Four-year-old girl wounded by stray bullet

[Dual867PowerMac]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,569209,00.html?test=latestnews

It's not life-threatening thank God, but... :eek:

[Gabby]

I hope they catch the thugs and put them away for years for attempted murder. What kind of animals fire weapons near a school or on the street of a city?

[drylok]

Hope they catch the bad guys

[Samm]

I hope they catch the thugs and put them away for years for attempted murder. What kind of animals fire weapons near a school or on the street of a city?

The same kind of thugs that beat an honor student to death with a hunk of wood just because he happened to come along while there was a street ruckus going on.

[drylok]

I hate to be the one to break it to ya'll, but this kind of behavior will continue until moral improves. And you can't legislate that

[Gabby]

I hate to be the one to break it to ya'll, but this kind of behavior will continue until moral improves. And you can't legislate that

I think we all know that. It just seems that there is no way to turn this around.

[Samm]

I think we all know that. It just seems that there is no way to turn this around.

There is, but vigilantism is against the law in most States.

[Gabby]

There is, but vigilantism is against the law in most States.

Some times I think it is the only way we are going to get things under control again. Our police force cannot do it. Our laws and courts fail us.

A return to civility will come when most poeple start caring about morality, ethics, etc. As long as our youth think that being a drug addicted 'gangsta' is the way to go we are going to have this problem and it's going to get worse.

[JediMindTrick]

I hope they catch the thugs and put them away for years for attempted murder. What kind of animals fire weapons near a school or on the street of a city?

Did you even bother to read the newstory?

several men got into a confrontation with a driver at about 12:45 p.m. Thursday and shots were fired.

The news article doesn't say who fired the shots but lets just suppose for a second it was the driver shooting at the guys who were trying to attack him. Obviously he missed but if he was trying to defend himself then its just a very unfortunate accident. Or is he supposed to just allow himself to be carjacked or beaten? Now if it was one of the thugs attacking the driver then nevermind anything I just said.

[Panhead0422]

I think we all know that. It just seems that there is no way to turn this around.

Actually, there is, when people are convicted of violent crimes, we as a society have two basic choices. 1. Execute the offender. 2. Put the violent offender in a prison until the day he or she dies and then add four days to the sentence to make sure the convict is really dead. While this will not stop crimes from occurring, it will make sure that violent criminals do not get a chance to repeat their crimes in the future.

[Panhead0422]

Did you even bother to read the newstory?



The news article doesn't say who fired the shots but lets just suppose for a second it was the driver shooting at the guys who were trying to attack him. Obviously he missed but if he was trying to defend himself then its just a very unfortunate accident. Or is he supposed to just allow himself to be carjacked or beaten? Now if it was one of the thugs attacking the driver then nevermind anything I just said.

What I think is that if there was not criminal activity involved in the shooting, you would have had a complainant explaining why he or she shot at someone. Now he or she might have done so from several miles away after removing him or herself from a dangerous situation, but you would have had a complainant.

[gdoane]

What I think is that if there was not criminal activity involved in the shooting, you would have had a complainant explaining why he or she shot at someone. Now he or she might have done so from several miles away after removing him or herself from a dangerous situation, but you would have had a complainant.

I gotta agree with that one. If I fire my gun in the city limits for cause, I won't be keeping it a secret because covering your ass makes it look like you think you've done something wrong.

Coverups are what get people in trouble. If Nixon had just said "Yeah, I oppose Democrats and went a little overboard" the whole Watergate incident would have wound up like Bill Clinton's "Monicagate" and if Bill Clinton would have just said "Yeah, I hit that" he wouldn't have been impeached at all.

It's as cliche' as it gets, but honesty really is the best policy.

It goes back to my mantra, "Intent Matters And It Matters A Lot."

You can bomb Hiroshima if it stops a war. You can have snipers shoot Somali pirates in the head if it rescues a hostage. And even if it's a mistake but the intention was good, that's okay anyway because "Intent Matters And It Matters A Lot."

I do believe in deadly force for self-defense. That's totally justifiable, but what is not justifiable is the failure to own up to the action.

It's like a hit-and-run accident. If the hitting was an accident, that's okay. The running wasn't any accident so that's not okay. For example, yesterday a 62-year-old woman was hit by three cars, two of which fled the scene.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/10/22/20091022abrk-1022fatalhitrun.html

I know the intersection, it's an extremely high traffic gateway intersection from Southwest Phoenix to the Northeast Valley and Scottsdale, and it's entirely possible, even likely that the first driver to hit the woman wasn't at fault at all, BUT BUT BUT leaving the scene for the little old lady to be run over time and time again can't be justified. You're never going to sell that story to a jury of your peers.

I don't buy that the shooter was an honest guy defending himself. If he were that, he'd be looking for the cops and the cops wouldn't be looking for him.

[jeepers]

It's about morals and it's about having cajones.

Sorry, but we've become a nation of hand wringing wimps. I don't mean that I subscribe to out of control violence. I mean that most of society is like a bunch of old women, peeking behind curtains, hand wringing saying 'what to do what to do?'

Truth is, society didn't give a crap as to what happened to large segments of the population, as long as it didn't affect them. I've been thinking for decades that someone should have driven tanks into Compton and places like it so that people could live in peace. I remember being a teen, hearing the stories and naively thinking 'why won't they do something about this?'

So the alphas condemn it and the betas hand wring and no one does anything except draw a basic perimeter, and despair about overflow and cluck their tongues.

It will stop the day that the majority of people say 'hey this has to stop'. A nation that defeated the kamikazees in Japan and the nazis in europe (at the same time, I might add), can't figure out what to do about street violence? Invented the automobile, stopped polio, put a man on the moon, and created a country out of their bare hands , can't figue out what to do?

Please. Enforce the laws. If locals can't do it, call in the national guard, if the guard needs back up, call in the feds.

Or else we can continue to live like we are doing now, where a four year old can't walk down the street with her mom without getting shot.

We have violence in this country because we excuse it. We explain it away. We condone it. We allow it. Everything that is wrong with our cities, we allow and have created.

But you'll have to do something really dangerous in this day and age: point a finger and say 'what you are doing is wrong'. It starts there.

[Samm]

The news article doesn't say who fired the shots but lets just suppose for a second it was the driver shooting at the guys who were trying to attack him. Obviously he missed but if he was trying to defend himself then its just a very unfortunate accident. Or is he supposed to just allow himself to be carjacked or beaten? Now if it was one of the thugs attacking the driver then nevermind anything I just said.

Yes... those are two possible scenarios... but the most likely case is that both the driver and the accosters were thugs.

[Getty Girl]

Actually, there is, when people are convicted of violent crimes, we as a society have two basic choices. 1. Execute the offender. 2. Put the violent offender in a prison until the day he or she dies and then add four days to the sentence to make sure the convict is really dead. While this will not stop crimes from occurring, it will make sure that violent criminals do not get a chance to repeat their crimes in the future.

i say bring back the firing squad.

[JediMindTrick]

Yes... those are two possible scenarios... but the most likely case is that both the driver and the accosters were thugs.

Could be but it doesn't mean its not self defense. Even a thug has the right to defend himself from other thugs.

If my scenario is correct here are several possible reasons the guy hasn't come forward. I'm not defending them but in the driver's shoes you can kind of understand it.

1) He's wanted by the police.
2) He doesn't have a permit for the gun.
3) He's scared he's going to get charged for shooting the girl even though he was actually justified in shooting at he shot at.

Again, if my scenario is incorrect then nevermind. I'm merely pointing at that this isn't automatically a situation where someone was unjustified in shooting when they did.

[sgtmac_46]

Could be but it doesn't mean its not self defense. Even a thug has the right to defend himself from other thugs.

If my scenario is correct here are several possible reasons the guy hasn't come forward. I'm not defending them but in the driver's shoes you can kind of understand it.

1) He's wanted by the police.
2) He doesn't have a permit for the gun.
3) He's scared he's going to get charged for shooting the girl even though he was actually justified in shooting at he shot at.

Again, if my scenario is incorrect then nevermind. I'm merely pointing at that this isn't automatically a situation where someone was unjustified in shooting when they did.

Using that logic nearly many gang shootings are 'self-defense'........got in an argument with a rival gang, it escalated, pulled their heater to 'handle their business' because they knew the other gang members would, and began shooting.

[Samm]

Could be but it doesn't mean its not self defense. Even a thug has the right to defend himself from other thugs.

If my scenario is correct here are several possible reasons the guy hasn't come forward. I'm not defending them but in the driver's shoes you can kind of understand it.

1) He's wanted by the police.
2) He doesn't have a permit for the gun.
3) He's scared he's going to get charged for shooting the girl even though he was actually justified in shooting at he shot at.

Again, if my scenario is incorrect then nevermind. I'm merely pointing at that this isn't automatically a situation where someone was unjustified in shooting when they did.

I agree... about 3-4 years ago there was an incident here where a couple of gang-bangers in a car started shooting at a couple of their rivals on a downtown street one night. The two on the sidewalk shot back, injuring the shooter in the car. The two in the car were later arrested, but the DA did not press charges against the other two; stating that even though they were members of a gang they were not engaged in criminal activity when they were accosted and that they had a right to defend themselves the same as anyone else. Neither had a felony record so they were not in violation of any gun laws except for discharging them in the city. That violation was waved, as it would have been for anyone, because of the self defense situation.

[Samm]

Using that logic nearly many gang shootings are 'self-defense'........got in an argument with a rival gang, it escalated, pulled their heater to 'handle their business' because they knew the other gang members would, and began shooting.

It is not against the law to get into an argument with another person. It is against the law for you to use your gun to settle the argument. As in my example in my previous post, if the gang members are legal to carry a gun and are not involved in criminal activity, they have a right to defend themselves by shooting back at those shooting at them. It may be a tough call as to who was defending themselves from whom, but exactly how do you apply the right to defend oneself if you have exceptions for people based solely on their associations? Furthermore, the saying "I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" is just a valid for gang-bangers as it is for you and me.