Come on. He was looking to shoot a criminal the first chance he got. You know it and I know it.
His enthusiasm for shooting someone clouded his judgement on when to shoot someone. That's what got him into trouble. I will defend his right to defend himself, but his attitude going into the situation lead to his handling it poorly. On 2/24/2012 10:41 AM, Jerry Barnes wrote: > > "At best a vigilante, but everything says he was hunting." > > So, sitting on the subway and then getting mugged is hunting. If they > wouldn't have mugged him, they would not have been shot. > > > " You also forget (conveniently no doubt) that both the criminal and civil > courts did find he acted with "reckless abandon" in the matter." > > You must have missed the part about being sued above. You can reread at > your leisure (or not). > > > "In other words he was hunting." > > They "victims" would not have been shot if they didn't mug him. Again, > the perpetrators become the victims and the victim becomes the culprit. > > > "And you justify this?" > > I justify the right of anyone to defend himself or herself if they are > being mugged. > > > > "What's next advocating for using dogs and hunting them down in the fields?" > > Really? > > What do you mean by them? If you mean people who mug other people, then > maybe. > > > J ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:347342 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
