Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 70

Thread: Shoot to stop the attack...but?

  1. #1
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803

    Post imported post

    I have always read on this board to shoot to stop the attack rather than shoot to kill. While that makes sense in most cases, what about a retreating bad guy? He may return, he may go shoot other people, he may bring friends, etc.

    From what I know a civilian can't shoot a person running away or we wind up in jail. A LEO "can" shoot someone running away because they are enforcing the law and trying to make an arrest. Why can't we do the same thing? Making a citizens arrest in this case if the bad guy was violently threatening us?

    I suppose you could fear for the lives of his next victim but that may not hold up in court. If I catch someone raping my daughter, he will never rape again. He/it may live (probably not) but no reconstructive surgery will put "it" back to a him. If he is running away I don't understand how we can by law be forced to let him go.

    This came to mind when the Las Vegas shooter was shot by LEO as he was running away.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    I think this may vary by state, I am sure others will have a more detailed response. The basic factor would apply. If the retreating BG has commited a felony (killed someone) then you may shoot them. Think about the recent Lakewood officer's killed and the BG running away. I OC or CCer was in the coffee shop and witnessed the incident and does not have a shot until the BG is running away, this would be a justified shot to eliminate the future threat of this BG.
    Live Free or Die!

  3. #3
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320

    Post imported post

    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    I think this may vary by state, I am sure others will have a more detailed response. The basic factor would apply. If the retreating BG has commited a felony (killed someone) then you may shoot them. Think about the recent Lakewood officer's killed and the BG running away. I OC or CCer was in the coffee shop and witnessed the incident and does not have a shot until the BG is running away, this would be a justified shot to eliminate the future threat of this BG.
    Pure vigilantism.

    If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law (gaawdah only knows what law might be cited above) then we can all be legally disarmed (or shot in the back) merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony - even to ignorant opining.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA ******* damn the Obamination and its teeth.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    In Tennessee, we are justified in using deadly force as long as a reasonable perceptionthat aimminent threat of serious bodily injury or death is present.

    So, if you shoot to stop the presence of such a threat, and your aim is true, the threat should drop right there or retreat bleeding really badly. In the case of the later, the BG shouldn't go far.

    They frown on shooting BG's in the back while they're fleeing, unless of course, the BG is shooting back at you or at someone else as he's running away.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    The elements of common law self-defense are four; be innocent of instigation; use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil, be in reasonable fear of bodily harm and attempt to withdraw.

  7. #7
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803

    Post imported post

    When a person is raped and doesn't testify against the rapist (for several possible reasons) the rapist is free to rape again. If someone threatens my life and I let him go he is free to threaten (or do worse to) others.

    I would think since the crime (threaten bodily/life-threatening injury) had been done you could shoot whether they were running or not until they stopped and did not escape. The law should concentrate on bringing the criminal to justice the quickest way possible and waiting for police to show up and investigate takes too long.

    Makes too much sense of course.

    Here in Virginia the paper just published all the "gun" deaths in our area and stated that 60% were unsolved. That 60% is really higher because of the ones the police did solve were murder/suicides and a father beating a 10month old to death. I read that in the 1990's there were something like 100,000 murders and a capture rate of 50%. That means there are up to 50,000 murderers running the streets. I wish we had a legal system that worked with the law-abiding people rather than against them!

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    I definitely would not be shooting unless I knew with nearly unshakeable certainty that I was on solid legal ground.

    The main point is that using lethal force, shooting someone--anyone--is a really, really big deal morally and legally. The legal concept includes both criminal and civil liability.

    There is a US Supreme Court case from 1985 on this: Tennessee vs Garner.

    Here is a wikisummary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

    Readers might also lookit up at Cornell and Justia (legal websites).

    There may be VA law on this. You could check 1774. org. He has a lot of good stuff onVAlethal force law. I think Grapeshot does, too.



    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote: From that decision:

    "...and that current research has shown that the use of deadly force contributes little to the deterrence of crime or the protection of the public."

    I wonder what anti-gun organization did that "deterrence" study?

    That man won't be robbing anyone else's house anymore. That is deterrence isn't it?

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    The elements of common law self-defense are four; be innocent of instigation; use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil, be in reasonable fear of bodily harm and attempt to withdraw.
    Check to see if your state has a "Castle Doctrine" (aka "Stand your ground" "MakeMy Day"doctrine). If it does, there may be no obligation to withdraw.

    Still leaves the first 3 rules though.

  11. #11
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    So, if you shoot to stop the presence of such a threat, and your aim is true, the threat should drop right there or retreat bleeding really badly. In the case of the later, the BG shouldn't go far.

    They frown on shooting BG's in the back while they're fleeing, unless of course, the BG is shooting back at you or at someone else as he's running away.
    Yes but that assumes you shoot. What if you are holding a BG until police show up at gunpoint. If he drops any weapon and simply starts walking away you can't shoot him. So your threat to "stand their or I'll shoot" is really a bluff that can put you in jail or financially ruin you.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    45acpForMe wrote:
    Citizen wrote: From that decision:

    "...and that current research has shown that the use of deadly force contributes little to the deterrence of crime or the protection of the public."

    I wonder what anti-gun organization did that "deterrence" study?

    That man won't be robbing anyone else's house anymore. That is deterrence isn't it?
    What? They didn't cite their source? I'm gonna haveta check this out and read the opinion after all.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    45acpForMe wrote:
    Citizen wrote: From that decision:

    "...and that current research has shown that the use of deadly force contributes little to the deterrence of crime or the protection of the public."

    I wonder what anti-gun organization did that "deterrence" study?

    That man won't be robbing anyone else's house anymore. That is deterrence isn't it?
    Actually, I think that scenario would fall under "problem solving" or "finite resolution."

    The deterence comes with the criminals knowing that they are not protected from serious injury or death while engaged in felony activities.

    Faced with the reality that deadly force against them is part of the self defense package, provided to Law abiding citizens, should make them want to ask themselves. "Do I feel lucky?" :shock:

    Now, if the persons considering a full or part time participation in criminal activity have been convinced by the liberal politicians that they are indeed "unlucky" in lifes lottery, they may decide that such bad luck may extend to their pursuits in crime.

    Criminals may be ok with current prison fashions, but none of them wants to be caught dead in a body bag.

  14. #14
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,619

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    snip....

    Here is a wikisummary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

    Readers might also lookit up at Cornell and Justia (legal websites).

    There may be VA law on this. You could check 1774. org. He has a lot of good stuff onVAlethal force law. I think Grapeshot does, too.
    I almost did no hear yew - was in the shed a loadin' fresh bags.

    Cornell' s good but a little difficult to navigate without a chart - has most state and federal laws. http://www.law.cornell.edu/statutes.html

    Being a lesser scholar of the letters, I seek out the wisdom of those more learned in the craft.

    Yata hey


    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    45acpForMe wrote:
    Citizen wrote: From that decision:

    "...and that current research has shown that the use of deadly force contributes little to the deterrence of crime or the protection of the public."

    I wonder what anti-gun organization did that "deterrence" study?

    That man won't be robbing anyone else's house anymore. That is deterrence isn't it?
    For a real eye-opener about what goes on with court rulings, see if you can find a copy of Antonin Scalia's essay A Matter of Interpretation (1996?).

    Barnes & Noble may have a paperback version. Or, it may be on-line. He lays out many of the ways judgesinterpret the law to mean what they want it to mean.

    One real eye-opener for me was petitioner and respondent briefs that start with legislative intent--history, committee reports, floor speeches--before the brief even gets to the text of the statute or regulation at issue.Despite the fact, for example,that the committee report is not voted on for passage. The committee report cannot be amended. Ditto the floor speeches. Any senator or representative can stand up and give a floor speech on a bill--and suddenly that speech's text can now influence a court's interpretation (give a judge the material he needs to intrepret the statute the way he wants) over the text of the statute: the thing that was actually passed and signed into law. And the legislators know this and use it. And this was back in 1996-97, not 13-14 years later. Imagine what it is today.

    Of course, I'm still wondering how the federal courts can treat almost any law with respect in the text of their opinionsgiven that they have to know the political machinations involved in passing a law. I would think, perhaps erroneously, that their stomachs would sooner or later have to revolt at the effluvial stench wafting up from the pages quoting the text of the statutes.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    Laws, like sausages, are things it is best not to watch being made if one is a queasy type. And by the time the courts get through with interpreting them, it is a wretched mess of sausage indeed.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    As to the OP: Heck no, if the BG is fleeing count yourself lucky. Let the cops (who you pay to handle this stuff) take care of it. In any encounter with a BG all I want is him the hell out of my freaking life. So far it hasn't involved shooting one, but I have kicked the living hell out of a few muggers, including a guy who tried to rob me in my cab back in 1977. (I accelerated to 70 MPH, slammed on the brakes and his head went into the dashboard. I beat him the rest of the way into uncociousness and kicked his butt - literally - outta the hack. ) I have been street-mugged six times. Twice they got my money, but in all but one case they got a bunch of stitches.

    Jurisdictions vary on lethal force against a fleeing felon and yes, if one catches a BG in the act of raping one's family, well, what jury......

    I had occasion to sit in on a felony case wherein the defendant took the stand (against advice) to explian to the jury that he only shot the lock off his GF's door because she wouldn't open up, and he only fired into the wall over the heads of her and her BF (and the kid-his-) to "calm everybody down" :shock: And then he explained that his ex-GF's BF managed to get out the door and so, since the defendant thought the BF was going to get his gun from his car, shot him four times in the back "in self defense". The icing on this cake was that he demonstrated his concern by flipping the prone victim over with his foot "to see if he was okay". You should have seen the appalled looks on the faces of the jury. Robert Horan, who was personally trying this case, well, he was just grinning ear-to-ear waiting to cross-examine this fool.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    The answer here is that this is an application of force question combined with intent. Killing people is always against the law especially if that is the intent of the application of deadly force, but in application of the law there can be mitigating circumstances that offset the illegality of an act. Moreover society recognizes the need to allow for greater mitigation where a LEO is involved in apprehending a felon. While a citizen MAY catch felons, society has not placed an affirmative duty on the average person to do so. Police do have this affirmative duty.

    When someone shoots in self defense they are not applying the death penalty to the target, they are applying deadly force. The intent is supposed to be stopping a threat. If the person dies as a result, that is an incidental byproduct of the application of force that is sufficient to kill but not necessarily intended to do so. Such applied force is defined as deadly not because it always kills, but instead because it is POTENTIALLY deadly. Big difference.

    Under the law a person is allowed to apply all levels of force up to and including potentially deadly force, in defending against the application of potentially deadly force by an assailant. But under the law that force may only be applied up to the point that the threat ends. If that threat ends and you apply deadly force AFTER that point then you lose the mitigation of self defense under the law and you could be charged. A LEO is authorized to press a pursuit of a felon by the continued use of deadly force but only in particular ways and for particular purposes. Even a LEO can be charged is they shoot people in the back after the threat has passed.

    If after a shooting the prosecutor can show that your actual intent in shooting someone was to kill them instead of just stopping them you will be charged and likely convicted. Not incidentally some of the bravado statements used in forums like this, and even in this thread, can be used to prove your intent in court should you be involved in a shooting incident.

    Regards
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    The answer here is that this is an application of force question combined with intent. Killing people is always against the law especially if that is the intent of the application of deadly force, but in application of the law there can be mitigating circumstances that offset the illegality of an act. Such factors as self defense and defense of others are mitigating. Moreover society recognizes the need to allow for greater mitigation where a LEO is involved in apprehending a felon. While a citizen MAY catch felons, society has not placed an affirmative duty on the average person to do so. Police do have this affirmative duty.

    When someone shoots in self defense they are not applying the death penalty to the target, they are applying a potentially deadly force. The intent is supposed to be stopping a threat. If the person dies as a result, that is an incidental byproduct of the application of force that is sufficient to kill but not necessarily intended to do so. Such applied force is defined as deadly not because it always kills, but instead because it is POTENTIALLY deadly. Big difference.

    Under the law a person is allowed to apply all levels of force up to and including potentially deadly force, in defending against the application of potentially deadly force by an assailant. But under the law that force may only be applied up to the point that the threat ends. If that threat ends and you apply deadly force AFTER that point then you lose the mitigation of self defense under the law and you could be charged. A LEO is authorized to press a pursuit of a felon by the continued use of deadly force but only in particular ways and for particular purposes. Even a LEO can be charged if they shoot people in the back after the threat has passed.

    If after a shooting the prosecutor can show that your actual intent in shooting someone was to kill them instead of just stopping them you will be charged and likely convicted. Not incidentally some of the bravado statements used in forums like this, and even in this thread, can be used to prove your intent in court should you be involved in a shooting incident.

    Regards
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  20. #20
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    A lawyer was asked this same question, or was he posed a scenario(??), and his replay was most informative. There are a few circumstances in which you could legally shoot someone in the back who is going away from your location.

    Suppose someone has broken into your home at night. You yell at him to leave, that you have a gun, and the police have been called. But he doesn't leave. He comes up the stairs and heads straight for a bedroom door down the hall - the bedroom where your child is sleeping.

    Suppose you interrupt someone in your home and he is armed. He fires at you then turns and runs, gun in hand, towards your wife's car as she pulls in to the driveway behind you.

    Same situation as above except your wife is not there. Instead, there is a panel van in the street and the BG runs for the van, to retrieve the gun being held out for him by one of his "friends".


    I could probably list some more, but the point is, every situation is different and many can have strange scenarios.

    And I am certainly open to any constructive and corrective comments from those who know better than myself.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  21. #21
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    The answer here is that this is an application of force question combined with intent. Killing people is always against the law especially if that is the intent of the application of deadly force, but in application of the law there can be mitigating circumstances that offset the illegality of an act. Such factors as self defense and defense of others are mitigating. Moreover society recognizes the need to allow for greater mitigation where a LEO is involved in apprehending a felon. While a citizen MAY catch felons, society has not placed an affirmative duty on the average person to do so. Police do have this affirmative duty.

    When someone shoots in self defense they are not applying the death penalty to the target, they are applying a potentially deadly force. The intent is supposed to be stopping a threat. If the person dies as a result, that is an incidental byproduct of the application of force that is sufficient to kill but not necessarily intended to do so. Such applied force is defined as deadly not because it always kills, but instead because it is POTENTIALLY deadly. Big difference.

    Under the law a person is allowed to apply all levels of force up to and including potentially deadly force, in defending against the application of potentially deadly force by an assailant. But under the law that force may only be applied up to the point that the threat ends. If that threat ends and you apply deadly force AFTER that point then you lose the mitigation of self defense under the law and you could be charged. A LEO is authorized to press a pursuit of a felon by the continued use of deadly force but only in particular ways and for particular purposes. Even a LEO can be charged if they shoot people in the back after the threat has passed.

    If after a shooting the prosecutor can show that your actual intent in shooting someone was to kill them instead of just stopping them you will be charged and likely convicted. Not incidentally some of the bravado statements used in forums like this, and even in this thread, can be used to prove your intent in court should you be involved in a shooting incident.

    Regards
    Excellent post, Hawk. Straight and to the point.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  22. #22
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,619

    Post imported post

    A grand jury can chose to indict or not. Circumstances and opinions are part of the system. It all comes down to an affirmative defense if you must go before the bar.

    There was an event years ago in the fan, wherein a man was repeatedly stabbing his wife in the front seat of her car. A neighbor seeing this ran into his house retrieving a 9mm, went back out and shouted for the aggressor to stop.

    The attacker, dropped the blade, turned away and fled up the alley. The neighbor fired and hit the fleeing spouse multiple times in the back, killing him. The grand jury did NOT indict.

    Also there was the recent Baskins Robins shooting on Forest Hill - similar but different - grand jury did not indict.

    Being right is always good. Having a good attorney is better. Being lucky is best, even priceless.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    gogodawgs wrote:
    I think this may vary by state, I am sure others will have a more detailed response. The basic factor would apply. If the retreating BG has commited a felony (killed someone) then you may shoot them. Think about the recent Lakewood officer's killed and the BG running away. I OC or CCer was in the coffee shop and witnessed the incident and does not have a shot until the BG is running away, this would be a justified shot to eliminate the future threat of this BG.
    Pure vigilantism.

    If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law (gaawdah only knows what law might be cited above) then we can all be legally disarmed (or shot in the back) merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony - even to ignorant opining.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA ******* damn the Obamination and its teeth.
    In Texas according to the law a fleeing felon can be shot by a citizen, but you'll still end up being prosecuted in most counties. Best idea is not to shoot people at all,let alone in the back.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    PrayingForWar wrote:
    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law (gaawdah only knows what law might be cited above) then we can all be legally disarmed (or shot in the back) merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony - even to ignorant opining.
    In Texas according to the law a fleeing felon can be shot by a citizen, but you'll still end up being prosecuted in most counties. Best idea is not to shoot people at all,let alone in the back.
    'Felon' is the difficult part. He's definitely fleeing when he's shot in the back where you can't see his forehead. Ahh, another good application for tattooing, an 'F' for felon rather than a 'T' for Thug right in the middle of the forehead!

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA ******* ******* the Obamination and its teeth.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    45acpForMe wrote:
    I have always read on this board to shoot to stop the attack rather than shoot to kill. While that makes sense in most cases, what about a retreating bad guy? He may return, he may go shoot other people, he may bring friends, etc.

    From what I know a civilian can't shoot a person running away or we wind up in jail. A LEO "can" shoot someone running away because they are enforcing the law and trying to make an arrest. Why can't we do the same thing? Making a citizens arrest in this case if the bad guy was violently threatening us?

    I suppose you could fear for the lives of his next victim but that may not hold up in court. If I catch someone raping my daughter, he will never rape again. He/it may live (probably not) but no reconstructive surgery will put "it" back to a him. If he is running away I don't understand how we can by law be forced to let him go.

    This came to mind when the Las Vegas shooter was shot by LEO as he was running away.
    I don't care who you are--LEO or not--shooting someone in the back in the absence of open warfare is the act of a coward.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •