One small step for the wife, one giant leap for the DA?
One small step for the wife, one giant leap for the DA?
In many locales we're rapidly transitioning from "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" into "I won't be carried and I won't be judged".Originally Posted by JRB
"For a moment he felt good about this. A moment or two later he felt bad about feeling good about it. Then he felt good about feeling bad about feeling good about it and, satisfied, drove on into the night."
-- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy --
Being unable to predict the intent of a hostile mob at your doorstep = lying under oath following a use of lethal force?
You're fucking trolling me, right?
An interview with the couple themselves.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/s.../21/id/978337/
I think you're missing the analogy. Nobody stormed the house. Nobody tried to storm the house. Not before, not after. To say the house was stormed is trying to create a narrative that's not supported by the facts.
You can't make decisions on what you don't know, other than to gather more information. I'm 100% sure you know and apply that in other circumstances. You can only make decisions based on what you know or can reasonably infer. If I pointed a gun at everyone who had the ability to do harm and I didn't know what their intentions were, I'd seldom be in the holster.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
I know what you are saying, and I am not being obtuse....I hope.....but where? Do you have examples? And no I am not trying to give you a hard time.
Yeah, I would even allow that they might have believed on reasonable grounds that their house might be about to get stormed - it struck me earlier in the thread that although in hindsight we might be able to say that they were never in serious danger, the very fact that they were the first house inside the wall may have made this hard to judge on the spot and they might have been able to reasonably conclude that a traveling riot had just arrived to loot and burn their neighbourhood, a belief which the owners of houses further inside the wall had the luxury of witnessing not to be the case - it's definitely not correct to say their property WAS stormed.
If they were the tenth house in and nine houses had been passed without incident and they did this, I'd probably say it was a really terrible idea. But being the first house "inside the wire" they were working with less information than anyone else so I can't really argue, except tactically, with the choices they made.
I don't really think the whole situation requires hyperbole to justify, I guess that's my point.
This is a thread where I built a boat I designed and which I very occasionally update with accounts of using it, which is really fun as long as I'm not driving over logs and blowing up the outboard.
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....ilding-a-skiff
This is such a small potatoes observation, but: I’m astounded that the house in question is only worth around 1.15 mil. They really are in a bad neighborhood, by urban USA standards. That place is huge.
Breaking the gate certainly is storming the property isn't it? Would your definition of storming the house be breaking down the front door? The master bedroom door?
Is private property not private property?
They were apparently let in the gate. Gate was broken afterwards, not for entry. That's fairly obvious to anyone that's ever looked at or built a wrought iron gate and given a thought to security or breaching.
I don't really agree with the poster you're replying to as far as their sentiment, but he's correct as far as the facts go. People storming a house don't tend to allow time for people to pose on the lawn.
Reply With Quote