An Unusual Point Of View

[PaintMyHouse]

On the contrary, if the facts of the article are correct, he was justifiably killed. Even if he meant no harm, that was an act worthy of the Darwin Award, which he earned. You don't point something that looks like a gun at somebody, and call it a joke, especially in the manner than he did it.

Unfortunately for the shooter, a gun wasn't pointed at him.

It doesn't have to be pointed at him.

And the civil courts work both ways.

He has no grounds to sue, at least not yet, but they do.

 

[Auld Phart]

No. There is a valid defense of others. The customer did nothing wrong. He will just skip along both civilly and criminally.

Time will tell. Either way, he's going to be spending some of his valuable time with lawyers and judges. That happens here when you kill someone, and the family sues.

Either way, he's going to be spending some of his valuable time with lawyers and judges

I hope the family suing can afford the lawyers.

The shooter won't have much problem winning.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Welcome to the Wrongful Death suit I talked about. Remember that before you play John Wayne.

Welcome to the Wrongful Death suit

based on?

The fact that he should not have been killed. When you kill someone, for whatever reason, you just stepped in a big hole you can't just walk away from...

Oh? Why not?

Just curious.

Because taking a human life is serious business, even here. That's why cops turn in their badges and weapons after a shooting, while it is investigated.

So, if there is no badge to turn in? Weapons may of course be held as evidence, but that does not preclude one from carrying another.

Curious. What state do you live in?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

On the contrary, if the facts of the article are correct, he was justifiably killed. Even if he meant no harm, that was an act worthy of the Darwin Award, which he earned. You don't point something that looks like a gun at somebody, and call it a joke, especially in the manner than he did it.

Unfortunately for the shooter, a gun wasn't pointed at him.

It doesn't have to be pointed at him.

And the civil courts work both ways.

He has no grounds to sue, at least not yet, but they do.

If they sue him, he has grounds to countersue.

 

[Auld Phart]

Welcome to the Wrongful Death suit I talked about. Remember that before you play John Wayne.

Welcome to the Wrongful Death suit

based on?

The fact that he should not have been killed. When you kill someone, for whatever reason, you just stepped in a big hole you can't just walk away from...

Oh? Why not?

Just curious.

Because taking a human life is serious business, even here. That's why cops turn in their badges and weapons after a shooting, while it is investigated.

So, if there is no badge to turn in? Weapons may of course be held as evidence, but that does not preclude one from carrying another.

Curious. What state do you live in?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Welcome to the Wrongful Death suit I talked about. Remember that before you play John Wayne.

Welcome to the Wrongful Death suit

based on?

The fact that he should not have been killed. When you kill someone, for whatever reason, you just stepped in a big hole you can't just walk away from...

Oh? Why not?

Just curious.

Because taking a human life is serious business, even here. That's why cops turn in their badges and weapons after a shooting, while it is investigated.

So, if there is no badge to turn in? Weapons may of course be held as evidence, but that does not preclude one from carrying another.

Curious. What state do you live in?

One with many guns, including mine. The point is, as a cop if you shoot someone you are sitting at a desk or on paid leave for a time, but you aren't in the clear yet no matter what. For a civilian that process is even longer, if a wrongful death suit or criminal charges happen. Even here life ain't that cheap, yet.

 

[Old Rocks]

Given what we see weekly, you start waving a gun around, especially if you proclaim you are committing a felony, any sane person with a legal gun has every right, even the responsibility, to shoot the person waving the gun around. Too many people have killed several people in the commission of a stupid crime.

No, I do not like the bullys that like to point out that they are packing in even little disagreements, but there are very legitimate times to use a gun. This looks like one of them. The family has no reason to sue, period.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

On the contrary, if the facts of the article are correct, he was justifiably killed. Even if he meant no harm, that was an act worthy of the Darwin Award, which he earned. You don't point something that looks like a gun at somebody, and call it a joke, especially in the manner than he did it.

Unfortunately for the shooter, a gun wasn't pointed at him.

It doesn't have to be pointed at him.

And the civil courts work both ways.

He has no grounds to sue, at least not yet, but they do.

If they sue him, he has grounds to countersue.

And I'm sure he will, but the lawyers still have their hands out and the whole deal will be hanging over his head for a couple of years. Who knows, maybe they are the an eye for an eye types, and it's even worse...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The family has no reason to sue, period.

You may not think so but that matters not a damn, not if they can prove that he wasn't a threat and that they do in a courtroom.

Playing the hero can be very expensive, boys. Keep that in mind eh...

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

based on?

The fact that he should not have been killed. When you kill someone, for whatever reason, you just stepped in a big hole you can't just walk away from...

Oh? Why not?

Just curious.

Because taking a human life is serious business, even here. That's why cops turn in their badges and weapons after a shooting, while it is investigated.

So, if there is no badge to turn in? Weapons may of course be held as evidence, but that does not preclude one from carrying another.

Curious. What state do you live in?

One with many guns, including mine. The point is, as a cop if you shoot someone you are sitting at a desk or on paid leave for a time, but you aren't in the clear yet no matter what. For a civilian that process is even longer, if a wrongful death suit or criminal charges happen. Even here life ain't that cheap, yet.

That of course does not answer the question.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

This reminds me of the episode of Walker, Texas Ranger when Walker had to shoot the bear that attacked Ranger Gage. Ranger Trivette was like, "How many shots did it take for you to kill it?" and Walker was like, "Too many."

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. To me, when your life is on the line, it is important to be thorough.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The fact that he should not have been killed. When you kill someone, for whatever reason, you just stepped in a big hole you can't just walk away from...

Oh? Why not?

Just curious.

Because taking a human life is serious business, even here. That's why cops turn in their badges and weapons after a shooting, while it is investigated.

So, if there is no badge to turn in? Weapons may of course be held as evidence, but that does not preclude one from carrying another.

Curious. What state do you live in?

One with many guns, including mine. The point is, as a cop if you shoot someone you are sitting at a desk or on paid leave for a time, but you aren't in the clear yet no matter what. For a civilian that process is even longer, if a wrongful death suit or criminal charges happen. Even here life ain't that cheap, yet.

That of course does not answer the question.

That's correct...

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

On the contrary, if the facts of the article are correct, he was justifiably killed. Even if he meant no harm, that was an act worthy of the Darwin Award, which he earned. You don't point something that looks like a gun at somebody, and call it a joke, especially in the manner than he did it.

Unfortunately for the shooter, a gun wasn't pointed at him.

It doesn't have to be pointed at him.

And the civil courts work both ways.

He has no grounds to sue, at least not yet, but they do.

If they sue him, he has grounds to countersue.

And I'm sure he will, but the lawyers still have their hands out and the whole deal will be hanging over his head for a couple of years. Who knows, maybe they are the an eye for an eye types, and it's even worse...

Sue for fees as well.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The family has no reason to sue, period.

You may not think so but that matters not a damn, not if they can prove that he wasn't a threat and that they do in a courtroom.

Playing the hero can be very expensive, boys. Keep that in mind eh...

All he has to do is show a clear and present danger. Someone waving a gun and announcing a felony is fully acceptable as a clear and present danger

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Unfortunately for the shooter, a gun wasn't pointed at him.

It doesn't have to be pointed at him.

And the civil courts work both ways.

He has no grounds to sue, at least not yet, but they do.

If they sue him, he has grounds to countersue.

And I'm sure he will, but the lawyers still have their hands out and the whole deal will be hanging over his head for a couple of years. Who knows, maybe they are the an eye for an eye types, and it's even worse...

Sue for fees as well.

That would be normal, in a counter-suit...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The family has no reason to sue, period.

You may not think so but that matters not a damn, not if they can prove that he wasn't a threat and that they do in a courtroom.

Playing the hero can be very expensive, boys. Keep that in mind eh...

All he has to do is show a clear and present danger. Someone waving a gun and announcing a felony is fully acceptable as a clear and present danger

That will be up to the jury to decide...

 

[Auld Phart]

The family has no reason to sue, period.

You may not think so but that matters not a damn, not if they can prove that he wasn't a threat and that they do in a courtroom.

Playing the hero can be very expensive, boys. Keep that in mind eh...

not if they can prove that he wasn't a threat and that they do in a courtroom.

And how are they to do that?

if the robber had fired the gun, and a paint pellet had come out, it was a bad shoot.

if he fired, and a bullet came out, it was a good shoot.

Are you going to bet your life, or someone elses, on it being a paint pellet?

They have no case

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

It doesn't have to be pointed at him.

And the civil courts work both ways.

He has no grounds to sue, at least not yet, but they do.

If they sue him, he has grounds to countersue.

And I'm sure he will, but the lawyers still have their hands out and the whole deal will be hanging over his head for a couple of years. Who knows, maybe they are the an eye for an eye types, and it's even worse...

Sue for fees as well.

That would be normal, in a counter-suit...

Indeed, so the perps' family had better be sure, or they will end up financially raped by someone already pissed that their nimrod progeny ruined his nice Friday night.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

He has no grounds to sue, at least not yet, but they do.

If they sue him, he has grounds to countersue.

And I'm sure he will, but the lawyers still have their hands out and the whole deal will be hanging over his head for a couple of years. Who knows, maybe they are the an eye for an eye types, and it's even worse...

Sue for fees as well.

That would be normal, in a counter-suit...

Indeed, so the perps' family had better be sure, or they will end up financially raped by someone already pissed that their nimrod progeny ruined his nice Friday night.

People with little to lose rarely worry about such things. Anyway the point is the same, killing another human being, no matter the reason, fucks up your life, as it should.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The family has no reason to sue, period.

You may not think so but that matters not a damn, not if they can prove that he wasn't a threat and that they do in a courtroom.

Playing the hero can be very expensive, boys. Keep that in mind eh...

not if they can prove that he wasn't a threat and that they do in a courtroom.

And how are they to do that?

if the robber had fired the gun, and a paint pellet had come out, it was a bad shoot.

if he fired, and a bullet came out, it was a good shoot.

Are you going to bet your life, or someone elses, on it being a paint pellet?

They have no case

They don't really have to have a case, just a good enough one to put it before a jury. That's a low bar in this country.