Poll: Man shoots and kills murderer, released pending a grand jury review

[JMeganSnow]

It's nice to see so many agreeing in this poll. Yes, the driver was 100% justified. *Everyone* has a right to self-defense against an attacker.

Also the police were correct to detain him, then release him pending an equally appropriate grand jury review. Really, the behavior of everyone in article is 100% appropriate except the guy who initially started shooting.

 

[Eri]

Well yeah, self-defense and everything. No problemo.

What's worrying me more is that a damn tow-truck driver has a gun with him at work. Are their lives so dangerous they have to be armed?

Well considering he would be dead had he NOT had a gun with him, yes, the answer is yes.

 

[Delta2501]

Few people would deny using reasonable force in self-defence is fine, but I still maintain ready availability of guns was the source of the problem in the first place. As someone in the UK I can say that banning weapons has meant far less gun crime and surprisingly enough we aren't all cowering in our beds in fear of armed criminals because of it.

Lack of arms is just normal here, and a lot less people die because of that. Constant availability of lethal force is not a natural state nor a desirable situation, seeing as it means any altercation/snap decision becomes an instant source of lethal danger.

 

[JMeganSnow]

If that's no lie or giant hyperbole you're saying, then the US is seriously fucked up, because the only ones that get shot over here in Holland are criminals by hitmen, wich is rare, and guns are illegal. Seems to me the US needs to invest more in cops.

We have plenty of cops. We have other problems that encourage people to be violent, including, among other things, obscenely stupid drug and immigration laws. They'd be violent whether the guns were illegal or not, and, in fact, one of the least-violent municipalities in the U.S. is one where homeowners are REQUIRED to own a gun and know how to use it.

Not to mention the fact that our population is ENORMOUS compared to that of Holland, and ENORMOUSLY more spread out. Heck, guns are illegal in England IIRC, and the only real result of that has been a big spike in knife-related killings. Murder rates overall haven't decreased (any more than they were already trending--I think there was already a decreasing trend). Whereas murder rates have been going down in the U.S. for years, and continued going down even after gun laws were RELAXED across most of the country. It is actually now easier for a citizen without criminal record to get a gun than it was 30 years ago when murder rates were much HIGHER.

All else aside, attempting to get guns away from Americans is flat-out impractical. Far better to let 'em have their toys, so at least when someone tries to shoot up a church or school with an ILLEGAL firearm, there's someone on hand with a LEGAL one who can deal with it.

We don't own a gun, but we got some nice medieval weapons we could use on attackers, assuming they'd ever be so incredibly bored as to wander through the maze of our little suburban house cluster (any direction a little pointless street can go, it goes, it's worse than the New Jersey Turnpike) and climb over the huge rose bush taking over our front walk in order to steal our 4-year-old electronics and amazing collection of ratty old furniture.

 

[Quaxar]

Well yeah, self-defense and everything. No problemo.

What's worrying me more is that a damn tow-truck driver has a gun with him at work. Are their lives so dangerous they have to be armed?

Well considering he would be dead had he NOT had a gun with him, yes, the answer is yes.

Damn, that post has an interesting sound if read in a Fluttershy voice.

Sure, it was a good thing he had it with him. I'm just trying to understand why a person getting rid of illegally parked cars feels the need to take a gun with him to work every day (I assume it was not just a coincidence).
It's not like they were towing cars in Brazilian slums or anything.

 

[JMeganSnow]

Few people would deny using reasonable force in self-defence is fine, but I still maintain ready availability of guns was the source of the problem in the first place. As someone in the UK I can say that banning weapons has meant far less gun crime and surprisingly enough we aren't all cowering in our beds in fear of armed criminals because of it.

It hasn't meant less OVERALL crime, though, and knife-related crimes have actually GONE UP. Can't just take the first statistic to come along and decide it's definitive. That, and I expect is it MUCH harder to get ILLEGAL weapons in England than here in the U.S., whereas in large parts of the U.S. it's so easy that making gun ownership illegal actually leads to a SURGE of gun-related crimes.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

From the story that's been given I would say that it was clearly self defence, and he didn't provoke the man in any way, although if the only witnesses where those involved in the attack, it is possible their accounts of the attack are not totally reliable.

 

[WanderingFool]

Seeing as the gunman shot and killed the one truck driver, and was probably going to do the same to the older one, I think the older truck driver was well within the right here. That seems a simple case of defense, and I doubt anybody (unless trolling) will say its perfect acceptable to shoot somebody for toeing your car.

 

[Psycho Cat Industries]

Give this guy a medal,and a 12 gauge.

 

[WanderingFool]

Well yeah, self-defense and everything. No problemo.

What's worrying me more is that a damn tow-truck driver has a gun with him at work. Are their lives so dangerous they have to be armed?

Well considering he would be dead had he NOT had a gun with him, yes, the answer is yes.

Damn, that post has an interesting sound if read in a Fluttershy voice.

Sure, it was a good thing he had it with him. I'm just trying to understand why a person getting rid of illegally parked cars feels the need to take a gun with him to work every day (I assume it was not just a coincidence).
It's not like they were towing cars in Brazilian slums or anything.

People can be pretty aggressive when their property is being forcfully taken from them.

 

[Psycho Cat Industries]

Few people would deny using reasonable force in self-defence is fine, but I still maintain ready availability of guns was the source of the problem in the first place. As someone in the UK I can say that banning weapons has meant far less gun crime and surprisingly enough we aren't all cowering in our beds in fear of armed criminals because of it.

Lack of arms is just normal here, and a lot less people die because of that. Constant availability of lethal force is not a natural state nor a desirable situation, seeing as it means any altercation/snap decision becomes an instant source of lethal danger.

Why will a man who obviously does not care for the law by murder care about a gun law?Anyone who respects the law will turn in guns or move to a place where it is legal.What is stopping the person who actually plans to murder now that there are no guns but his or her own?

 

[JMeganSnow]

Sure, it was a good thing he had it with him. I'm just trying to understand why a person getting rid of illegally parked cars feels the need to take a gun with him to work every day (I assume it was not just a coincidence).
It's not like they were towing cars in Brazilian slums or anything.

Dude, in Miami people will pull guns in TRAFFIC. If you have any kind of a job that involves seriously pissing people off in any part of ANY kind of a major city, you damn well better be able to defend yourself. If you're out in the suburbs, not so much.

Heck, here south of Dayton our local *pizza delivery people* have been having problems with getting robbed, recently. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the ones who come to my house go armed, particularly the ones who aren't male, large, and intimidating.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Legal guns > Illegal guns. California tried to ban them and look what happened, nothing but gang bangers with guns. The cops can't help because they are either incompetent or thinned out by the sheer demand placed on them.

California has the absolutely brain dead retarded idea that guns are bad, only to have guns available to every citizen. Easier than a legal gun. Banning guns is like banning pot, it wont do a single fucking thing and only gives you an illusion of safety.

I agree with you but at the same time think you are entirely wrong. Let me explain.

Gun culture, like drug culture elsewhere, is so deeply engrained in American society removing it is just a stupid idea. It wont work and it only gives an illusion things are better. You are correct in that. However in the UK I'm glad and VERY supportive of the fact guns are illegal. Shootings are almost non existent. A shooting makes national news. Thats because gun culture isnt a part of England. You dont have to stamp it out first to enforce the law. In the UK i don't need to carry a gun because, unless i wander into VERY VERY VERY bad territory (like the worst, and start screaming slurs), no one else has a gun. My opinion. You are right, guns should be legal in the US. Only sensible action. Banning them wont do shit. Its too late. Its worse than if the culture was NEVER present and illegal guns didnt happen as often but its the most practical by far.

Guns are terrible. They dont kill people. They just really really really help. Ever see a school massacre committed with bear hands? No. Like nukes never kill people. People do. Its a sad truth but the safest option for the US now is to have guns for everyone to even in out. In the UK it just isnt necessary.

OT: Basic self defence. Clear cut as far as i can see.

 

[FolkLikePanda]

Yeah, he did the right thing and he shouldn't be prosecuted.

 

[deathninja]

Isn't there a lot of knife crimes in the UK, though?

Which can be just as lethal as guns, yet are much more easy to obtain than guns, even in the U.S?

Absolute fuckton of stabbings in the capital, and everywhere I've lived elsewhere it's either bats, cars or dogs people use if you so much as look at them the wrong way. Then again if you want to reach the top of the chain in offensive weaponry here, you just need to be 18 to buy a knife/blade, no licensing needed to get the upper hand if you're that bloody minded.

I'd rather take my chances in the US.

 

[Angryman101]

If that's no lie or giant hyperbole you're saying, then the US is seriously fucked up, because the only ones that get shot over here in Holland are criminals by hitmen, wich is rare, and guns are illegal. Seems to me the US needs to invest more in cops.

Another ignorant European unaware of the history and culture of the United States and the enormous role guns have played in it. We are an enormous country. Our ancestors spread out across the untamed plains in order to make a life, and guns were required to protect themselves and their families from both natural dangers (cougars, bears, wolves) and human outlaws. Guns were often also necessary to accrue food so they could have some precious sustenance for their families. The United States was born, made, and expanded through the use of firearms, and its attitude towards them has remained consistent throughout the years. So no, the United States is not fucked up; it's history with guns is merely a positive one. Sure, the occasional ruffian on the streets of our urban centers may use them to kill each other, but that's not the gun's fault. It's their fault.

 

[inFAMOUSCowZ]

It hasn't meant less OVERALL crime, though, and knife-related crimes have actually GONE UP. Can't just take the first statistic to come along and decide it's definitive. That, and I expect is it MUCH harder to get ILLEGAL weapons in England than here in the U.S., whereas in large parts of the U.S. it's so easy that making gun ownership illegal actually leads to a SURGE of gun-related crimes.

Thank you for clearing that up. People don't seem to realize, you take one thing away, they'll use another.

OT: This guy was completely in the right, if he gets fined/goes to prison/ or anything else. I'll be quite pissed off over that.

 

[sir.rutthed]

Before reading the article I thought "Well he did it in self-defense".

After reading the article I thought "Well he did it in self-defense and the guy was clearly a threat to others if he had already pulled a gun on someone else before when he was angry".

The people who are really at fault however is the people who give out gun licenses, as soon as the gunman had proven himself to be violent when angry he should've had his license and gun taken away from him.

I bet you anything this nut didn't have a license. He probably got it off the black market, there's no way someone with a criminal record like that would get a gun license even in Texas. Even if he didn't have a gun, he probably would have just beaten the guy with a pipe or something. If people want to kill, they'll find a way.

OT: Driver was totally right in what he did. It was him or the nut case, and the nutter lost.