebook filled to the brim with Brain's notes, ready to go. You try being shot dead and see how clearly you can think while bullets are flying at you, good sir.

I don't see anyone here glorifying a street shootout, either.

I see a lot of glorifying in the OP. He loves shootouts.

I would guess the drunk guy said get off my block. The concealed carry guy who was armed chose not to which lead to a shootout. I think he would have been much better off trying to diffuse the situation without using a gun. He should have left and called the cops. Now possibly the guy just started shooting at him and there was nothing he could do. Even drunk people typically don't do that however so I am pretty sure there is more to the story. Either way I wouldn't be posting this like a great win for pro gun. They are lucky nobody else was shot. It was probably some stupid for both. But you do make good points.

It is a fucking FANTASTIC win for the pro gun population. A drunk gangbanger taken off the street? Would be victim unhurt? No one else hit by stray bullets? Win win win.

Yes I'm sure most people want shootouts in the streets.

 

[Stephanie]

The guy being shot at by the other drunk man had a right to be on 'that block,' because he's a civilian, too, and these 'blocks' are public.

The young drunk man, in his drunken stupor, made a terrible mistake. I think it would be wise if we put the blame on this man and his actions, and the consequences thereof. The innocent man being shot at didn't ask for it: he did no wrong. If that man is armed, and someone is literally trying to kill him dead in the streets, does he not have a good reason to return fire in order to save his life? Is it expected that he is expected to only run, put his back to a fast bullet or two? I think we need to think this through, and try to keep it within reason.

Shootouts in the street are a bad thing. Bullets go very far. It is possible the man did everything he could to avoid a shootout, but it doesn't sound like it. And certainly a street shootout shouldn't be glorified.

Indeed shootouts aren't good things. Bullets do tend to go far.

In those split seconds, what more do you think the victim could have done? It's not as though he has a pocket-notebook filled to the brim with Brain's notes, ready to go. You try being shot dead and see how clearly you can think while bullets are flying at you, good sir.

I don't see anyone here glorifying a street shootout, either.

I see a lot of glorifying in the OP. He loves shootouts.

I would guess the drunk guy said get off my block. The concealed carry guy who was armed chose not to which lead to a shootout. I think he would have been much better off trying to diffuse the situation without using a gun. He should have left and called the cops. Now possibly the guy just started shooting at him and there was nothing he could do. Even drunk people typically don't do that however so I am pretty sure there is more to the story. Either way I wouldn't be posting this like a great win for pro gun. They are lucky nobody else was shot. It was probably some stupid for both. But you do make good points.

It is a fucking FANTASTIC win for the pro gun population. A drunk gangbanger taken off the street? Would be victim unhurt? No one else hit by stray bullets? Win win win.

Yes I'm sure most people want shootouts in the streets.

just stay in your house you won't have to worry about. just think he could have been drunk and shooting at you. stop with dramatics. it's done and over

 

[Wake]

Respectfully, I think both you (Ernie), Brain, and (maybe?) Stephanie should alter your perspective on this.

1) No matter what, celebrating someone who is in critical condition and wanting the person to die is wrong. Callous at best.

2) People have a right to be armed, and no, the victim doesn't have to walk away or obey the words of a drunken punk.

3) I think the victim was in the right to defend himself, but I'm not rejoicing or cheering for the guy who attacked him to die. Gotta keep it within reason, or else you slide to one extreme or the other.

 

[Ernie S.]

The guy being shot at by the other drunk man had a right to be on 'that block,' because he's a civilian, too, and these 'blocks' are public.

The young drunk man, in his drunken stupor, made a terrible mistake. I think it would be wise if we put the blame on this man and his actions, and the consequences thereof. The innocent man being shot at didn't ask for it: he did no wrong. If that man is armed, and someone is literally trying to kill him dead in the streets, does he not have a good reason to return fire in order to save his life? Is it expected that he is expected to only run, put his back to a fast bullet or two? I think we need to think this through, and try to keep it within reason.

Shootouts in the street are a bad thing. Bullets go very far. It is possible the man did everything he could to avoid a shootout, but it doesn't sound like it. And certainly a street shootout shouldn't be glorified.

Indeed shootouts aren't good things. Bullets do tend to go far.

In those split seconds, what more do you think the victim could have done? It's not as though he has a pocket-notebook filled to the brim with Brain's notes, ready to go. You try being shot dead and see how clearly you can think while bullets are flying at you, good sir.

I don't see anyone here glorifying a street shootout, either.

I see a lot of glorifying in the OP. He loves shootouts.

I would guess the drunk guy said get off my block. The concealed carry guy who was armed chose not to which lead to a shootout. I think he would have been much better off trying to diffuse the situation without using a gun. He should have left and called the cops. Now possibly the guy just started shooting at him and there was nothing he could do. Even drunk people typically don't do that however so I am pretty sure there is more to the story. Either way I wouldn't be posting this like a great win for pro gun. They are lucky nobody else was shot. It was probably some stupid for both. But you do make good points.

It is a fucking FANTASTIC win for the pro gun population. A drunk gangbanger taken off the street? Would be victim unhurt? No one else hit by stray bullets? Win win win.

Yes I'm sure most people want shootouts in the streets.

Of course not, but people do usually want to see the good guy win.

 

[Ernie S.]

Respectfully, I think both you (Ernie), Brain, and (maybe?) Stephanie should alter your perspective on this.

1) No matter what, celebrating someone who is in critical condition and wanting the person to die is wrong. Callous at best.

2) People have a right to be armed, and no, the victim doesn't have to walk away or obey the words of a drunken punk.

3) I think the victim was in the right to defend himself, but I'm not rejoicing or cheering for the guy who attacked him to die. Gotta keep it within reason, or else you slide to one extreme or the other.

Hey! I don't want anyone to die here, but if someone does, I'll feel better that the gangbanger won't be breeding.