She's probably just jealous that he acted instead of commissioning a blue ribbon committee on how to best assess the car jacking situation.
Feinstein already HAS her CCW...Im sure if they got past her armed guards she would pop a cap in their ass.
I know, because it's such a bad day when the intended victim escapes uninjured and the perpetrators face consequences. I mean, had the intended victim not chosen to defend himself these two angels would be alive and free to make further great choices like armed robbery, maybe forcible rape(speculation), or they might just decide to whip someone's ass just for the hell of it and put them in the hospital, all good fun really.
Yeah, but according to "proper" logic they were deprived of their day in court and the opportunity to reform, society failed them afterall, not their decision making process. :roll:
He would have anyways, from the way it reads.
If you think death is the appropriate punishment for attempted theft of property, then I guess we'll just have to disagree on that.
Or the victim could have called the police, had them arrested and jailed, served their time while the victim got his car and phone back. Now, which one seems more likely...hmm....
Interesting...
The lack of concern of human life by the pro gun crowd never ceases to amaze me.
He would have called the police, they would have found them and arrested them and given the victim's possessions back to him?
You people have a strange sense of good news. Usually I think violence initiated by firearms (the perps' I'm referring to) which later results in someone being killed is not good news, but I guess we're all different.
You don't get to disagree. Many carjackings end in witness elimination. The idiots who decided to attempt a carjacking didn't get to make the final decision. And guess what, my property is something I have purchased, it's something I've earned, so you know what **** anyone who will try to take it by force.
Yeah, while an armed attacker was in immediate range, real ****ing good idea. :roll:
And those people would be fools. If they are willing to take a person's car at gunpoint, they don't care how illegal they have to go to get a gun. This is what happens when one doesn't understand the subject matter, they make statements that are both false and easily beaten.
The lack of sense in thinking that a criminal getting himself killed is of equal value to the person they would have harmed never ceases to amaze me.
Yeah, because a criminal is really going to stop an attack because police are on the phone. :roll:
True, but then he was deprived of the right not to be shot apparently, either that or his right to take whatever he wants from citizens without consequence because apparently self defense to some people is wrong if the perp gets shot.
No, it was worded truthfully. Was the violence NOT initiated at the end of a gun barrel? It was. Was someone killed by a gun? They were.
Exactly. They possessed a weapon for inappropriate reasons. Shouldn't that be a sign we need to do a better job of preventing these type of people from so easily having a weapon?
Was the victim's life in danger? I didn't read the article, but my suspicion is that it wasn't, considering the criminals were already in the car. This whole incident started because of a gun.
