04-25-2007, 06:50 AM
...what ever happened to backing up belief with facts?
I wasn't there, so I don't know all the facts, just those present in the article. Perhaps you have some more direct information wasn't revealed in the news article.
It's probably different in your state, but in CA, the trial test depends heavily on the actions of "a reasonable and prudent man". You might be quick to point out that she's not a man. Stipulated. But the fact that one of them was charged with trespass doesn't mean she didn't have reason to believe they were thieves.
So you're cool with people being armed and with an itchy trigger finger, even though you'd prefer they'd not be driving? Have gun, will travel (anywhere my walker can take me).
What "itchy" trigger finger? She wanted them apprehended, and they were. I'm *totally* cool with that. She deliberately aimed to shoot tires. She was successful in that endeavor. As she apparently needed a walker to get around, I definitely don't want her driving. You're saying that accurately firing a weapon is no different than driving a car?
You make characterizations and gross generalizations based on little information, and cast them as fact. I definitely would not want you on any jury.
Seems that if she could see well enough to shoot out the tires that she could have gotten the lisence plate numbers quite easily...
Please tell me where she was standing in relation to the car, that it seems to you she could have seen the license plate. Did the car have one plate or two? Did it even have plates on it? Where they legible? Were they the plates that belonged to that car? Please clear that up for me.
She wanted them apprehended. It's not difficult to understand that it's much easier to apprehend suspects by taking them into custody at the scene, than to hope the police can track them down later.
I find her actions far less troubling and disappointing than the fact that none of you displayed any objectivity based on the information at hand.
The article was light on facts, to be sure. Most media will fail to be as thorough as a police report. That's no excuse for trading on biases, though that may be for comforting for some than seeking objectivity.
But then, hey-- what's a forum for.
I wasn't there, so I don't know all the facts, just those present in the article. Perhaps you have some more direct information wasn't revealed in the news article.
It's probably different in your state, but in CA, the trial test depends heavily on the actions of "a reasonable and prudent man". You might be quick to point out that she's not a man. Stipulated. But the fact that one of them was charged with trespass doesn't mean she didn't have reason to believe they were thieves.
So you're cool with people being armed and with an itchy trigger finger, even though you'd prefer they'd not be driving? Have gun, will travel (anywhere my walker can take me).
What "itchy" trigger finger? She wanted them apprehended, and they were. I'm *totally* cool with that. She deliberately aimed to shoot tires. She was successful in that endeavor. As she apparently needed a walker to get around, I definitely don't want her driving. You're saying that accurately firing a weapon is no different than driving a car?
You make characterizations and gross generalizations based on little information, and cast them as fact. I definitely would not want you on any jury.
Seems that if she could see well enough to shoot out the tires that she could have gotten the lisence plate numbers quite easily...
Please tell me where she was standing in relation to the car, that it seems to you she could have seen the license plate. Did the car have one plate or two? Did it even have plates on it? Where they legible? Were they the plates that belonged to that car? Please clear that up for me.
She wanted them apprehended. It's not difficult to understand that it's much easier to apprehend suspects by taking them into custody at the scene, than to hope the police can track them down later.
I find her actions far less troubling and disappointing than the fact that none of you displayed any objectivity based on the information at hand.
The article was light on facts, to be sure. Most media will fail to be as thorough as a police report. That's no excuse for trading on biases, though that may be for comforting for some than seeking objectivity.
But then, hey-- what's a forum for.