Comments on: Business owner/Vietnam veteran hit with felony charges over shot

By: Watcherdownsouth

Watcherdownsouth — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:43:14 +0000

After reading the link provided by a12iggymom #62, it sounds like the car was only a few feet from John O’Connor when he pulled the trigger. Obviously, at that range, two things are true:

1: As the link noted, O’Connor easily could have spattered the driver’s brains all over the vehicle, but he didn’t –

2: He chose to shoot a tire instead, which, with him standing only a few feet from the car, means that he was pointing the shotgun virtually at the ground, and nowhere near the occupants.

There was no deadly force used, if the details in the link are reported correctly. Just because a weapon was used does not make it deadly force. Destruction of private property (destroying the tire)? Yeah…maybe. Ring him up for that one…I am sure that the $85 cost of that tire is well below the threshhold for a felony.

Let’s have an exercise — (do it mentally if you are feeling lazy). Go get your shotgun (Libs, use your broomstick) and stand outside in your driveway beside your car. Now point it towards the drivers seat. Now, swing it around and down to aim it at a tire. See how far away from the driver you are pointing?

Absolutely no intent to kill, let alone harm involved here. If he wanted to harm these punks, they would be in the morgue.

By: Army

Army — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:12:00 +0000

When seconds count, how many minutes are you willing to wait for the Police?

Thieves require elimination.

By: trinitytim

trinitytim — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:04:50 +0000

I think you all are assuming some facts that are not in evidence. Namely, where does it say he shot AT the man in the car. As I read it, he shot at the tire, not the person in the car. Therefore, there is not intent to injure or kill and no felony.

This may have been a misdemeanor discharge of a weapon in a prohibited area but I don’t see any felonies except for the attempted breaking and entering of business.

No comprendo!!!

By: infidel4life

infidel4life — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:34:28 +0000

Insane indeed. What kind of f’ed-up-in-the-head prosecutor charges the victim more harshly than the criminals?

By: Thunderbird 1

Thunderbird 1 — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 08:08:57 +0000

KDFW/Dallas TV Anchor: "Our reporter, Roberta Aguilar, is on the way with a camera crew and will be filing a report as soon as she arrives. Stay tuned for more..."

By: countrybumpkin

countrybumpkin — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 03:25:24 +0000

The thieves will bargain this down to improper parking.
The shooter will get jail time.

By: nbarry

nbarry — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 02:46:43 +0000

Since I’ve lived in New York all my life, except for two years in the Army, I can say with a high degree of confidence that the charges against the property owner acting in self-defense are the professional courtesy shown by one gang of crooks for another.

By: TMoney

TMoney — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 22:14:56 +0000

Incredible that he might face more punishment than the thieves.
Even more incredible is that he would even be taken before a judge!

UNFREAKINGBELIEVALE!

By: deepdiver

deepdiver — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 22:03:09 +0000

On December 21st, 2007 at 3:14 pm, a12iggymom #62 said:

After reading that column and the additional information, I would most certainly say that the authorities have this all backwards. Yet another reason to never again set foot in New York.

By: Tennessee Dave

Tennessee Dave — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:30:07 +0000

On December 21st, 2007 at 12:22 pm, Mark Jaquith said:
I’m as gung-ho for gun rights as anyone (you want to keep a full-auto AK-47 in your trunk? Fine by me). But this smells like a bad shooting.

I’ll say it was a bad shooting, but just because he only hit the tire.

By: BlameAmericaLast

BlameAmericaLast — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:42:04 +0000

You can own a gun in this country.

You just can’t use it.

By: Eclectic

Eclectic — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:33:32 +0000

I agree with DesertLover #39 – My apartment was broken into once and it was the scariest thing I’ve ever experienced. The first thing I did when I realized some had been (and might still be) in my apartment was grab the first thing I could think of as a weapon just in case.

So what if the jerks were driving away; do you really think he had had a chance yet to see if they got anything? Maybe they were the same ones who had already stolen from him multiple times before. It wouldn’t be a first!

By: bironetworks

bironetworks — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:22:53 +0000

wow.

who cares if the world loses a few more thieves?

jesus. the more thieves that know they’ll get shot, the fewer thieves there’ll be.

at the very least, we’ll get rid of the crap of society.

By: a12iggymom

a12iggymom — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:14:57 +0000

Local update from Rochester. From Rochester radio personnality Bob Lonsberry program.

http://www.lonsberry.com/writings.cfm?story=2287&go=4

By: mpChops

mpChops — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:54:43 +0000

Where the line is as to moral lethal force to protect property is not a heavy black line – it is a fuzzy gray line that differs from person to person, situation to situation.

I agree completely. The example that you offered is exactly the example I was going to offer in my last post, but felt that it was going too far off my main point.

I do contest that while the theif may not know the affect that his theivery may have, the person who is defending their property does. So they would be able to make an educated guess about property being stolen will lead to the loss of liberty or life.

But that is MY life, not the life of someone seeking to deprive me of my life, liberty or property.

That’s true, but when we start thinking about things in that way, we cease to look at a situation from the moral point of view and begin to look at it from a personal point to view, that is, we look at ways that the situation can benefit us the most. Yes, it’s more benefitial to a person to be able to defend their property with whatever force they want, but I don’t agree that it’s the moral course of action.