ashw_justin Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 ...it's okay to shoot somebody three times in the chest, as long as they are "homeless." Self defense my ass. Sounds more like target practice to me. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0522hikershot22.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat_Teddy Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Sounds like someone should have been obeying the leash law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted May 31, 2004 Author Share Posted May 31, 2004 Yeah, because god knows there's no laws against killing people... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swaterfall Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Sounds like someone should have been obeying the leash law. Whoa, that's one of the more calloused remarks I've seen in a while. Any way, from the few facts presented in that article the "over-reaction" of the shooter seems insanely, crazily, maliciously of line. Who carries a freaking pistol on a hiking trail any way?!? One more reason for me to not go to Arizona. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat_Teddy Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Yeah, because god knows there's no laws against killing people... there isn't, when they're rushing at you with snarling dogs and you're yelling at them to stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted May 31, 2004 Author Share Posted May 31, 2004 You seem almost as sure of that scenario as is the Sheriff. Great investigate work, I must say. No witnesses, and he didn't shoot the dogs, nor did the dogs harm him in any way. Three shots, all perfectly on target. Makes you wonder, eh? Boy, that sure is one vicious looking dog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat_Teddy Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 My neighbors black lab didn't look vicious either. It blinded a 3 year old boy in one eye, though. Dragged him down the street by the face. If someone points a gun at me, fires a warning shot, I turn around. You don't, you die. Keep your dogs on a leash so my right to walk isn't infringed upon and we'll get along fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted May 31, 2004 Author Share Posted May 31, 2004 You're still assuming that the shooter is accurately recounting what happened. You can't get any further from being an objective witness... unless you're the other guy. Really the only facts in that article are: four shots were fired, three of them hit the guy in the chest, and his three dogs were on scene. But if you're an Arizona sheriff, it's open-and-shut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat_Teddy Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Yeah? What would you do? Interview the zero witnesses? Beat the guy into confession? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Fat Teddy, you are a fucking idiot. How the hell do you know what happened? Last time I checked violation of a leash law doesn't get the self-administered death penalty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Chill out, guys. If the shooter's story is accurate, I can see how it really was a case of self defense. Of course, that is not necessarily the case. All this speculation is pointless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat_Teddy Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Fat Teddy, you are a fucking idiot. How the hell do you know what happened? Last time I checked violation of a leash law doesn't get the self-administered death penalty. Excellent factual argument. How old are you, 6? Don't worry, you get smarter with age.......usually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 If the guy was threatened by the dogs, he should have shot the dogs. Course, then he probably would've got in much more trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Neighbors had a Brittney spaniel for five years. Nicest dog you would ever meet. Until it turned on their three-year-old and tore the right side of her face off. My wife got to drive her and her hysterical mother to the hospital. Nice doggy. Two years ago, I was giving my daughter a piggy-back ride in Marymoor park when a big wolfy looking dog came running at us snarling and baring it's teeth and dragging a leash. If I would have had a gun, that dog would definately be dead right now. As it was, I had to kick him off once with my daughter screaming before the asshole owner managed to grab the leash. He apologized profusely but couldn't understand why I was still upset. Death by dog or death by gun, especially when it is my daughter's death, looks pretty much the same. If you can't support carrying guns, how do you support having big dogs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat_Teddy Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 If the guy was threatened by the dogs, he should have shot the dogs. Course, then he probably would've got in much more trouble Apparently he was more afraid of the guy running at him with clenched fists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted May 31, 2004 Author Share Posted May 31, 2004 Take his guns away. It's probably too late to re-investigate, and it's innocent until proven guilty, so he goes free. But his guns don't. Then ban the carrying of guns by ordinary citizens into any government-managed wilderness. Get some balls and some pepper spray, otherwise stay in the city with your bitch ass. Of course there is already a law against unleashed dogs, but unfortunately the owner won't be able to stand for those charges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat_Teddy Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Take his guns away Take his guns away for what? He didn't break any laws. Or are you just in favor of indiscriminately violating people's constitutional rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoboy Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Yawn... oh was somebody saying something new? Oh, OK, didn't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordop Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 (edited) Quote If someone points a gun at me, fires a warning shot, I turn around. You don't, you die. Keep your dogs on a leash so my right to walk isn't infringed upon and we'll get along fine. Edited June 8, 2021 by jordop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted May 31, 2004 Author Share Posted May 31, 2004 Take his guns away Take his guns away for what? He didn't break any laws. Or are you just in favor of indiscriminately violating people's constitutional rights. You're right, our judicial system doesn't seem to have a penalty for just shooting someone to death. Or at least not that we know of (doesn't stop me from crossing my fingers). But I'd like to see his guns taken away, and if there isn't a legal basis for doing so, I'd like to see one in the future. That's where the second part comes in, banning taking guns into a government-managed wilderness unless you have a special reason (such as, you are a park ranger, or a contracted cougar-slayer or whatever). That way, there would be a penalty, and a legal burden on the shooter in cases like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat_Teddy Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 You're right, our judicial system doesn't seem to have a penalty for just shooting someone to death. Sure it does. In some cases that penalty is death. Just not when it's self defence. But I'd like to see his guns taken away, and if there isn't a legal basis for doing so, I'd like to see one in the future. So you ARE in favor of indiscriminately violating people's constitutional rights. That's where the second part comes in, banning taking guns into a government-managed wilderness unless you have a special reason (such as, you are a park ranger, or a contracted cougar-slayer or whatever). That way, there would be a penalty, and a legal burden on the shooter in cases like this. There's no good basis for doing so. Unless you think "because justin wills it" is a good reason. Most won't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Fat_Teddy == Gotterdamerung? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotterdamerung Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Fat_Teddy == Gotterdamerung? No, not me. I would have shot the dogs, and reasoned with the individual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted June 1, 2004 Author Share Posted June 1, 2004 You're right, our judicial system doesn't seem to have a penalty for just shooting someone to death. Sure it does. In some cases that penalty is death. Just not when it's self defence. You'll remember that there is no concrete proof that it was self-defense. That's just what the shooter says. And to what degree it was justifiable, we'll never know. But I'd like to see his guns taken away, and if there isn't a legal basis for doing so, I'd like to see one in the future. So you ARE in favor of indiscriminately violating people's constitutional rights. 1) There is nothing indescriminate about my proposal. 2) Nowhere in the constitution does it say you can carry a semi-automatic 10-milimeter whenever, where-ever you want. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I don't see any mention of semi-automatic pistols. They didn't even exist. Point being, The 2nd amendment is all about interpretation. "Arms"? So does that mean I can carry around a nuclear warhead and chemical weapons, just in case? That's where the second part comes in, banning taking guns into a government-managed wilderness unless you have a special reason (such as, you are a park ranger, or a contracted cougar-slayer or whatever). That way, there would be a penalty, and a legal burden on the shooter in cases like this. There's no good basis for doing so. Unless you think "because justin wills it" is a good reason. Most won't. Oh I am willing to bet that quite a few people agree with me! Hopefully this case will increase that number. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotterdamerung Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Your argument is emotive and therefore irrelevant. Post again when you've calmed down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.