arma virumque cano (et alia)
Two ad guys hit, daughter safe. And the bad guys seem to be established violent criminals, so no loss. They chose their path. One had even been charged in a homicide, but the witness refused to cooperate. Looks like that wont be an issue here.
What was wild about the shooting? Were any innocent bystanders struck by stray bullets?
"The bullets didn’t just hit the two men. Another one went all the way across the street, into the home of Jessica Swartz. “I was freaked out. For lack of a better word, yeah, scared,” she said. “Just laying in bed watching TV getting ready to go to sleep. Then I hear the gunshots and heard glass break, felt debris, jumped to the other side of my bed and waited for it to stop. Then called 911.”The father expressed concern over a bullet hitting a neighbors home. “I didn’t mean for anybody to be involved in anything. I didn’t have any choice in the matter. I’m sorry for what happened to that lady’s window.”http://fox2now.com/2014/06/10/exclusive-father-speaks-about-shooting-man-who-allegedly-put-a-gun-to-his-daughters-head/ The only people struck by bullets were the ones who had it coming though. IMHO
Well, at least they're the only ones we know of. With wild shooting like that, who knows if someone might not have been hit half-a-mile away.
Not terribly wild I'm thinking. Both parents held it together enough to hit both bad guys and not their daughter.
And the house across the street, that we know of.
If the "stray" bullet had killed the occupant of the other house, the gun loons would still not call it a "wild" shooting, but just a tragic mistake, that the shooter cannot be held accountable for. Like the guy cleaning his gun and the gun "accidentally" fires, goes through his wall into the house next door and kills the occupant of that house; it's just an "accident." Mike posts stories all the time that prove it's always the unintended innocent victim that ends up dead because of gun loons who just start shooting. This guy was lucky, his "stray" bullet didn't kill anyone.
If the police had done the same thing and the bullet had injured someone, the assailant would have been charged for it and no one would have said boo. Somehow, when a civilian does the same thing, it becomes wild shooting and the person defending his family from armed assailants should be held accountable. That isn't being very consistent. Why is it ok for one, and not the other?
BS, I would have said boo and I'm no fan of police who have become so militaristic and get absolved for similar deadly negligence. Cops are different than civilians, but I'm tired of cops who get cleared of negligence just because they are cops. Rodney King should have won his case and it's no surprise the public rioted.No one died in this situation, but it happens all the time. If you really want to call me inconsistent let me put this scenario to you:A guy righteously uses self defense when he kills with a gun, but while doing that, one of his stray bullets kills an innocent bystander.He should be cleared of the self defense shooting, but charged with negligence for the killing of the innocent bystander. He shouldn't get the same punishment as if he intended to kill the innocent bystander, but the death has to be adjudicated and lesson sent to all gun owners that they are responsible for anything that happens when they decide to shoot.
Yeah, who said it's ok for one but not for the other. No one should violate the 4 Rules of Gun Safety, not cops, military or civilians. When they do, they should be held accountable.