MyFox
 

Labrat636's Blog

by Labrat636 from West of Oz.

Last Post 117 days, 12 hours Ago


He shot him in the back.
May 31, 2007 | 2:34 PM
Category: News
Report This Post

This is about the case of the man firing into a vehicle that was NOT posing any threat to him. This is clearly not a case of self defense. What justification did this man have to shoot another man in the back? It wasn't even the man who stole his vehicle. And, there was a young child in the car that could have been killed instead of the driver. Reckless.

I support concealed carry because I believe in my right to protect my life, my family's lives, and anyone who may be in immediate danger of being killed or injured by another. I do not believe I have the right to shoot another man in the back because his friend stole my truck. And if the shooter claims he did not intend to kill anyone, then what was he shooting for? Did he think the guy would actually stop or something? Again, reckless.

Sadly, If the shooter had shut the the truck off and pocketed he key the whole tragedy would have been avoided.

Throughout the history of mankind, it has never been OK to shoot any man in the back except maybe during times of war. And even then, it is not honorable combat. History has more often then not branded such people as murderers or assasins.

 

13 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 13
Page 1 of 1
babylove read my blog view my photos
May 31, 2007 | 3:18 PM

that's right,everyone should feel sorry for the criminals!(not)
mrmgrady read my blog view my photos
May 31, 2007 | 3:32 PM

There but by the grace of God go I. The shooter shot someone other than the intended target, which is what I have been saying ever since the Conceil and Carry Law was introduced in our State Legislature. Sadly, it came to pass. What would have happened if an "innocent bystander" were driving by the scene and was shot? The shooter would have said, "Oh, I'm sorry to kill you! I meant to kill someone else!" Once the bullet leaves the chamber, it cannot be taken back!
Fenix1
May 31, 2007 | 4:12 PM

I think if you are looking for sympathy for this fellow, it will be hard to come by. If he was an innocent person involved in this incident, he would not have drove off following behind the stolen vehicle.

Threat or no threat, people are tired of having there personal property stolen by these thugs on a daily basis. And if they are caught, they receive a slap on the wrist and are back out stealing a week later.

I know this person should not have left his keys in the vehicle, but that does not give someone the right to steal it.

I'll bet this guy who was killed has a wrap sheet a mile long.
SeniorCitizen view my photos
May 31, 2007 | 6:01 PM

I to am tired of working my self silly to get me a vehicle to have some jerk who is to lazy to work steal mine. If these thugs want nice vehicles - they can get them the same way I do WORK FOR THEM - DON'T STEAL THEM. Just because the keys were in the vehicle does not mean its FREE. I'm glad the thug got shot - it is just one more mouth that we will not have to feed in jail nor have to worry about him stealing another vehicle. If the owner of the truck goes to jail for defending his property - we should picket/protest the courts until they let him out. I believe the way they punish stealers overseas - if they steal - cut their hands off, if they damage others property cane in the square - I do believe our criminal rate would drop fast.
Get-Real read my blog view my photos
May 31, 2007 | 6:36 PM

All of the people in the car was out to steal something that did not belong to them, I think when you do that, you have to suffer the consequence.
AMOM read my blog
May 31, 2007 | 10:21 PM

You are saying,"The worker who owned the truck did not have the right to shoot toward the thugs that were involved in stealing his truck."

Did the thugs have the right to steal the truck?

Who is the cause of the shooting?
Had they not stole the truck, the shooting would not have happened.
The thugs are the cause. They just did not think ahead and prepare in case the good guy was not willing to be robbed.

No more whin, whin whin. You have just received the result of your decision.

Who taught the thugs that if they want something, just go and take it?
Billy-Pilgrim read my blog view my photos
Jun 1, 2007 | 12:13 AM

Hell, I'd rip out my RPG and blow that sucker to kingdom city.

Then, I'd stand over his ashes and pour nitric acid down the hole...

Then I'd plant some grass seed, and build a wine garden over the bastard and charge $40 admission.

----

Nonetheless, I've asked my bro, he also say's shooting for the back is lame and rarely used except in the cases in which the shooter aims to cause the most painful death possible to the victim...coming from a soldier not me.
mincooper read my blog
Jun 1, 2007 | 7:21 AM

if people would learn to pull over we might have fewer deaths. I can't believe people. I guess labrat you are one that does not pull over either.
Labrat636 read my blog
Jun 1, 2007 | 7:30 AM

As long as you can justify your actions. If the prosecuter does not press charges against the shooter then perhaps he was justified. If charged, and a jury acquits him, then perhaps he was justified.
However, it did occur to me that if the driver were in reverse, and backing up toward the shooter, then a shot in the back would be understandable.
Also, if you work so hard to have a nice vehicle that you feel so passionate about......then lock it the **** up and certainly don't leave it running unattended......duh..
Labrat636 read my blog
Jun 1, 2007 | 7:33 AM

Minicooper.....ah....what are you talking about?
AMOM read my blog
Jun 1, 2007 | 9:46 AM

Labrat636:
Our ancestors worked so hard for a free country for us.
You are saying that the thugs rule, and the rest of us must "lock up", hide, not be out after dark.

Come on Labrat636, run the thugs out and give the country back to the honest people.
Billy-Pilgrim read my blog view my photos
Jun 1, 2007 | 2:42 PM

I change my mind, I'd whip out an uzi and make a strainer out of that sucker.
Labrat636 read my blog
Jun 4, 2007 | 10:33 AM

AMOM - No! That is not what I'm saying, we should not hide or cower or be afraid - Just the opposite, actually. But if you leave your gate open and your door unlocked, you are inviting trouble that could easily be avoided.
That's what I'm saying. Avoid the conflict if possible, but be prepared to take it to the next level if required. Had the shooter locked his truck, perhaps he wouldn't have felt the need to fire his weapon, therby avoiding the conflict. Now he will have to defend his actions in court. While it is true that I would rather be judged by twelve, then carried by six, I would much rather avoid the whole mess to begin with.
Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




Labrat636

Master of digital puppets & Slayer of analog beasts -

Member Since: 4/17/2007


 

RSS: XMLWhat is RSS?