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

[JimBowie1958]

I hope he sues the shit out of her.

Me too, but giving a ton of money to lawyers is almost as bad as getting run over anyway.

 

[The Professor]

She profiled him...uh oh.

According to the story she made the right call.

Bullshit, according to the cops who jumped to conclusions about the mans intentions based on nothing more than that he was walking toward a store with a fake gun.

Most city streets eventually come to a store of some kind, so now its open season on all open carry gun owners?

roflmao

I think you're forgetting the part about him pointing a gun at the woman. The following is from CBS Pittsburgh at the link provided by OP (highlights my own):

“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.”

No it's not open season on all open carry gun owners. But it is open season on all those open carry gun owners who point a weapon at someone, even a toy gun that a reasonable person would believe to be real. From what I read, the man changed the gun to make it look real. The following is also from CBS Pittsburgh (highlights my own):

“Police believe he was actually going to rob the Circle K mini-mart down the road and that she may have prevented the robbery. They say White was carrying an Airsoft pellet gun which had been sawed off to look like a shotgun, and the orange tip had been taken off.”

The man wanted his toy gun to look real and according to the woman it did. This man got what he deserved. His actions are indefensible. This case has nothing to do with the man's 2nd Amendment rights. The second Amendment does not allow a gun owner to terrorize others. The man is lucky he was not charged with a crime. Putting someone in reasonable fear of a bodily injury is a crime in every jurisdiction.

I'm a gun owner and a 2nd Amendment defender. I have no respect for anyone who would do what that man did.

 

[JimBowie1958]

According to the story she made the right call.

Bullshit, according to the cops who jumped to conclusions about the mans intentions based on nothing more than that he was walking toward a store with a fake gun.

Most city streets eventually come to a store of some kind, so now its open season on all open carry gun owners?

roflmao

I think you're forgetting the part about him pointing a gun at the woman.

No, I am not forgetting jack shit. YOU are forgetting that that is HER story and we have not yet heard for the victim here. Why do you just assume that he did point a TOY gun at her?

The following is from CBS Pittsburgh at the link provided by OP (highlights my own):

“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.”

And that the cops refuse to charge her based only on her story is OK with you?

No it's not open season on all open carry gun owners. But it is open season on all those open carry gun owners who point a weapon at someone, even a toy gun that a reasonable person would believe to be real.

Again IF what she said is true, lol.

And sorry, but these airsoft guns are not that realistic. They may look realistic in 2D pics, but seeing their thin build and obvious light weight should make a reasonable person know they are not real.

From what I read, the man changed the gun to make it look real. The following is also from CBS Pittsburgh (highlights my own):

“Police believe he was actually going to rob the Circle K mini-mart down the road and that she may have prevented the robbery. They say White was carrying an Airsoft pellet gun which had been sawed off to look like a shotgun, and the orange tip had been taken off.”

The man wanted his toy gun to look real and according to the woman it did.

Yes, according to ONE person whose account thus far has been confirmed by no one else.

This man got what he deserved. His actions are indefensible.

What was indefensible? Cutting down a toy gun or walking around in public with it?

And once again, if you don't know his side of the story how the fuck do you know he is indefensible?

This case has nothing to do with the man's 2nd Amendment rights. The second Amendment does not allow a gun owner to terrorize others.

Given the level of stupidity and hysteria by some, like youself and this idiot woman, yes, the 2nd A does in fact give you the right to terrorize idiots, since it gives us the right to BEAR REAL guns.

The man is lucky he was not charged with a crime. Putting someone in reasonable fear of a bodily injury is a crime in every jurisdiction.

Yeah, in Obamerica he is probably legally a terrorist now. I guess he can get a felony plea....for carrying a toy gun in public.

I'm a gun owner and a 2nd Amendment defender. I have no respect for anyone who would do what that man did.

1. IF he did what the woman says.

2. And no, you are no 2A defender, moron. You are at best a fraud and at worst a complete idiot.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Looks like you'd better be careful around Pittsburgh. If you are carrying a gun, a citizen can decide you're probably going to rob or shoot someone, and can run over you with their car, just in case.

A woman did exactly that to a man who was walking along carrying what looked like a shotgun. Police have stated that they will not charge her for running over him.

I guess the 2nd amendment says you can keep and bear arms. It doesn't say people are forbidden to run over you if you do it. Of course, the Framers didn't know about cars in 1791.......

Why do I get the feeling there's more to this story?

BTW, the "gun" turns out to be an Airsoft fake gun, that only shoots little plastic pellets.

Oops.

----------------------------------------------------

Police: Aliquippa Woman Thwarts Robbery By Running Over Suspect « CBS Pittsburgh

Police: Aliquippa Woman Thwarts Robbery By Running Over Suspect

Reporting Christine D’Antonio
August 9, 2013 2:49 PM

ALIQUIPPA (KDKA) – Police say a Beaver County woman may have thwarted a robbery, by running over a suspect with her car.

It happened in the 2100 block of McMinn Street in Aliquippa. Aliquippa police say a witness saw Cameron White walking down a street carrying what appeared to be a sawed off shotgun. She called police, but noticed that White was heading in the direction of a group of children.

Police say she feared White was going to shoot the children, so she ran over him with her car.

White was taken to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries. Police believe he was actually going to rob the Circle K mini-mart down the road and that she may have prevented the robbery.

They say White was carrying an airsoft pellet gun which had been sawed off to look like a shotgun, and the orange tip had been taken off.

The Beaver County District Attorney says they are not going to charge her with running White over.

well that is what happens when you alter a toy gun to make it look real

another successful SYG case

 

[jon_berzerk]

Maybe this is why the police dispatcher told Zimmerman to stay in his car? He was supposed to start the car, pull out, and RUN OVER Trayvon?

Now it all makes sense! Ummm....

Maybe this is why the police dispatcher told Zimmerman to stay in his car?

why lie about the case

is that all you have

 

[jon_berzerk]

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...

So now we can just run over people if we think they might commit a crime?

there has to be reasonable belief that there is going to be harm

and there was

white turned and pointed what appeared to be a shotgun it at her

would you expect the cops to wait and see if a subject is pointing a fake gun

at them in a similar situation

fact is this was a bad guy with a item he was passing off as a real gun

 

[jon_berzerk]

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 is a bad apple

for whatever reason (the cops believe he was going to fake out the K store )

to rob it

instead he faked out an honest quick acting lady who believed

he was pointing a shotgun at her

at first she was not going to simply run him over

1 she went over to tell him to leave the kids alone

2 he then pointed what appeared to be a shotgun at her

3 she stood her ground and neutralized the threat

after the fact it was determined to be a fake shotgun

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

She had no proof he was going to do anything illegal when she ran him over

apparently she did

according to the report he pointed that shotgun at her

i live in South Dakota it is an open carry state

but if someone goes around and points a shotgun at someone else

they may legally end up at the bottom of a six foot hole

 

[jon_berzerk]

Superb instincts. She stopped a robbery.

accidentally


however she neutralized what appeared to be imminent danger

we need more citizens willing to confront criminal behavior

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

there is

at first she went over to tell the guy to leave the kids alone
( she thought he was after the kids)

he then pointed what appeared to be a shotgun at her

now fearing for her life

she ran him over

SYG works again

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

Why would you be walking down the street with a shotgun in this country?

because it is not against the law

what is a problem is when you start pointing it at people

then you get run over

and your ear tore off

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

she should go to jail because he pointed

what appeared to be a shotgun at her

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

According to the story; The guy's not dead and Police (through investigation) believe that he was en-route to rob a convenience store.

but that is not why they are not charging her

 

[jon_berzerk]

It wasn't even a gun! A paint-ball launcher. They BELIEVE he was going to rob a store with an air-soft toy? She ran him down because she thought he was going to shoot the children? How close were the kids and was he even heading in their direction? the police believe that he was going to rob the convenience store? Maybe he was going for refreshments before going back to playing with his buddies in the park!???!

OK, let's say it was a gun - openly carried which is completely legal - and he was headed to the store to buy milk or a package of skittles. Maybe he was on his way to rob the store. He hadn't broken any laws yet. He didn't assault the driver of the car, he hadn't menaced any of the kids, and he hadn't gotten into the store. The police say that it is OK to run someone down just because they have what appears to be a gun? REALLY?

He didn't assault the driver of the car,

he pointed the gun at her

 

[jon_berzerk]

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?

I carry my gun everywhere I go. I have for more than 41 years. There is nothing illegal about it.

but do you go around pointing it at people

like this guy did

 

[Jarlaxle]

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?

You stoned again, boy?

 

[Geaux4it]

Sure were copius 'may' in this story.

Shoot first, I mean run over first, ask questions later.

Civil lawsuit coming. hehehe

-Geaux

 

[Pogo]

So criminals don't exist they only appear when you arm up to defend yourself? This is your circular reasoning?

My base question was, "where does this imaginary scenario come from" and your answer is "it exists because it exists". Circular reasoning. In other words --- irrational. And therefore no basis, a false premise.

Your base question assumes there is no such thing as a criminal unless you attempt to defend yourself from one. Until then it's just another friendly transaction. Well a transaction you didn't really want to be part of and were forced into at threat of great bodily harm but hey...shoulda just went with that. If you just hadn't resisted we wouldn't have a crime here.

No, my base question is whether there is any rational reason to assume this cops-and-robbers TV scenario. And your answer was circular: "it is because it is". Which is the right answer; it tells us the basis does not exist. QED.

You can't assume the existence of something you have no evidence for. Just because some muckraker writes scary-monster be-very-afraid stories, that doesn't put them in the real world of one's own footsteps. That's not rational.

 

[Pogo]

So criminals don't exist they only appear when you arm up to defend yourself? This is your circular reasoning?

My base question was, "where does this imaginary scenario come from" and your answer is "it exists because it exists". Circular reasoning. In other words --- irrational. And therefore no basis, a false premise.

It exists because it is a FACT OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, retard.

Well look who's here early. Aren't you supposed to show up some time in October for this thread after it starts to sink in?

"Fact of the public domain"?

We're not writing folk songs here, Pete Seeger. I'm talking about real life as opposed to the comic book fantasy that the intellecually crippled like you subsist on. And I already did this in the last post. Perhaps you'll be ready to read that one around Hallowe'en.

 

[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.

#2 - Why do criminals walk around with guns in this country?

#3 - A car is a weapon. It can be used to deliver car/truck bombs or simply run as many people over as possible in a very crowded area. In fact, more people die to legal car drivers than to legal and illegal gun owners combined like infinity to one.

2: because we have a gun culture, born of the Wild West. We think the answer to everything is to blow it away. If we had, say, a pirate culture, cruminals would be walking around with cutlasses.

3: we did this before-- not intentionally they don't.
And a car can only be converted to a "weapon" when employed that way by a sadistic driver; by itself it's no more a weapon than a banana peel you slip on and break your neck. To conflate freak accidents involving a device with the actual design of that device, is inane logical swampland.

If that's your best argument, you don't have one.