Man who shot at alleged purse-snatchers pleads guilty, gets probation

Punnchy wrote:

Webb and a child fingering convict are in two different ballparks...

Only because one has to register on the State Sex Offender Registry and the other isn't legal to possess a firearm for at least a year's worth of probation. But anyway, you were saying?

Punnchy wrote:

Webb and a child fingering convict are in two different ballparks, and I find it pretty sad that you'd even compare to the two and make the assumption that I think that I would want a fingering 30 year old to get any less then a swift blow to the head with a baseball bat for his crimes is totally unprecedented.
If you get my way of understanding.

You have to understand Richard: He loves to play 'Devil's Advocate.'
.

Tory II wrote:

The more I think about this the more I believe Webb acted as a good samaritan. On the high seas, no skipper can be prosecuted for being the good samaritan - that's the law.

Richard_ wrote:

Therefore, if the mugger was robbing to feed his babies or his sister's babies, then he becomes a "good samaritan" and a victim of the shooter.
Excellent analogy.

Bad analogy. Being a thief does not qualify anyone as 'good samaritan'. That would include Robin Hood and his merry band of thieves.

Richard_ wrote:

Why don't you simply say that the law does not apply to white people. THAT logic, I could understand. Because, to use your "good samaritan" analogy, would be to excuse the 9/11 hijackers, depending on how one would look at it.

The hijackers were all Saudis. So, most people from Saudis Arabia (or the Middle East) would view them as patriots, but very few would see them as good samaritans. Arabs would definitely excuse them, the same as we Americans would excuse the American patriots (minutemen and farmers) who defended munitions/arms at Concord Bridge from the British army. They were not good samaritans, they were patriots. Yes, the British saw them as criminals, but neither side saw them as samaritans (people helping people in distress).

The issue is did Webb go to far. Like torturing a home invader rather than killing him or holding him for police.

Consider the fact that during many shootouts no person (or bystander) gets shot. Bullets are fatal only 35% of the time. So why prosecute Webb (gun haters wanted him prosecuted)?

Watch this very powerful video of a bar shootout (at least four shooters, Toledo Ohio) that results in all misses, no injuries of any kind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Highlander wrote:

<quoted text>
You have to understand Richard: He loves to play 'Devil's Advocate.'
.

???Play,???Advocate, what? Dude, I have a cubicle in Hell's show room and my proper title is associate. In fact, I've got a personal parking spot for being "associate of the year". Now, would you like leatherette heatable bucket seats with that or cloth?

Tory II wrote:

1) The hijackers were all Saudis.

2) The issue is did Webb go to far.

1) Typically, middle easterners are "white" or cauc-asian.

2) In a nutshell, you're close. The real issue is whether or not the state believes they can get a conviction for Webb allegedly going to far. If they are not sure, they'll offer a plea agreement to a lesser crime and or guaranteed lesser than typical punishment for the same crime. If the state IS sure, then the state, less any plea made by the accused, will go to trial. In that case, Webb may not have much of a chanse, because prosecutors hate losing cases and would never go to court unless they were fairly sure of proving guilt.

Just for a heads up, theres a news story just posted in the violent crimes section of topix about a bar shooting where 7 are dead and 20 wounded in Puerto Rico.

The article mentioned assault rifle and AK47, so maybe the liberals will get on their anti modern rifle agenda again.

If you ignored this, you missed a good clip of reality (post 23):

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Richard_ wrote:

Just for a heads up, theres a news story just posted in the violent crimes section of topix about a bar shooting where 7 are dead and 20 wounded in Puerto Rico.
The article mentioned assault rifle and AK47, so maybe the liberals will get on their anti modern rifle agenda again.

The so-called 'libruls' are a pack of idiots.
.
They seek to outlaw anything they don't like or approve of, and mandate everything they do approve of, including child rape.
.
See this:
http://www.missionamerica.com/stoppflag1.php

Richard_ wrote:

Just for a heads up, theres a news story just posted in the violent crimes section of topix about a bar shooting where 7 are dead and 20 wounded in Puerto Rico.
The article mentioned assault rifle and AK47, so maybe the liberals will get on their anti modern rifle agenda again.

Addendum: In fact, from now on, I'm going to confront those SOB's with just that matter. They approve of gun-control AND child-rape.

Highlander wrote:

<quoted text>
They approve of gun-control AND child-rape.

Technically, since many state's statutes prohibit a person under the age of 16 from legally consenting to sexual contact by another person, two willing 15 yearolds having sexual contact is legally defined as two child-rapes. Since those laws were approved, making a child rape exist where none had before, one could say, in an off hand fashion, that those legislatures approved "child-rape" because the law removes the legal ability for a consent to occur, creating a crime of rape in statute.

Thefore, if a state were to legally remove their regulation of sexual consent of a person under the age of 16, they abolish a statutory rape criminal offense where consent is legally given, therefore no rape occurs.

Meaning, if the state quits regulating children's right to consent to sex, that the state is not FOR child-rape, but abolishing it at least in the statutory sense where willing parters are involved.

Tory II wrote:

If you ignored this, you missed a good clip of reality (post 23):
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

I saw the bar shootout video, it's pretty ridiculous. Had they all made contact with each other by their bullets, they all could have easily died as well. Too bad it didn't turn out that way.

The tavern owner, if the world was fair and he/she had any balls, should hunt down each one of those a.s.s. holmes one at a time and go "Vlad the impaler" on them, putting the staked prize winners on display in front of the tavern as message to anyone who sees them that shooting guns frivolously in the establishment will not be tolerated by the proprietor. But, since the world isn't fair, they probably should hold off on that idea until such a thing is legally acceptible.

Richard_ wrote:

[——snip for brevity——]But, since the world isn't fair, they probably should hold off on that idea until such a thing is legally acceptible.

"Legally acceptable?"
.
Since when has that ever stopped anyone?

Richard_ wrote:

<quoted text>
I saw the bar shootout video, it's pretty ridiculous. Had they all made contact with each other by their bullets, they all could have easily died as well. Too bad it didn't turn out that way...

Some bars have armed guards at the door - some with big longguns. But this establishment caters to that kind.

The shootout was more interesting than rediculous. It proves a point made here at Topix many times...that bullets are not always fatal (probably the 9mm ?).

There is also another video of many California sheriffs firing hundreds of bullets into a car (simultaneously). The driver survives.

Tory II wrote:

<quoted text>
Some bars have armed guards at the door - some with big longguns. But this establishment caters to that kind.
The shootout was more interesting than rediculous. It proves a point made here at Topix many times...that bullets are not always fatal (probably the 9mm ?).
There is also another video of many California sheriffs firing hundreds of bullets into a car (simultaneously). The driver survives.

Bullets are never lethal if they don't hit anybody, as in this shootout.

9MM not effective? Willing to demonstrate your beliefs by letting me shoot you with one?

Highlander wrote:

<quoted text>
The so-called 'libruls' are a pack of idiots.
.
They seek to outlaw anything they don't like or approve of, and mandate everything they do approve of, including child rape.
.
See this:
http://www.missionamerica.com/stoppflag1.php

How old were you when you were taught about robbing the cradle ?

We exist in the nanny state where 15 year olds are on sex offender lists for having consensual sex with 15 year olds. They can't be anywhere near kids, schools, AND parks (parks includes many places.) They lose their right to vote and to have guns (when they come of age).

In Georgia, sex offenders are living in tents in forests because people won't allow them to live near kids (which happens to be everywhere).

The sex offender list was originally intended for dangerous violent offenders (or for major pedophiles), but mostly for dangerous sex predators. Now, because of the nanny state, the list is so watered down (too many on the list), it lost it's usefulness. Police can't track all of them, especially the dangerous ones (kidnappers or potential murderers).

Promoting any kind of sex in schools (not college) is inappropriate. But it happens all the time (girls attend wearing skirts so short you could smell it.) Some parents think public high school is for mating. We need to eliminate mandatory attendance laws.

People have not learned that 18 years old is the law (the legal limit). Yet, we have created so many laws it becomes difficult to not be a law breaker (even for Preachers).

Another Voice Heard From wrote:

<quoted text>
Bullets are never lethal if they don't hit anybody, as in this shootout.

Exactly, all that shooting and no one got hit. Not even an "innocent" bystander. That still doesn't mean a person should go insane and shoot a public place over someone else's ten year old, ten dollar purse, with ten dollars worth of contents in it.