[quote] The same cannot be said for her two victims, Montgomery fired 5 times hitting one of the teens in the chest and the other in the stomach.
[/quote]
Those poor victims. All they wanted to do was cave an old woman’s head in and she shot them for it. What is this world coming to?
[/quote]
Actually very bothered by the fact that they referred to the two shot as ‘her victims’ instead of ‘her attackers’.[/quote]
Poor journalism. The correct way to have phrased it would have been, “her two alleged attackers.”
[quote] The same cannot be said for her two victims, Montgomery fired 5 times hitting one of the teens in the chest and the other in the stomach.
[/quote]
Those poor victims. All they wanted to do was cave an old woman’s head in and she shot them for it. What is this world coming to?
[/quote]
Actually very bothered by the fact that they referred to the two shot as ‘her victims’ instead of ‘her attackers’.[/quote]
Yeah, fuck that shit! She was assaulted physically, they are not victims. I wss pretty furious when I read that.
She won that engagement, ergo she was the victor, although she was the intended victim.
The two punks thought they would be victorious in the encounter, but were instead made victims of her righteous retribution.
I see no problem with the wording. We’ve been conditioned to feel sorry for a “victim” but just think of a victim as a “loser” (i.e., one who loses, as opposed to a victor, i.e. on who wins) and you will rob the word of its pathos-evoking power.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
It’s people knowing right from wrong and choosing to do wrong. It doesn’t really matter why. It isn’t our problem to solve it is the people doing it. A good way to stop it would be to shoot on sight. See it happen? Shoot the person who did it.
Leave all of the who why and what ever else to the attorneys and media.
[/quote]
Winner winner chicken dinner!
Wow dude first response in the thread and you hit it on the head. Both in being correct, and actually predicting what would happen. I try and tell my girl that they need to legalize carry in DC but she says it’s stupid. I’ve been showing her these videos of people, including women, getting assaulted so hopefully she sees the light soon.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
It’s people knowing right from wrong and choosing to do wrong. It doesn’t really matter why. It isn’t our problem to solve it is the people doing it. A good way to stop it would be to shoot on sight. See it happen? Shoot the person who did it.
Leave all of the who why and what ever else to the attorneys and media.
[/quote]
Winner winner chicken dinner!
Wow dude first response in the thread and you hit it on the head. Both in being correct, and actually predicting what would happen. I try and tell my girl that they need to legalize carry in DC but she says it’s stupid. I’ve been showing her these videos of people, including women, getting assaulted so hopefully she sees the light soon.[/quote]
Bunch of nonsense. None of you who is advocating shooting someone on sight for committing a crime like this would actually do it so why even say it? If you actually think this way then you should leave this country because it goes against one of the most important features of our justice system.
I’m not talking about shooting in self-defense or defense of another but shooting someone after the fact.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Bunch of nonsense. None of you who is advocating shooting someone on sight for committing a crime like this would actually do it so why even say it? If you actually think this way then you should leave this country because it goes against one of the most important features of our justice system.
I’m not talking about shooting in self-defense or defense of another but shooting someone after the fact. [/quote]
I’m not so sure about that.
Watch at 27 seconds. If you’re walking in the city and that happens to your girlfriend or wife or mother, and you’re armed, you’re telling me the guy lives? I really doubt it.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
it goes against one of the most important features of our justice system. [/quote]
One of the most important features of our justice system is that it is constructed in such a way as to understand, if not entirely condone, human passions that are older than history.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Bunch of nonsense. None of you who is advocating shooting someone on sight for committing a crime like this would actually do it so why even say it? If you actually think this way then you should leave this country because it goes against one of the most important features of our justice system.
I’m not talking about shooting in self-defense or defense of another but shooting someone after the fact. [/quote]
I’m not so sure about that.
Watch at 27 seconds. If you’re walking in the city and that happens to your girlfriend or wife or mother, and you’re armed, you’re telling me the guy lives? I really doubt it.[/quote]
Protecting someone while they are the victim of a crime is one thing. Executing someone after the fact is something else. Would I feel like shooting someone after they did something like that? Yes. Would I shoot him? I can’t say but if I did it wouldn’t mean I was right.
If you saw some kid punch an old man and you walked over and shot him you might think you meted out justice. If it turned out that old man had molested that kid when he was younger you would probably think something very different.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Would I feel like shooting someone after they did something like that? Yes. Would I shoot him? I can’t say but if I did it wouldn’t mean I was right.
[/quote]
Yes, right or wrong did not figure into my calculation. But that you at the very least might kill the guy is probably beyond question, and that the justice system is rightfully understanding of this kind of thing is undoubtedly a good thing.
What if a bystander wanted to detain the attacker for arrest ? Not using deadly force, but if someone were to apprehend and hold them until the authorities came, is that considered legal ?