Splitting hairs here. So let's say 500 yards, or even 250. The point being that the general idea that you can just blast away in your defense without considering collateral damage or death is absurd.
So the author makes it sound like if a theft value is about $20 that's OK? Who saw whether or not the kid displayed the gun? Big question, why did this kid have a gun in the first place? I'd like to see his juvenile record.
There was a road rage case. One guy threw a water bottle at the other car, hitting the driver. That driver shot and hit the water bottle thrower's daughter in the leg, sitting in the back seat. The water bottle thrower grabbed his gun and fired, hitting the other guy's daughter in the back seat.
The guy who threw the water bottle got charged, the other guy didn't.
Someone took a can of the exact shade of spray paint as the background on city limit signs for Canal Winchester and took out the "C's". Now, I, of course, have to decry the expense and societal breakdown of any vandalism, but I did appreciate the sentiment.
The fascinating thing about white racist gun nuts like Mr Alexander here is that they think that it should be legal for any person anywhere to carry any guns they like, but also think it quite OK for anyone anywhere to shoot anyone so long as they think they might have a gun. Oh, wait, I've got that wrong: they think that it should be legal for any white person anywhere to carry any guns they like, and it quite OK for anyone white anywhere to shoot anyone black so long as they think they might have a gun. If the kid buying the water and then changing his mind had shot the store owner because he was (in fact entirely justifiably) frightened the store owner was going to shoot him, does anyone think our man Mr Jefferson here would leaping to his defence?
And don't even think of walking into a firing range with a loaded gun if you aren't law enforcement. All weapons must be empty and stored in a case when you walk through the door.
Of course we know for a fact that gun was in the kid's possession when he was shot because it was found near him and we have multiple witnesses who saw him threaten the shopowner with his illegal gun.
What BS. Records from that period are not clear on an individual event basis to make such an outlandish claim-but what is clear-murder on a wide scale, especially indigenous peoples, slaves and other vulnerable people, was wide-spread at the time. None of the reasons you assert have any connection to the current dilemma. you act as if crime, murder included, is some new phenomenon. And, as an idolator of violence against minority community members-including juveniles-you're part of the continuing sickness pervading his country
Splitting hairs here. So let's say 500 yards, or even 250. The point being that the general idea that you can just blast away in your defense without considering collateral damage or death is absurd.
So the author makes it sound like if a theft value is about $20 that's OK? Who saw whether or not the kid displayed the gun? Big question, why did this kid have a gun in the first place? I'd like to see his juvenile record.
Like a punk.
It's murder either way.
I think I just lost a bet. I was sure eve flies would shun him.
There was a road rage case. One guy threw a water bottle at the other car, hitting the driver. That driver shot and hit the water bottle thrower's daughter in the leg, sitting in the back seat. The water bottle thrower grabbed his gun and fired, hitting the other guy's daughter in the back seat.
The guy who threw the water bottle got charged, the other guy didn't.
How long until we find out where Donnie stole it from?
So, they're going to stand around and do nothing, like the last time?
They are going to spend a fortune dealing with vandalized road signs.
Someone took a can of the exact shade of spray paint as the background on city limit signs for Canal Winchester and took out the "C's". Now, I, of course, have to decry the expense and societal breakdown of any vandalism, but I did appreciate the sentiment.
The fascinating thing about white racist gun nuts like Mr Alexander here is that they think that it should be legal for any person anywhere to carry any guns they like, but also think it quite OK for anyone anywhere to shoot anyone so long as they think they might have a gun. Oh, wait, I've got that wrong: they think that it should be legal for any white person anywhere to carry any guns they like, and it quite OK for anyone white anywhere to shoot anyone black so long as they think they might have a gun. If the kid buying the water and then changing his mind had shot the store owner because he was (in fact entirely justifiably) frightened the store owner was going to shoot him, does anyone think our man Mr Jefferson here would leaping to his defence?
And don't even think of walking into a firing range with a loaded gun if you aren't law enforcement. All weapons must be empty and stored in a case when you walk through the door.
So, you were there and saw the gun fall from the kid's possession after he was shot?
Too bad no one's established yet that the kid actually had a gun. Found near his dead body certainly isn't definitive.
Of course we know for a fact that gun was in the kid's possession when he was shot because it was found near him and we have multiple witnesses who saw him threaten the shopowner with his illegal gun.
What BS. Records from that period are not clear on an individual event basis to make such an outlandish claim-but what is clear-murder on a wide scale, especially indigenous peoples, slaves and other vulnerable people, was wide-spread at the time. None of the reasons you assert have any connection to the current dilemma. you act as if crime, murder included, is some new phenomenon. And, as an idolator of violence against minority community members-including juveniles-you're part of the continuing sickness pervading his country