Just0Us0Two
Posts: 135
Joined: 6/3/2013 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucylastic victims fault eh..... tragic accident, eh.... that will help his mother Never said it would, neither would crucifying an innocent man. innocent???? How is Scott innocent he killed an innocent man, oopth While returning fire you want to crucify someone go after the thugetts who started the shooting. My God it was the middle of the night and you demand perfection from him but have not one word of criticism for the feral teenagers who are responsible for the whole incident. Im sorry, I thought all gun owners who used SYG were good shots, responsible gun owners who ar'nt accidents looking for a place to happen There are good shots and then there's demanding perfection. I'm a pretty good shot. I was in the Army (Infantry) and qualified expert almost every time with an M16. I've had my license to carry for 7 years now, practice at a range every few weeks, and generally fire 100-300 rounds each time. Even so, firing at a moving target, in the dark, when someone is (depending on which witnesses you believe) shooting at you, isn't an easy shot. I've done night firing, it's almost impossible to see your sights (even with night sights it's still tough), so you're mostly firing on instinct. But regardless of all that, no self-defense law I've ever seen requires you to be an expert marksman. They don't even say you have to be a good shot. They just give private citizens the right to protect themselves (or others) from imminent bodily harm. I don't agree 100% with the judge's ruling, but I definitely don't agree with the peanut gallery here that brands every shooting (self-defense or otherwise) as some sort of criminal act.
|