ls1jabroni

I didn't know we had so many lawyers who understand the judicial system so well(which if you are then great, but if not stop spamming), and gun sling'n cowboys on here(that is for everyone who thinks its necessary to take gun w/you on an ATV trip with your kids, or if it was even probable that would happen).

There is no way the Father will get fair restitution on this. Even if these losers get sent to prision or fry for being retarded enough to act first & think later, that won't bring back the daughter.

There is a differnce between physically breaking into a home, and standing 40 yards away from it.

neutron82

iTrader: (26)

what they deserve is to be shot dead themselves... will they get that??... hell no not in our sorry *** juducial system... at worst they will live a normal life behind bars using our tax money to keep their stupid *** alive... this kinda stuff pisses me off beyond belief lol... too bad they didn't do this in south america or something... they would have been beaten with sticks and set on fire... now that's what i'm talkin about!... justice served

ulakovic22

iTrader: (12)

Whether or not the kids should have been in bed or not has no bearing on them getting shot. I know you said you know it's not the parents fault and they weren't breaking any laws, but don't you think if the parents thought for one second that going for a trail ride would put their kids life in danger they would have done it? What better judgement should they have shown?

If a parent is in a bank with their kid in the middle of the day during the week and the bank gets robbed and the kid shot are you going to tell the parents that they should have shown better judgement and not taken their kid to the bank because he should have been in school? Are you going to then preach to the kids to not skip school cause you take the chance of getting shot?

Don't mean to jump down your throat or anything, but I don't agree with what you posted, it's just not logical.

Kamikazekyle05

iTrader: (1)

Sorry if you took my post the wrong way. I know it has no bearing at all, that wasnt where i was going with that. I know this could happen to anyone at anytime. Im just saying out offroading on a school night isnt where a 7 year old should be imo.

mitchntx

iTrader: (14)

First of all, I appreciate your taking issue with my opinion in a reasonable and mature manner. This could have and almost has degenerated into a name calling contest.

I'm reasonable. But maybe you should re-read what I posted.

I never said reason or negotiate with the shooter. I said get the hell out of there.

Big difference.

When bullets begin flying, who is right and who is wrong no longer matters.

When the first shotgun blast happened, had the father returned fire with a Glock, what would happen if the meth-dude had picked up his converted AR-15? Then what?

MY06TBSS

I do not know what else to say to but you are not living in the real world. No one said they had a AR15 ,so where do you come up with that????? next I am much older than you and I promise you being UNDERCOVER NARCOTICS AGENT ,I have seen alot more than you .... Your points are ill willed at the least .. Are you a father???? Do you know all the circumstances??? I can tell you I am a father, and know the circumstances ... And yes had the father been armed he should have returned FIRE!!!!!!!!!

mitchntx

iTrader: (14)

And the point is, by returning fire, you could have created even more damage. I assume they DID have an AR15 and you assume they DIDN'T. But, if the meth-heads were indeed meth-heads and taking pot shots at passers-by, it stands to reason they were well armed and obviously not afraid to use whatever means they had, right Mr. NARC?

So, by blindly returning fire, you have no clue what kind of mess you would have found yourself AND YOUR DEFENSLESS FAMILY in ... or are most 7 year olds armed these days? It's been a while since I had to deal with school.

When my family is already at risk, why chance putting them at even greater risk? So get the hell out instead being the 2nd party to a gun battle.

BTW ... my kids are 29 and 27.

I have friends who were police officers. The primary reason most say they got out of LE was because they started seeing EVERYONE as a pimp, *****, dealer or thief. So, I think it might be YOU living out a Clint Eastwood fantasy, not me.

Adam98Z

Here's an easy way to settle this: Different folks, different strokes. Some of us here would've shot back, others wouldn't. Whatever your prerogative is, stick to it bc you and only you have to live with the repercussions of your actions regardless of what those consequences may be.

Wheel Man

You people are hilarious to say the least. Not one of you were present at the shooting. Your minds and running with ideas thought up by your own imagination. All you can think is what you "would have done". Let us just put in terms we can all agree on. These people murdered a child and should be punished in the most horrific manner....... End of story!

BigZee71

iTrader: (5)

I didnt hear the story earlier when I saw their picture on the news. I did think to my self as thier picture popped on the screen that those where some spun out motherF@kers, then wondered what they could have blown up, or how long the car chase lasted.

What they should do is chain them to a ******* wall spread eagle and let the withdrawl symptoms kick in.

vette

do not seem to read the news. What about women getting kidnapped at walmart trying to get in their cars????? Car jacking at red lights. Road rage by a stupid bastard??? Maybe you should read the news or maybe even watch it on TV. You do not have to be in your home to get killed AS THIS ARTICLE PROVES>>>>>>>>>.

MY GUN GO WITH ME PERIOD!!!!!!!

Silver35thZ

iTrader: (3)

The fact that some of you have your CHL is a really scary thought. You seem very trigger happy and happy go lucky to "defend" yourself or in my opinion, disregard safety and engage in a gun battle just to use that trusty license of yours.

ONEBAD383STROKER

iTrader: (5)

I would pull this out.




If he can pull weapons out of his a$$ that he doesent have, so can I.


Someone is shooting at your family and you dont STOP the threat....well I cannot say it any clearer than this guy....

mitchntx

iTrader: (14)

Name calling ... nice. Shows a lack of intelligence and the inability to form a relevant thought. I wish that was screened on the CHL exam. Unfortunately ...

As long as you are sure you have the bigger gun, then blast away.

I'd prefer to be stupid and at home with my family than have my wife arrange 2 funerals.

fastvet

iTrader: (2)

^^^^amen!!!!

cmb570

iTrader: (2)

I would not want to use a gun. I would rip both these inbreed POS's apart with my bare hands..........using a gun would ends things way to fast for them. They need to suffer and feel pain for a long time

PatriotT/A

I have just read this entire thread and there is one thing that YOU, and the other "non-defenders" have over looked. This argument is basically over, because you have totally ignored the fact that the actual family was in the situation you are describing. I'm assuming the father did not have a weapon, because the story does not say he did. Therefore, HE DID NOT DEFEND HIMSELF. Since he did not have a gun to defend himself, what do you think his actions were? Do you not think he tried to get his child out of there as fast as possible? His first response was to get his child out of harm's way, yet he was not successful. If you were this father, and it was your child, I'm sorry to say it, but the outcome could have very well ended in the same way. Obviously he did what he could to get his child out of there, but he couldn't get to him in time. If he had diverted the shooter's attention with a gun shot, then the child could have possibly survived. You can say what you want, but the only thing that could have happened differently, on the father's part, would be to have a gun and fire back. From now on, when you want to argue with someone that firing back would not have either solved, or changed, the issue make sure you read how the story actually ended, because that is the actual unarmed scenario played out. I hope this makes sense.

ls1_sw

iTrader: (2)

heres mine

Silver35thZ

iTrader: (3)

I see what you are saying but I don't think you see what I am saying, because I won't speak for everyone that's on my side of the argument. I know the father did not have a weapon but had he I feel that he shouldn't have wasted the time to attempt to "divert" the shooter's attention. Pick up your child and run, if you open up gun fire the most likely response by the shooters is going to be to return more fire which just puts your child in even more danger. Many of the arguments to return fire was they would shield their child and also return fire...good luck aiming. Instead of delaying medical attention by engaging in a gun battle why not try to use both arms to carry your child/victim to a secure place?

89IROC

iTrader: (2)

he did that, he tried to retreat and it did not work, what is so hard to understand? the only way things could have been different with your un armed scenario is if the man was flash gordon....if some one returned fire then more then likely the meth freaks would have at least took cover and not just stood there laying in with more shots. Allowing for more time to get out even if the fathers shots were just total spray and pray...