Yes he is. Cite that he isn’t?
Oh, wait, your post is your cite. I should know better by now.
These bands of marauding children terrorizing law-abiding homeowners have gotten out of control. This guy should have had some piano wire strung across the sidewalk, too - can’t get away as fast that way. Now that would teach those little animals a lesson, with their songs, and…games, and… laughter.
I hope you’re just trolling around for fun, because if you’re serious, you’re an absolute loon.
That and it was apparently birdshot - #6 or higher. (The article says that 200 pellets were removed from Eberle.)
Getting shot by birdshot is no joke. But if Bishop had used buckshot, Eberle would almost certainly have been immediately killed.
I have no knowledge beyond what’s in the article. But I have to guess Bishop must have some kind of mental disturbance to do something like this.
Shoots AClockworkMelon
Get off my monitor!
“People” need to know? You mean “people” in general need to know? Yeah, like THAT will ever be a popular opinion. :rolleyes:
As for the particular suspect in question, I’m betting he was willing to kill the kid, and that’s why he pulled the trigger. If I understand you correctly, then this means in his particular case it was OK for him to point the gun at that kid.
If shooting a kid in the back for ding-dong ditch is “a little bit overboard,” what do you consider “way overboard?”
Why should he not be charged with attempted murder?
I sentence him to a jail cell without windows but with a door buzzer, directly across from a daycare center in which the children are encouraged to go push the botton over there.
“Did you push the button today Timmy? You did? Awesome. Here’s an icecream cone!”
Interesting that between the story and the comments in the “Around the Web” section there are 2 additional stories of people being shot over “Ding Dong Ditch,” one of them killed by a cop. What the hell is wrong with people?
I blame the extremists in our society, generally the right wing ones.
There was an article the other day about some guy getting prosecuted for running a barbed wire fence across the river that bisects his property in Colorado and injuring people who tube down it. In the article it mentions that the guy has been complaining about trespassers who walk onto his land to stop and rest or to relieve themselves.
And of course, in the comments some people suggest that he shoot people who do that. :rolleyes:
There’s a mentality of “You step onto my land without my permission, I have the right to shoot you” to which I do not agree.
My money on Canadian hockey fan…
There’s legal precedent for it being A-OK: Yoshiro Hattori
Because look, we’ve all been there, OK? For all we know this guy’s wife just left him, his boss just called him to let him know he’s sleeping with his wife and he’s learned that he’s caught the clap from his wife. OK?
I guess I could agree that it’s assault. But it’s a slippery fucking slope.
This is simply wrong.
In my opinion, people get guns because they tend to be more scared about the world, and more likely to overestimate threats, than the average person. It’s not surprising that they then over-react to the threats they perceive. The problem is that guns are a no-take-backs proposition, and someone has to pay for the gun users impairments.
What exactly is slippery about shooting someone in the back with a shotgun = attempted murder? “We’ve all been there”? What the fuck are you on about?
I haven’t been there. I’ve never felt an overwhelming urge to kill someone who committed a minor infraction against me simply because I had a bad day. If I did shoot someone in the back, I would fully expect to be charge with attempted murder, regardless of any precipitating events.
If you point a shotgun at someone and pull the trigger, it’s not manslaughter; you clearly have intent to kill if you perform an action like that.
The only justification for homicide recognized in a court of law is self-defense. And if you shoot an unarmed 12YO in the back from a distance, it’s not self-defense.
Your reluctance to admit that this man attemped to murder a 12YO boy is amazing. You appear to endorse a society in which it’s considered OK for someone to deal with their frustrations by physically assaulting innocent third parties. You must be a big fan of road rage, and of customers who beat the crap out of cashiers when their cheeseburger is made wrong.
Would you stop trolling already?
Yeah, but the NRA is also a huge proponent – perhaps the most visible and obvious proponent of the viewpoint that the world is a dangerous place where not only are the 2nd amendment rights of NRA members/gun owners constantly under attack, ordinary people are constantly under attack from criminals who are laying in wait to do harm in every semi-shady place.
And of course the NRA’s response to all of these alleged constant attacks posits “it can never hurt to have a gun.” You’ll never regret having your gun when you don’t need it, but you’ll regret not having your gun when you do need it.
So you have a situation where the only people who think it’s necessary or appropriate to tote guns every and anywhere, the supermarket, the playground, the bar, are NRA members and some (not even all) gang members.
And even gang members don’t take their guns to church, but an NRA supported law enacted last year in Louisiana just paved the way for exactly that.
I was an NRA member for more than a decade. I went to the annual convention that was here in Pittsburgh at the end of April. I listened to the speeches. I read the literature. There is constant “crime and danger” fearmongering happening under the NRA banner.
So there’s a definite disingenuity to not see a connection between that fearmongering and someone whose response to unknown persons (children!) ringing his doorbell is to answer with a shotgun in hand. Whether he lifted it or used it or not, even answering the door with a gun in hand is so over the top – unless you’re a criminal or you’re expecting the mob to be outside – it should give everyone pause.