Yachtie
Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012 Status: offline
|
One thing I find disturbing is the total lack of any logic applied to situations such as these. The only info anyone has to go on is that in the OP. Yet, we go from pushing the gun hand away to trying to grab the gun. From one guy holding a rock, perhaps, and not inconceivably, because a man with an un-holstered firearm enters the scene, to threatening with a rock. The players are a float group and a landowner who is stated to be tired of the floaters. This is not a new activity the landowner is unfamiliar with. The floaters were within what is so far understood to be lawful access, though one guy went into the near woods to pee (a technical trespass which itself does not rise to deadly force repelling of an invasion force; the pee'er was not trying to make off with the landowner's prize hen). No, it's not about guns. It's about sensibility within the context of the circumstances. Only one party was unreasonable within the OP, the shooter.
< Message edited by Yachtie -- 7/23/2013 3:24:15 PM >
_____________________________
“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC “Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell
|