WOman sees man with gun, so runs over him with her car. Police won't charge her

[L.K.Eder]

Now that the incredulity is fading, we should probably as a few routine questions:

1.) How did she "know" he was going to shoot the children?

2.) If I walk down a street carrying my own shotgun (mine's real), am I fair game for any woman with a car?

3.) Why is the woman's act NOT "assault with a deadly weapon", and/or "attempted murder"?

Yup how she was not charged blows my mind.... So now we can just run over people if we think they might commit a crime? Open game on J-walkers I guess...

I guess he was lighter than a paper bag.

actually, the woman just played the v-card.

 

[OriginalShroom]

The police defintely needs to charge her for running him over.

She had no proof he was going to do anything illegal when she ran him over, just as the police now don't have any proof.

PA is an Open Carry State. She violated his rights.

 

[Katzndogz]

Superb instincts. She stopped a robbery.

 

[Sunshine]

The police defintely needs to charge her for running him over.

She had no proof he was going to do anything illegal when she ran him over, just as the police now don't have any proof.

PA is an Open Carry State. She violated his rights.

There has to be more to the story. I can't figure out where they are coming from by not charging her.

 

[Sunshine]

Superb instincts. She stopped a robbery.

How do we know that? Are we psychic?

 

[L.K.Eder]

The police defintely needs to charge her for running him over.

She had no proof he was going to do anything illegal when she ran him over, just as the police now don't have any proof.

PA is an Open Carry State. She violated his rights.

There has to be more to the story. I can't figure out where they are coming from by not charging her.

the woman was talking on her obama phone while black. that is why eric holder is not on this.

 

[Sunshine]

Perhaps the driver and the officers doing the investigation were all DARKER than a paper bag.

 

[hortysir]

was he black?

then she is a rrrrracist

At least you ASKED


Others just automatically made the Treyvon connection

 

[L.K.Eder]

lol, too late, antebella.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The country's gun-rights-haters have long been trying to get people to be so paranoid, that the mere sight of a gun frightens them out of their wits and makes them assume that something terrible and horrible is going on.

Looks like they've gotten what they want. If a man simply carries a gun, he can now be considered a criminal. And not just a criminal, but a criminal engaged in committing an actual crime.

And citizens are now allowed to respond with deadly force, which is what assaulting someone with a 2-ton automobile is.

And the cops won't even CHARGE the driver with anything.

It's a new and imaginitive way to violate the 2nd amendment, I guess. The gun-rights-haters don't have to make laws or go into the courts to take away their fellow man's right to own and carry any more. Just declare "Open Season" on anyone carrying a gun, and run over him with your car.

How long will it be before they declare you can do that to someone you suspect may be carrying a concealed weapon? Those have just as much crime potential as guns carried openly, after all. Why stop now?

 

[L.K.Eder]

The country's gun-rights-haters have long been trying to get people to be so paranoid, that the mere sight of a gun frightens them out of their wits and makes them assume that something terrible and horrible is going on.

Looks like they've gotten what they want. If a man simply carries a gun, he can now be considered a criminal. And not just a criminal, but a criminal engaged in committing an actual crime.

And citizens are now allowed to respond with deadly force, which is what assaulting someone with a 2-ton automobile is.

And the cops won't even CHARGE the driver with anything.

It's a new and imaginitive way to violate the 2nd amendment, I guess. The gun-rights-haters don't have to make laws or go into the courts to take away their fellow man's right to own and carry any more. Just declare "Open Season" on anyone carrying a gun, and run over him with your car.

How long will it be before they declare you can do that to someone you suspect may be carrying a concealed weapon? Those have just as much crime potential as guns carried openly, after all. Why stop now?

gun owners need to stand their ground and shoot at women in cars in self defense. especially when the woman is adjusting her makeup while driving a SUV.

 

[BobPlumb]

Why couldn't Helen Keller drive a car?

 

[Pogo]

Now that the incredulity is fading, we should probably as a few routine questions:

1.) How did she "know" he was going to shoot the children?

2.) If I walk down a street carrying my own shotgun (mine's real), am I fair game for any woman with a car?

3.) Why is the woman's act NOT "assault with a deadly weapon", and/or "attempted murder"?

1- she didn't "know". No one knows the future.

2- not necessarily. It wouldn't have to be a woman.
Why would you be walking down the street with a shotgun in this country?

3- because a car is not a weapon; because she didn't try to kill him.

 

[Jarlaxle]

She should be charged with reckless driving, attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and anything else the DA can come up with. Throw the book at her! She should get at least 25 years.

 

[OnePercenter]

Now that the incredulity is fading, we should probably as a few routine questions:

1.) How did she "know" he was going to shoot the children?

2.) If I walk down a street carrying my own shotgun (mine's real), am I fair game for any woman with a car?

3.) Why is the woman's act NOT "assault with a deadly weapon", and/or "attempted murder"?

Why would you walk down the street carrying your own shotgun? Cop baiting for YouTube? Get a life dude.....

 

[OnePercenter]

Why couldn't Helen Keller drive a car?

'Cause when the phone rang she answered the iron and burned her face.

 

[OnePercenter]

If the gun was not concealed then there generally is no special carry permit required. It was a toy, not even a real gun. If he had not posed any threat to her she should be charged for running him over.

According to the story the gun was a toy modified to look real.

 

[OnePercenter]

Now that the incredulity is fading, we should probably as a few routine questions:

1.) How did she "know" he was going to shoot the children?

2.) If I walk down a street carrying my own shotgun (mine's real), am I fair game for any woman with a car?

3.) Why is the woman's act NOT "assault with a deadly weapon", and/or "attempted murder"?

I think she should be charged. The man had done nothing wrong. It wasn't even a real gun.

He modified a toy gun to look real. Why would one do that?

 

[Pogo]

Why couldn't Helen Keller drive a car?

Ray Charles drove a motorcycle...

 

[BobPlumb]

Why couldn't Helen Keller drive a car?

'Cause when the phone rang she answered the iron and burned her face.

No. The reason ties into this thread.