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

[Jonathan Wingo]

Despite what I said above, maybe it was for the best the partner died. Had he not, I bet my ass these people would try to lock up the tow driver for murder considering how "entitled" they all feel to park wherever they want no matter what anyone says. At least this way, it's blatant self defense and there's no way to argue otherwise.

Sadly that's too fucking true.

 

[Ickorus]

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.

 

[Jonathan Wingo]

I like how 3 people have said that he wasn't justified, yet haven't explained why. I would really love to hear their argument.

Agreed.

 

[zehydra]

" a man angry at having his car towed shot and killed a tow truck worker early Friday before the tow truck?s driver returned fire, mortally wounding the gunman"

I know what the author meant to say, but this sentence basically says that the angry man shot and killed the worker before the worker was able to shoot back (which morally wounded the gunman?)

lol.

 

[DoctorPhil]

Justified self defense. They should confiscate his gun (really, this right to bear arms is ludicrous. What is this, the middle ages?) and let him go free.

 

[DoctorPhil]

Justified self defense. They should confiscate his gun (really, this right to bear arms is ludicrous. What is this, the middle ages?) and let him go free.

And if he didn't have a gun he would have died. The police are useless. You're better off owning a gun than you are trusting a cop to do it.

EDIT: also peasants didn't have weapon in the Middle ages. Nobles thought they would revolt is they could fight back. Guns protect you from nutters and tyrants, and you're arguing to revert back to the middle ages.

That law makes guns easyer to get, even if it's not legally. The odds are very high the killer wouldn't have a gun either.

 

[Kakashi on crack]

Sounds like a good shoot to me. He defended himself against a guy who proved himself to be a threat to his life by shooting his partner dead.

What gets me is the number of comments on the story that make tow truck drivers out to be the bad guys for doing their jobs and clearing the parking lot of cars that are illegally parked.

This just about sums it up.

As an add-on, if the residents have such a problem with the tow truck drivers, they should bring it up with the apartment manager who hired them, not the drivers >.>

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

Don't see what was so unique here, just a case of self defense, and I agree with the driver's move to kill the shooter.

 

[Uber Evil]

" a man angry at having his car towed shot and killed a tow truck worker early Friday before the tow truck?s driver returned fire, mortally wounding the gunman"

I know what the author meant to say, but this sentence basically says that the angry man shot and killed the worker before the worker was able to shoot back (which morally wounded the gunman?)

lol.

I took a double take before I saw it said worker then driver.

 

[fix-the-spade]

OT: Was the tow truck driver correct in his actions? BTW, this happened in Dallas, Texas.

A man is shooting at you, he just killed your friend, there is nothing wrong ethically or legally with putting one between his eyes.

The truck driver's clearly no saint having read the article, but you aren't going to get a much clearer case of self defence. Even here in the UK he wouldn't get put on a murder or even manslaughter (think murder in the second) cjarge for that, although he'd be busted for illegal fire arm possession...

 

[Eggsnham]

He was very justified, the gunman killed his partner, does he really need any more justification to shoot back?

 

[attackshark]

right. wrong. whatever. if you're going to attack someone, you need to be prepared to accept whatever consequences come your way, whether it's legal action or return fire.

further more, this is exactly why everyone needs to be prepared to defend themselves at all times.

this is texas; there isn't a jury in the entire state that would side with any prosecution.

 

[Giest4life]

Sounds like a good shoot to me. He defended himself against a guy who proved himself to be a threat to his life by shooting his partner dead.

What gets me is the number of comments on the story that make tow truck drivers out to be the bad guys for doing their jobs and clearing the parking lot of cars that are illegally parked.

I don't know if that hate is directed towards towing companies in general or a justification of the--now dead--man's actions?

 

[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?

 

[emeraldrafael]

Technically he was doing it in self defense, and he shot to disable. he should face manslaughter with a lighter sentence for self defense, but thats about it.

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... This IS Texas. DALLAS TEXAS.

Thats not even really trying to be insulting towards Texans, butt here's a lot of crime there, especially with that Cartel war thing. And I know, Dallas is farther away, but there's a high congregation of gangs, so I would be surprised. you're in a business where you are essentially pissing someone off for sure, cause no one wnats to have a car towed (even if they are too retarded to realize tehy are wrong.

 

[DoctorPhil]

Justified self defense. They should confiscate his gun (really, this right to bear arms is ludicrous. What is this, the middle ages?) and let him go free.

And if he didn't have a gun he would have died. The police are useless. You're better off owning a gun than you are trusting a cop to do it.

EDIT: also peasants didn't have weapon in the Middle ages. Nobles thought they would revolt is they could fight back. Guns protect you from nutters and tyrants, and you're arguing to revert back to the middle ages.

That law makes guns easyer to get, even if it's not legally. The odds are very high the killer wouldn't have a gun either.

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.

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.