|
BamaD -> RE: Ohio walmart shooting (9/29/2014 7:03:47 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
I said he could have done things better. I never said it was his fault. I didn't know he was black so that never entered into it. It would not have been the first time by a long shot that I didn't support the guy with the gun, you just ignore all of the times I haven't. And why do you keep going back to a case where the cops, the prosecutor, and even the dead mans wide agreed with me that it was a justifiable shooting. You had lost that one even before it became a thread. What does that do to your claim to support the courts.
Are you telling me that since it was legal it was wise to carry the pellet rifle like that with people like you who were liable to panic and call in false reports running around?
Are you saying that just because it was legal it was wise to shoot at someone the shooter couldn't see and had never identified?
You keep going back to the case where everyone, including the dead mans wife said it was a just shooting.
Idiot that you are you think that since he didn't have floodlights on he couldn't see him.
How pray tell did he hit him if he couldn't see him?
God you must love looking stupid.
No. I just love making you keep saying you approve of violating the first and most basic rule of shooting.
Just because the cops chose not to prosecute the guy doesn't change how to safely use a firearm. What is the first and most basic rule for safely shooting? You must know it right?
To bad I'm not doing that.
True there is little chance that he could have reproduced the guys face for a police artist.
You ignore a couple of facts.
A He could see him well enough to know he was carrying a metal cylinder. This destroys your argument that he couldn't see him.
B He warned the guy to stop not once, not twice, but three times. He could see him well enough to know that he was still advancing on him with the metal cylinder. This means that the situation you keep insisting on didn't exist no matter what you want to pretend.
And the first and most basic rule is the gun is always loaded.
There are in fact several rules that come into play before you get to combat shooting.
The first and most basic rule of shooting is always clearly identify what you are shooting at. You know it that is why you got so defensive. And that is what this has always been about post after post of you making an utter fool out of yourself. I gave you every chance to realize what was happening and run away but you kept right on.
BTW treating all firearms as if they're loaded has nothing to do with shooting. That is simple firearm safety. That is different. For such a gun enthusiast I sort of expected you to at least know the basics. Alabama offers a course that all the kids have to pass before they can get their first deer license. You should take it.
And he identified the person as a threat, as I said there are several safety rules that come into play before you even get to combat shooting.
You gave me several chances to accept your fanciful fiction of what happened but being able to see what actually happened kept me from doing so.
That was the thread where you lied about your brother trying to seriously injure you and later tried to weasel out by claiming you were just horsing around, meaning the point you claimed to be making in the first place was pure BS.
It clearly was not pitch black as you try to pretend or he could not have identified the metal cylinder or that he kept advancing in spite of warnings.
Had he just fired into the darkness without knowing what was there he would have been charged.
And you have insisted that, when they go your way, that courts cannot be questioned.
You are only using a long since settled case to distract from the fact that your ridiculous claims about this case were so totally refuted.
|
|
|
|
