This is BAD

[OleCuss]

She should be charged. The vehicle is a deadly weapon and I can't find a justification for her to use deadly force.

Plenty of reason for her to call the cops and maybe follow him.

Oops, you can't do that. . . I guess George Zimmerman would have been a good guy if he'd run over Trayvon Martin?

And no, I'm no Zimmerman fan. But I'm also no fan of this woman - she must have political connections in order to keep the DA from prosecuting her.

Do I feel at all sorry for the felon she hit? No, not really. . . Doesn't justify her actions, however.

[broofy]

I'm well aware that we can all dissect what she may have known, not known, speculated, etc. Anyone can speculate a case where she's obviously wrong.

My point is that the police didn't arrest her, so PERHAPS they know something we don't. Only time will tell, so all this internet FUD is a waste of time.

The purpose of my comment was to say that its hyperbole to rant about our right to bear arms when, based on the details in the article, we don't actually know squat about what other factors may have made a reasonable person assume the guy had malice in mind.

The only thing we do know is that the police chose not to arrest, which is SLIGHTLY more likely to mean that they knew something we don't that mitigates her "assault" into reasonable behavior, as opposed to the cops being arbitrarily lenient because the "victim" was carrying something gun-like.

Again, time will tell. If she's guilty, she should be prosecuted. If he's a scumbag who it is credibly arguable was going to commit an "armed" felony, maybe she did the right thing. Until the facts are fully out, this is all a circle-jerk.

[morfeeis]

I'm well aware that we can all dissect what she may have known, not known, speculated, etc. Anyone can speculate a case where she's obviously wrong.

My point is that the police didn't arrest her, so PERHAPS they know something we don't. Only time will tell, so all this internet FUD is a waste of time.

The purpose of my comment was to say that its hyperbole to rant about our right to bear arms when, based on the details in the article, we don't actually know squat about what other factors may have made a reasonable person assume the guy had malice in mind.

The only thing we do know is that the police chose not to arrest, which is SLIGHTLY more likely to mean that they knew something we don't that mitigates her "assault" into reasonable behavior, as opposed to the cops being arbitrarily lenient because the "victim" was carrying something gun-like.

Again, time will tell. If she's guilty, she should be prosecuted. If he's a scumbag who it is credibly arguable was going to commit an "armed" felony, maybe she did the right thing. Until the facts are fully out, this is all a circle-jerk.

You're still missing the point. unless he was in the act of committing a crime that she witnessed or she felt her life was in danger what she did was attempted murder.

her not arrested says nothing to me but fishy....

[ramathorn]

We have a right to bear arms. The driver had no right to run him down. She should be facing 20 years for attempted murder.

I disagree, but maybe you're right. He's clearly not bright so something will get him sooner than later. But really, skip into a bank, school or police station holding a fake gun like his and see what reaction you get. People get killed for being dumb all the time, gotta be smart to survive.

What he did was clearly dumb, criminal no, but very very dumb. You can't carry a fake gun and not expect for people to think you're going to use it and try to stop you, especially with all of the crazies shooting people at malls/schools/theaters/etc. The guy was lucky. He lived and he learned a valuable lesson.

[sofbak]

I don't see how you guys can defend the "victim" in light of this:

or this:

If someone pointed what looked like a real gun at you, and you had the means to defend yourself, what would you do?

What did I miss here?

[broofy]

You're still missing the point. unless he was in the act of committing a crime that she witnessed or she felt her life was in danger what she did was attempted murder.

her not arrested says nothing to me but fishy....

I got the point, and I agree actually. I just think its a badly written, incomplete, vague article with little actual facts. It's sensationalist "journalism" designed to stir a reaction...which it's apparently succeeding at.

Based on what was written, there is no evidence he was commiting a crime and she could be liable for attempted murder, but what is written is so obviously shaky, why get all fired up about it. Wait for the facts to come out, then figure out if we need to press for "justice" for some reason.

[sl0re10]

She should be charged. The vehicle is a deadly weapon and I can't find a justification for her to use deadly force.

Plenty of reason for her to call the cops and maybe follow him.

Oops, you can't do that. . . I guess George Zimmerman would have been a good guy if he'd run over Trayvon Martin?

And no, I'm no Zimmerman fan. But I'm also no fan of this woman - she must have political connections in order to keep the DA from prosecuting her.

Do I feel at all sorry for the felon she hit? No, not really. . . Doesn't justify her actions, however.

Yeah and/or her attitudes mirrors that of DA.... so its okay.

When someone pointed out you can't just shoot at the guy driving up the boardwalk since you don't know what is really happening... I agreed.

Same here; women needs to be charged for going overboard.

[elSquid]

I don't see how you guys can defend the "victim" in light of this:

“He turned and pointed this at her, and she thought it was a real weapon and that she was about to be shot or that the kids were in danger, so she gunned her car and struck him.”

or this:

“She had no duty to retreat,” said Beaver County District Attorney Anthony Berosh. “You don’t have to wait to find out whether or not this is a real gun or not, and she was acting not only out of her own defense, but the defense of those two children.”

If someone pointed what looked like a real gun at you, and you had the means to defend yourself, what would you do?

What did I miss here?

You missed the fact that many calgunners can't be bothered to read the whole article before they start posting.

-- Michael

[sofbak]

You missed the fact that many calgunners can't be bothered to read the whole article before they start posting.

-- Michael

Thankyou. THAT expains a lot

[morfeeis]

I don't see how you guys can defend the "victim" in light of this:

or this:

If someone pointed what looked like a real gun at you, and you had the means to defend yourself, what would you do?

What did I miss here?

That changes everything. that wasn't in the linked article. She should have walked.

never-mind i just rechecked the link and it's there. the first time i clicked the story stopped at "carrying what appeared to be a sawed-off shotgun.". the rest of the text didn't load. my mistake

[therealnickb]

You missed the fact that many calgunners can't be bothered to read the whole article before they start posting.

-- Michael

Bingo!

[naeco81]

Can we stop looking for news stories to take sides in?

[OleCuss]

(The following rant is not directed to any particular one of you.)
/rant on
Yeah, I guess may attitude is a bit skewed and discounted.

I'm guess I'm just really, really exceptional. I was paid and required by the government to have a weapon with me at all times for months on end. Carried it openly within a city and I never shot anyone.

Only once had to even threaten anyone (two thieves going after a temporary "armory" and I didn't have any back up so I had to escalate rapidly).

I guess everyone should have assumed that because I was frequently around kids that I was about to shoot them. Just miraculous that I didn't shoot them.

Oddly, however, the children and their parents didn't seem at all disturbed that I was openly carrying a weapon - and almost everyone who came with me was openly carrying fully automatic weapons (sometimes machine guns).

But I guess that here in the US if you are openly carrying a firearm you are clearly an incipient murderer?
/rant off


Edit: I've gone back to the link several times and have not seen the language others are finding which apparently is supposed to justify her action. Maybe it's there - but I don't see it.

Re-edit: Visited again and it appears now. Potentially changes my opinion. The attempted homicide may have been justified after all.

[broofy]

Huh, the first time the link opened for me, I didn't see the really pertinent info either.

OK, nuff said.

[sofbak]

Can we stop looking for news stories to take sides in?

Nooooooo. Availing yourself of other opinions and perspectives and sharing your own are one of the cornerstones of a public forum and a resource for personal enlightenment.

Besides, what else are we going to talk about-"What to say if a leo asks if you have a gun in the car????"