You hear a knocking at your window and your first instinct is to shoot into the darkness?

[NAOS]

Sorry quoted the wrong respone.

I laughed and you went into this explanation why what you did was different and I wasn't even laughing at that.

ok. Feeling no guilt over here, though.

 

[RandyForRubio]

This thread is really going places.

 

[NAOS]

This thread is really going places.

Actually, as the record indicates, it got a lot less fun when you last posted in it.

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

Actually, as the record indicates, it got a lot less fun when you last posted in it.

You kinda remind me of grumpy smurf. He's always pissed off because he never gets any *****, cuz smurfette finds him annoying. I guess I don't really blame him, though. I'd be pissed too if I never got any *****.

 

[LogGrad98]

She's hot. Just sayin'.

 

[babe]

She's hot. Just sayin'.

I disagree. I'd disagree with this chick whatever she's sayin', too. Just too much trouble bein' in that game.

As for this thread, when I reviewed the OP link, I found this.

[video]https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/20/mom-facebook-post-virginia-trooper_n_7342816.html?cps=gravity_1787_-8932189777005621335

good on huff to give this some air.

 

[fishonjazz]

I did all the time as a kid. Dad was gone, I was oldest, we lived in a place where stuff could happen.

Where did you live?

 

[babe]

Right? My first thought is why in the hell does a 15 year old have a gun by their bed that they can just grab and shoot!?

Idiotic at best and possibly criminal.

I don't know why I'm always seeing your comments as wild attempts to crossover to some trendy, hip new swag. You used to think about what you said.

What I didn't see in the Huff article was the critical item of information as to whether the parents were at home, or if the kid was "home alone". And if the kids weren't coming around to play a prank and scare him, why didn't they just knock on the front door?

 

[Stoked]

I don't know why I'm always seeing your comments as wild attempts to crossover to some trendy, hip new swag. You used to think about what you said.

What I didn't see in the Huff article was the critical item of information as to whether the parents were at home, or if the kid was "home alone". And if the kids weren't coming around to play a prank and scare him, why didn't they just knock on the front door?

Plenty of dumb actions in this story.

But that does not obsolve the shooter of making idiotic decisions that resulted in someones death.

By your comment of "think about what you said" let's be honest. What you mean is saying things you agree with. Well sometimes we won't agree my friend. It happens.

 

[Harambe]

Plenty of dumb actions in this story.

But that does not obsolve the shooter of making idiotic decisions that resulted in someones death.

By your comment of "think about what you said" let's be honest. What you mean is saying things you agree with. Well sometimes we won't agree my friend. It happens.

I concur with Stoked for the most part.

Even if the wildest of crazy supernatural shenanigans was happening, and the kid was scared of something otherworldly, it still does not absolve him of being responsible for the death of another.

Whether defense attorney's can make the case that the kid genuinely thought his life was in danger, and that warranted the use of deadly force is another story. At present, I don't have enough evidence to decide one way or another.

 

[Stoked]

I concur with Stoked for the most part.

Even if the wildest of crazy supernatural shenanigans was happening, and the kid was scared of something otherworldly, it still does not absolve him of being responsible for the death of another.

Whether defense attorney's can make the case that the kid genuinely thought his life was in danger, and that warranted the use of deadly force is another story. At present, I don't have enough evidence to decide one way or another.

None of us do. I could see a case for ciminal negligence or perhaps manslaughter depending on the details of the case. Or perhaps the kids wer eopening the window as well and he thought someone was actively breaking in.

 

[Beer]

None of us do. I could see a case for ciminal negligence or perhaps manslaughter depending on the details of the case. Or perhaps the kids wer eopening the window as well and he thought someone was actively breaking in.

I would assume Montana is one of those states where its ok to shoot someone for looking at you wrong as long as its on your property.

 

[Gameface]

Well I'll say it again, it is NEVER appropriate to shoot at an unknown target. NEVER!

It is one of the four basic rules of firearm safety that every person who picks up a gun should know.

A gun is a tool and can be used for defense of life. However, we all must accept that there are cases where that tool is ineffective or unusable. One such case is when you are not sure what the target is. You cannot shot at shadows in the night "just to make sure" they are not harmful.

The only time it is appropriate to pull the trigger on a living target is when you can clearly see that the target is a direct threat to yourself or someone else. If you cannot be 100% certain that's the case then pulling the trigger is a criminal act, even if your hunch is correct.

 

[TroutBum]

I'm just really non-PC, which comes off as racist sometimes. To be blunt, I don't think any race is better or worse than any other race.

But queers, Muslims, trannys, and anyone who doesn't believe in the Bible on the other hand...

funny? relevant?

If you're going to call me a liar, then you should probably give some kind of evidence for your point of view. Right?

I was there. You're not 6'1"

PKM is the only person on JFC to see me in person. And he saw me sitting down... for about 5 seconds.

Incorrect. Twice.

 

[NAOS]

But queers, Muslims, trannys, and anyone who doesn't believe in the Bible on the other hand...



I was there. You're not 6'1"



Incorrect. Twice.

whatever dude. It's sad that you still get kicks out of lying about this story.

 

[LogGrad98]

I would assume Montana is one of those states where its ok to shoot someone for looking at you wrong as long as its on property.

Fixed.

 

[Nate505]

I wouldn't call this a homicide, but I'm not sure how it isn't involuntary manslaughter. This "kid" should serve some years in prison.

Sucks all around though. The "kid" is a first class idiot.

 

[Nate505]

I now feel like a dumbass for commenting on the actual article of this thread. I didn't realize it was an 8 page pissing match. You'd think I'd have known that once I saw it was 8 pages, but apparently I'm an idiot.

 

[Gameface]

I wouldn't call this a homicide, but I'm not sure how it isn't involuntary manslaughter. This "kid" should serve some years in prison.

Sucks all around though. The "kid" is a first class idiot.

I disagree. I think it is 100% homicide.

The kid pointed a gun at a person and pulled the trigger. He knew it was a person but was willing to roll the dice (better safe than sorry) as to who that person was and if that person was any sort of threat.

You can't determine if a person is a threat if you can't even see the person clearly. But you see that it is a person and you knowingly fire a deadly weapon at that person because you'd rather kill them just in case they mean you harm than simply use the firearm to protect yourself be standing your ground and waiting until you can identify the target and determine if it is a threat.

Just like the Oscar Pistorius case, I think this is 100% homicide.

 

[Nate505]

I disagree. I think it is 100% homicide.

The kid pointed a gun at a person and pulled the trigger. He knew it was a person but was willing to roll the dice (better safe than sorry) as to who that person was and if that person was any sort of threat.

You can't determine if a person is a threat if you can't even see the person clearly. But you see that it is a person and you knowingly fire a deadly weapon at that person because you'd rather kill them just in case they mean you harm than simply use the firearm to protect yourself be standing your ground and waiting until you can identify the target and determine if it is a threat.

Just like the Oscar Pistorius case, I think this is 100% homicide.

Could be. I'm not a total expert on the legal definition. In my mind homicide is someone who is showing malice when they are killing someone, though I just looked up "extreme recklessness" is also part of that standard. In that case, you can make a very good argument this applies.