Passing driver kills man attacking Arizona trooper on road
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 13:45:40 -0700, Winston_Smith
wrote: On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 15:09:21 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 12:29:14 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote: On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 11:44:56 -0600, RD Sandman wrote: The civilian passer-by is the one who shot the attacker of the officer. Yes. That's what I said. Just that the media doesn't like to say citizens with guns is a good thing. If the first citizen didn't have a gun perhaps the second would not have been required to have one????? The "first citizen" was a criminal. There are lots of ways to attack and harm a cop. The gun is one way. But FIRST it requires a criminal. The criminal will find something. Do you assume if everyone were disarmed, the criminal would not find a way to get a gun? The cop would not have been shot and would most likely NOT have required assistance of the lethal variety from a bystander. Your attacking criminal would have gotten lethal attention from the cop. (And the left would be down one voter.) You "alt right" guys Whatever that is, I doubt it's me. I doubt it's either of the responsible citizens in this event either. Just a "hate" term the left likes to use. (NOTE: The left is all love and despises hate. /sarcasm) need to understand the concept of cause and effect. Cause: A criminal refused to stop trying to kill a cop. Effect: He was shot and killed. Nothing about "refusing to stop" or any indication there was a "criminal" involved untill after the cop stopped to investigate an "accident" and was attacked by a man with a gun - Chances are pretty good the cop would have stood a good chance on his own if he had not been shot - I'm NOT saying anything about gun laws etc - but will repeat what has been said many times before - when it is illegal for the public to carry guns, then only criminals will carry guns - and that can be taken (at least) 2 ways. Don't get too far astray from the facts. From B1ack's post it appears there are three citizens. The perp who was attacking the cop. A second who shot the perp because he wouldn't call off his attack. A third who used the police radio to summon assistance. One criminal, two responsible citizens, at least one armed. One live cop; one dead criminal. Not too bad a ratio as the world goes today. Somehow you think it's the guns fault because a citizen did what the cop would have done if he could. That's why we arm cops. I never said it was "the gun's fault" - in fact I never assigned blame. I just stated the undisputable fact that if the first (crook) had not had a gun, the second (armed citizen) would not have required a gun. |
Passing driver kills man attacking Arizona trooper on road
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter