How would you handle this?

[Angel]

The link did not give the other side of the story. It said, "he might have been on drugs." Well maybe he might not have been, and maybe he was in some kind of trouble or some emergency of his own.

The man is shot and could die without a Judge, Jury or trial, and if we give him the simplist shadow of a doubt then we could consider people as innocent until proven guilty.

The concept of shoot first and ask questions later is barbaric or at best it is driven only by fear.

The concept of somebody trying to break into my house is barbaric. You cannot seriously tell me you would invite him in for milk and cookies to discuss your political views while he may have the potential to kill you and your family, would you? Shoot first, ask questions later the mofo had no business in their house. And who is out riding a bicycle at that time of morning!?!

 

[JPC, Sr.]

The Wizard!

The concept of somebody trying to break into my house is barbaric. You cannot seriously tell me you would invite him in for milk and cookies to discuss your political views while he may have the potential to kill you and your family, would you? Shoot first, ask questions later the mofo had no business in their house. And who is out riding a bicycle at that time of morning!?!

The point is that the link only gave one side of the story and it said he MIGHT have been on drugs like MIGHT not too, and yes who is riding their bike and throwing it at the door at that time of morn??? Thus the story sounds wrong.

Here is another scenerio, perhaps the home owner shot and tried to killed that man and when the police arrived they made up the story completely just to cover up their own guilt. Remember "Columbo".

The link gave only the accusers and the executioner's side of the story and for justice sake the law must ask for more info before praising the shoot first method.

 

[Tidewater]

The link did not give the other side of the story. It said, "he might have been on drugs." Well maybe he might not have been, and maybe he was in some kind of trouble or some emergency of his own.

The man is shot and could die without a Judge, Jury or trial, and if we give him the simplist shadow of a doubt then we could consider people as innocent until proven guilty.

The concept of shoot first and ask questions later is barbaric or at best it is driven only by fear.

Um, JPC...I don't know where you are from, but here in America you have the right to protect yourself and your property. If somebody is breaking down your door and gains entry...trust me, he's not leaving unless he's in a body bag and on his way to the morgue. This was more than a simple trespass (which would have gotten him arrested in any case).

And you cite the other side of the story....Um, what other side could he have? He was on drugs --then his own fault, he ingested them by his own violition. Perhaps he had a psychotic break?--again that doesn't mean the people he might harm or kill cannot defend THEMSELVES from an ill person. Or...Perhaps he was lost and couldn't properly knock on the door to ask to use the phone cuz he was out of change and couldn't use the pay phone at the corner store?

It doesn't matter. He had no excuse to be on private property -- period.

 

[Angel]

And who is out riding a bicycle at that time of morning!?!

I know I'm quoting myself... BUT I just saw "40 Year Old Virgin", for the first time, so I guess now I know who's out riding thier bicycle at that time of morning... That movie was hilarious!

 

[kom526]

This thread is right in 2A's wheelhouse.