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

[Pogo]

what let me guess you ate fruit loops for breakfast a 3000 lb car is a weapon....people are dying from car crashes as I write this. they are drunk, texting, on cell phones, speeding, eating a cheese burger, or getting a B.J. they are doing everything except driving the car....

No it isn't. A car is a transportation vehicle. The charge would be more along the lines of "reckless endangerment with a motor vehicle". But you can't pretend a car is designed to kill people. Therefore "assault with a deadly weapon" does not apply.

Yet many more people are killed with cars than with guns.

Not intentionally they're not.

 

[Pogo]

Why would you carry your gun to buy milk or a package of skittles? You're really reaching on this one.

I carry my gun everywhere I go. I have for more than 41 years. There is nothing illegal about it. Why do I carry it? To defend myself - just like 1.5 to 3 million people do each year. (according to the CDC report demanded by Obama)

There was no law broken. He could have just been showing her it was a toy and not actually pointing it at her. She is a whack job. And the police are complicit in this injustice.

How did the police get the "cut-off" barrel for the picture? was it on the ground after she ran him over? Was it broken in the impact? what evidence is there to show he did anything wrong?

Seems to me if you carry a gun everywhere, even to go buy milk, you don't have a legal problem -- you have a paranoia problem.

 

[PaulS1950]

How do you know that a car driven into a group of people or another car was not done on purpose? It seems like a perfect murder to me. You could even chug a few ounces of liquor just before and then act drunkwhen the police got there. By the time you got your blood test your BAC would be so high that when they figured in for the time between the incident and your arrest the BAC that is calculated whould be off the charts. There would be no question that you were incapacitated at the time of the impact - even though you were completely sober.

 

[speck]

She should move to Chicago. lol

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Seriously, he shouldn't have pointed the gun at her.

 

[PaulS1950]

Seems to me if you carry a gun everywhere, even to go buy milk, you don't have a legal problem -- you have a paranoia problem.

If I was paranoid I wouldn't go anywhere. I certainly wouldn't keep doing the same thing for 41 years. Are you paranoid for wearing a seat belt? Are you paranoid for having insurance?

I am simply exercising my rights in being prepared in case I need the gun to defend myself. So far I haven't needed it.

 

[Missourian]

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.

what let me guess you ate fruit loops for breakfast a 3000 lb car is a weapon....people are dying from car crashes as I write this. they are drunk, texting, on cell phones, speeding, eating a cheese burger, or getting a B.J. they are doing everything except driving the car....

No it isn't. A car is a transportation vehicle. The charge would be more along the lines of "reckless endangerment with a motor vehicle". But you can't pretend a car is designed to kill people. Therefore "assault with a deadly weapon" does not apply.

You sure about that?

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

what let me guess you ate fruit loops for breakfast a 3000 lb car is a weapon....people are dying from car crashes as I write this. they are drunk, texting, on cell phones, speeding, eating a cheese burger, or getting a B.J. they are doing everything except driving the car....

No it isn't. A car is a transportation vehicle. The charge would be more along the lines of "reckless endangerment with a motor vehicle". But you can't pretend a car is designed to kill people. Therefore "assault with a deadly weapon" does not apply.

People have been charged with and convicted of assault with a deadly weapon using a car! Do you EVER get tired of looking THIS FUCKING STUPID?!

 

[Pogo]

Seems to me if you carry a gun everywhere, even to go buy milk, you don't have a legal problem -- you have a paranoia problem.

If I was paranoid I wouldn't go anywhere. I certainly wouldn't keep doing the same thing for 41 years. Are you paranoid for wearing a seat belt? Are you paranoid for having insurance?

I am simply exercising my rights in being prepared in case I need the gun to defend myself. So far I haven't needed it.

Apples and oranges. Seat belts and insurance are required by law. I don't have a choice, so how I feel about it is irrelevant (and if I had my druthers I wouldn't).

On the other hand feeling like you need a gun just to go out, I mean where do you live -- West New York New Jersey? That's just one step removed from not going out at all. Sure you're within your rights; I just wonder what you must see in the world around you that that kind of approach would be necessary. Don't think I'd ever want to live in a world like that.

 

[Little-Acorn]

what let me guess you ate fruit loops for breakfast a 3000 lb car is a weapon....people are dying from car crashes as I write this. they are drunk, texting, on cell phones, speeding, eating a cheese burger, or getting a B.J. they are doing everything except driving the car....

No it isn't. A car is a transportation vehicle. The charge would be more along the lines of "reckless endangerment with a motor vehicle". But you can't pretend a car is designed to kill people. Therefore "assault with a deadly weapon" does not apply.

You sure about that?

"Often in error, but never in doubt."

 

[Missourian]

I knew I just read something about this.

The guy who ran over all those people at Venice Beach was charged with Assault with a Deadly Weapon...the weapon being his motor vehicle...

LOS ANGELES - The transient man from Colorado accused in a deadly car rampage on the Venice Beach boardwalk was charged with murder, assault with a deadly weapon and hit and run on Tuesday.


Nathan Louis Campbell, 38, was charged with one count of murder, 16 counts of assault with a deadly weapon and 17 counts of hit-and-run, according to told KABC-TV. The charges include a special allegation of using a car as a deadly weapon. If convicted, he faces life in prison.


7NEWS - Suspect in deadly Venice Beach car rampage is charged with murder, assault, hit and run - Archive Story

​

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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.

what let me guess you ate fruit loops for breakfast a 3000 lb car is a weapon....people are dying from car crashes as I write this. they are drunk, texting, on cell phones, speeding, eating a cheese burger, or getting a B.J. they are doing everything except driving the car....

No it isn't. A car is a transportation vehicle. The charge would be more along the lines of "reckless endangerment with a motor vehicle". But you can't pretend a car is designed to kill people. Therefore "assault with a deadly weapon" does not apply.

Then how do you explain the charge of Vehicular Manslaughter?

 

[Pogo]

what let me guess you ate fruit loops for breakfast a 3000 lb car is a weapon....people are dying from car crashes as I write this. they are drunk, texting, on cell phones, speeding, eating a cheese burger, or getting a B.J. they are doing everything except driving the car....

No it isn't. A car is a transportation vehicle. The charge would be more along the lines of "reckless endangerment with a motor vehicle". But you can't pretend a car is designed to kill people. Therefore "assault with a deadly weapon" does not apply.

You sure about that?

No. Actually I'd go with somebody else's entry of "vehicular homicide" or "vehicular assault". That's what I was trying to think of. But "deadly weapon" doesn't fit because a car is not a weapon just because fatal accidents happen. People die in plane crashes and amusement park rides; doesn't make them "weapons".

 

[Missourian]

Seems to me if you carry a gun everywhere, even to go buy milk, you don't have a legal problem -- you have a paranoia problem.

If I was paranoid I wouldn't go anywhere. I certainly wouldn't keep doing the same thing for 41 years. Are you paranoid for wearing a seat belt? Are you paranoid for having insurance?

I am simply exercising my rights in being prepared in case I need the gun to defend myself. So far I haven't needed it.

Apples and oranges. Seat belts and insurance are required by law. I don't have a choice, so how I feel about it is irrelevant (and if I had my druthers I wouldn't).

On the other hand feeling like you need a gun just to go out, I mean where do you live -- West New York New Jersey? That's just one step removed from not going out at all. Sure you're within your rights; I just wonder what you must see in the world around you that that kind of approach would be necessary. Don't think I'd ever want to live in a world like that.

Carrying a gun on my person is like carrying a spare tire in the trunk of my car.

I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

“She thought he was going to do something to them, so she yelled out of her car window, ‘Hey, they’re just kids, leave them alone,’” said Detective Sgt. Steven Roberts, of the Aliquippa Police Department. “He turned and pointed this at her, and she thought it was a real weapon and that she was about to be shot or that the kids were in danger, so she gunned her car and struck him.”

Pretty much seals it up for me although I'm sure he will have a different story. For now I side with her and no prosecution not charging her.

 

[Pogo]

what let me guess you ate fruit loops for breakfast a 3000 lb car is a weapon....people are dying from car crashes as I write this. they are drunk, texting, on cell phones, speeding, eating a cheese burger, or getting a B.J. they are doing everything except driving the car....

No it isn't. A car is a transportation vehicle. The charge would be more along the lines of "reckless endangerment with a motor vehicle". But you can't pretend a car is designed to kill people. Therefore "assault with a deadly weapon" does not apply.

Then how do you explain the charge of Vehicular Manslaughter?

You don't see the difference between "vehicular homicide" -- which simply qualifies what was used to do it -- and a "deadly weapon", which defines the function of that device?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

No it isn't. A car is a transportation vehicle. The charge would be more along the lines of "reckless endangerment with a motor vehicle". But you can't pretend a car is designed to kill people. Therefore "assault with a deadly weapon" does not apply.

You sure about that?

No. Actually I'd go with somebody else's entry of "vehicular homicide" or "vehicular assault". That's what I was trying to think of. But "deadly weapon" doesn't fit because a car is not a weapon just because fatal accidents happen. People die in plane crashes and amusement park rides; doesn't make them "weapons".

After your clarification I agree. deadly weapon doesn't fit anything can be a deadly weapon.

 

[Vox]

Of course she should be charged. This situation is ridiculous.'

It is basically lynching.

 

[Pogo]

what let me guess you ate fruit loops for breakfast a 3000 lb car is a weapon....people are dying from car crashes as I write this. they are drunk, texting, on cell phones, speeding, eating a cheese burger, or getting a B.J. they are doing everything except driving the car....

No it isn't. A car is a transportation vehicle. The charge would be more along the lines of "reckless endangerment with a motor vehicle". But you can't pretend a car is designed to kill people. Therefore "assault with a deadly weapon" does not apply.

People have been charged with and convicted of assault with a deadly weapon using a car! Do you EVER get tired of looking THIS FUCKING STUPID?!

Lost your meds again?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If she'd had been carrying her own gun, for self-defense, and shot him, she'd be the NRA's hero of the week.

 

[Pogo]

If I was paranoid I wouldn't go anywhere. I certainly wouldn't keep doing the same thing for 41 years. Are you paranoid for wearing a seat belt? Are you paranoid for having insurance?

I am simply exercising my rights in being prepared in case I need the gun to defend myself. So far I haven't needed it.

Apples and oranges. Seat belts and insurance are required by law. I don't have a choice, so how I feel about it is irrelevant (and if I had my druthers I wouldn't).

On the other hand feeling like you need a gun just to go out, I mean where do you live -- West New York New Jersey? That's just one step removed from not going out at all. Sure you're within your rights; I just wonder what you must see in the world around you that that kind of approach would be necessary. Don't think I'd ever want to live in a world like that.

Carrying a gun on my person is like carrying a spare tire in the trunk of my car.

I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Of course you hope you won't need it. No question there.

I just wonder what kind of world you guys see out there that would bring you to that drastic of a habit. I can't even imagine what that world looks like. Or if you're in that hell, why you don't move. That's why I call it a paranoia problem.