I'm not a gun expert but I know you'd get some hard stares or worse if you shot someone at a bad angle, like 180 deg. into the back. My point was that it shouldn't matter if he hit them in self defence. That's the kind of gun owners we need. What's a shot across the bow if you don't hit one from time to time?
Ian Thompson acquitted
- Thread starter OpenGambit
- Start date
I'm not a gun expert but I know you'd get some hard stares or worse if you shot someone at a bad angle, like 180 deg. into the back. My point was that it shouldn't matter if he hit them in self defence. That's the kind of gun owners we need. What's a shot across the bow if you don't hit one from time to time?
Dirty Frank
Well-known member
what someone who has difficulty properly operating a weapon?
those people were clearly demonstrating that human life has no value to them do you think that prison will make them better?
Having been a range instructor he had no difficulty in finding, loading, and using his weapons. He did, however, have a reverence for human life. It's the other sort I don't want to see own weapons.
rmemedic
Well-known member
Exactly.
That dude would have hit them if he was trying, and with the way I saw it described, he fired in directions where his rounds didn't stand a chance of creating any harm... Clear thinker.
He has x-ray vision too?
Dirty Frank
Well-known member
IMHO he did his community a disservice by not culling those bad apples from the herd
call me a hothead but I would consider using deadly force against a group of masked men firebombing my residence thinking that me and my family are inside
call me a hothead but I would consider using deadly force against a group of masked men firebombing my residence thinking that me and my family are inside
rmemedic
Well-known member
No, but years of experience and common sense would tell him how far and through what objects his bullets would travel.
oh.
Two into the ground and one into a heavy stand of old growth trees, where the attackers WEREN'T.
Did he get his guns and licence back
You don't think those guys deserved to get shot?
Personally I think he would've been entirely justified in shooting them. That's not to say I disagree with what he did... but I think he put himself at further risk by attempting to scare them off instead of shooting to disable them. Just my opinion.
rmemedic
Well-known member
If they saw him come out and armed, they likely took off... If he shot them he would have been in actual serious trouble had he done that once they weren't a threat. Firing a couple warning shots, however, lets them know he means business.
And you don't shoot to disable... Hitting an arm or a leg on a moving subject would be pretty difficult, so to score a hit means going center of mass... And that means a very likely fatal shot.
Policemen do it all the time, these things can be massaged. It's like saying "I put 2 into the ground and 1 into them trees" Just get a good liewyer.
OpenGambit
Banned
I think he took the most reasonable path one could think of, which makes the charges even more incredibly stupid.
I don't find'em that stupid.. I think it was a pretty deliberate attempt to make a person think twice next time around.
OpenGambit
Banned
rmemedic
Well-known member
I think he was pretty clear minded to do what he did... He could have easily shot those dudes. Instead he properly escalated the force he was using. Show of force was letting them know he had a loaded weapon and he meant business and gave them the decision to leave or continue what they were doing and face the consequences.
