Sharpton at it again

[RetiredGySgt]

The cops have it right. There was no reason for this guy to go OUTSIDE and confront them. He should have called the cops, armed himself and only acted if they did something to threaten him or his son before the cops got there.

Reasonable force does not include YOU creating a situation like he did.

If he were white and the teenagers black Sharpton would be howling he should get life in prison or the death penalty.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080106/ap_on_re_us/driveway_shooting_march

 

[tigerbob]

The cops have it right. There was no reason for this guy to go OUTSIDE and confront them. He should have called the cops, armed himself and only acted if they did something to threaten him or his son before the cops got there.

Reasonable force does not include YOU creating a situation like he did.

If he were white and the teenagers black Sharpton would be howling he should get life in prison or the death penalty.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080106/ap_on_re_us/driveway_shooting_march

Agree.

 

[DeadCanDance]

The cops have it right. There was no reason for this guy to go OUTSIDE and confront them. He should have called the cops, armed himself and only acted if they did something to threaten him or his son before the cops got there.

Reasonable force does not include YOU creating a situation like he did.

If he were white and the teenagers black Sharpton would be howling he should get life in prison or the death penalty.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080106/ap_on_re_us/driveway_shooting_march

there was a recent thread on here, where cons applauded a guy for shooting kids that were on his neighbors property; kids that weren't actually threatening him or his own house.

 

[Gunny]

there was a recent thread on here, where cons applauded a guy for shooting kids that were on his neighbors property; kids that weren't actually threatening him or his own house.

And?

 

[DeadCanDance]

And?

I would think you would be defending the right of this guy to shoot people on his property, if he thinks they are threatening him.

 

[Gunny]

I would think you would be defending the right of this guy to shoot people on his property, if he thinks they are threatening him.

Where I think he screwed up was in having a handgun. If he had a rifle or shotgun, when the kid lunged, a vertical buttstroke to the chin would have sufficed.

However, I WOULD have confronted them if they were on my property and I perceived a threat.

I don't necessarily agree that shooting someone for breaking into your neighbor's house is right. At the farthest stretch, as a concerned citizen, I could see attempting to apprehend them, but not just shooting them out of hand.

 

[William Joyce]

John White claimed the gun fired accidentally when Cicciaro lunged for it, killing the 17-year-old.

Uh huh.

RGS is right. Just imagine the flip situation. A WHITE MAN shoots and kills a BLACK TEEN. It's inconceivable that Sharpton would do anything BUT call for the white man's prosecution. But I'm tired of being angry at Al Sharpton. I'm starting to become more angry at 1) the press, for dutifully reporting his every utterance, and 2) my own race, who seem to embarrassed to put up their own "Al Sharpton" who gets in everyone's face about the racial outrages against whites.

 

[Gunny]

I would think you would be defending the right of this guy to shoot people on his property, if he thinks they are threatening him.

I will defend an individual's right to use whatever force necessary, to include shooting, to negate a perceived threat to himself, another person, or his own property.

At the same time, I'm not going to hand out a blanket, one-size-fits all amnesty to anyone who does it. With the power of life and death in your hands comes the responsibility to use it wisely.

In this particular instance, I think the guy used poor judgement by stepping outside his door any further than the porch armed only with a handgun. I think he used poor judgement in allowing either himself or them to get close enough to get a hand on his weapon. I think he used poor judgment in having the weapon cocked and his finger on the trigger so that it could easily be accidentally discharged.

That being said, that kid and his gaggle should not have been on the man's property which precipitated the entire sequence of events.

 

[midcan5]

there was a recent thread on here, where cons applauded a guy for shooting kids that were on his neighbors property; kids that weren't actually threatening him or his own house.

LOL - so some are saying shooting someone is only Ok if you are ..... and the tragedy of gun toting scaredy cats only makes for a world in which we have unnecessary deaths but hey that's the price we have to pay for freedom, right....


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=mostpop_story

 

[Gunny]

LOL - so some are saying shooting someone is only Ok if you are ..... and the tragedy of gun toting scaredy cats only makes for a world in which we have unnecessary deaths but hey that's the price we have to pay for freedom, right....


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=mostpop_story

The tragedy of NON-gun-toting sheep is quite evidenced by the VT massacre.

 

[midcan5]

The tragedy of NON-gun-toting sheep is quite evidenced by the VT massacre.

That could be reversed.

 

[Gunny]

That could be reversed.

I don't think so. Political correctness required not being able to label an obvious kook what he was LONG before he went ballistic.

The fact remains, one person with a gun that knew how to use it could have stopped this guy from slaughtering students at whim. It is a perfect example in microcosm of the effect outlawing guns would have on this nation.

Criminals with nothing to fear from an unarmed society.

There's a complete lack of logic to the argument that disarming society will also disarm criminals. They are purposefully setting out to commit crimes. Do you really think adding "illegal possession of a firearm" is going to slow them down?

Not one bit. But a disarmed society would have them licking their chops.

 

[jillian]

I don't think so. Political correctness required not being able to label an obvious kook what he was LONG before he went ballistic.

The fact remains, one person with a gun that knew how to use it could have stopped this guy from slaughtering students at whim. It is a perfect example in microcosm of the effect outlawing guns would have on this nation.

Criminals with nothing to fear from an unarmed society.

There's a complete lack of logic to the argument that disarming society will also disarm criminals. They are purposefully setting out to commit crimes. Do you really think adding "illegal possession of a firearm" is going to slow them down?

Not one bit. But a disarmed society would have them licking their chops.

It could have been prevented with an adequate screening and reporting system that prevented the loony from getting a gun after he was found to be a danger to himself and others.

It also could have been avoided, at least in the numbers that we saw, if the school had locked down immediately.

Then police would have dealt with it. Not vigilantes.

Sorry GL, I would agree with what you said if we were talking about the LIRR shootings. Lives might have been saved had a lawful gun owner blasted the dude when he stopped to reload.

This one? It's an argument for closing loopholes in the reportings and data systems.

 

[Gunny]

It could have been prevented with an adequate screening and reporting system that prevented the loony from getting a gun after he was found to be a danger to himself and others.

It also could have been avoided, at least in the numbers that we saw, if the school had locked down immediately.

Then police would have dealt with it. Not vigilantes.

Sorry GL, I would agree with what you said if we were talking about the LIRR shootings. Lives might have been saved had a lawful gun owner blasted the dude when he stopped to reload.

This one? It's an argument for closing loopholes in the reportings and data systems.

I agree that it could have been prevented with a moer adequate screening system for purchasing firearms. However, that screening system catching the loony would be predicated on his being reported as one.

I disagree with the lockdown and let the police deal with it. I don't see what you think a lockdown would accomplish, and I'm not hanging around ANYWHERE waiting on the police to protect my butt. They mostly just pick up the pieces after the fact.

LIRR?

 

[William Joyce]

the LIRR shootings. Lives might have been saved had a lawful gun owner blasted the dude when he stopped to reload.

Given that the shooter was black and his declared goal was to kill as many whites as possible, it probably would have been a hate crime for anyone to stop him. I think it would have been a hate crime for a white person to say, "excuse me, sir, could you please stop that?" No, wait. It would have been a hate crime for a white person to think any private negative thoughts about the black man shooting up the car. I think the real issue is how we're going to prosecute THOSE hate criminals, since their thoughts are hard to detect. Maybe if we install cameras and look for negative facial expressions of whites who are witnessing similar slaughters, then we'll know. "Failure of white person to smile and show proper respect to oppressed black man who is taking justice into his own hands", we'll call it.

 

[jillian]

I agree that it could have been prevented with a moer adequate screening system for purchasing firearms. However, that screening system catching the loony would be predicated on his being reported as one.

I disagree with the lockdown and let the police deal with it. I don't see what you think a lockdown would accomplish, and I'm not hanging around ANYWHERE waiting on the police to protect my butt. They mostly just pick up the pieces after the fact.

LIRR?

Long Island Railroad... sorry. When that loony Colin Ferguson decided to shoot up a bunch of passengers including the son and husband of Carolyn McCarthy, who ran for Congress because of it. Personally, I always thought she got the opposite lesson from it -- I thought there should have been one lawful gun-owner on the train who could have taken him out while he stopped to reload --- twice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Ferguson

 

[Gunny]

Long Island Railroad... sorry. When that loony Colin Ferguson decided to shoot up a bunch of passengers including the son and husband of Carolyn McCarthy, who ran for Congress because of it. Personally, I always thought she got the opposite lesson from it -- I thought there should have been one lawful gun-owner on the train who could have taken him out while he stopped to reload --- twice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Ferguson

Okay. I vaguely recall the event. And I agree an armed passenger could have stopped him.

It is illegal to possess a handgun in NYC period, is it not?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Okay. I vaguely recall the event. And I agree an armed passenger could have stopped him.

It is illegal to possess a handgun in NYC period, is it not?

As I understand it you can get a permit to own, but I doubt carrying it would be legal.

 

[William Joyce]

It is illegal to possess a handgun in NYC period, is it not?

Not quite, but I can assure you that the impediments to getting a pistol are incredible. I embarked on the process a few years after admission to the New York bar, and I can tell you that the paperwork involved in becoming a lawyer paled by comparison. I had to make like three separate trips to "1PP" or One Police Plaza. I actually finally just gave up. I moved to Virginia at some point, and was able to get my 9 at a shop down the street.

If the Big Court rules against D.C., I wonder if NYC's gun-ownership-prevention program would withstand Constitutional scrutiny.