Jump to content
Outstanding! I look forward to seeing Michael go far.
Well said. It is true and correct that a comprehensive analysis will be completed and everything is a factor. What will ultimately be decided is whether or not Mr. Sailors' actions meet the standard of the law for justifiable use of a firearm for self-defense. I see that as a tough one.
I still can't figure out how "the reasonable man" concept is going to explain the defendant's way out of this. Not under those circumstances. We still have an innocent victim who is not coming back to life. I'm seeing a manslaughter conviction at the least, followed by a wrongful death lawsuit. Not good for anyone, especially when you're 69 years old. You cannot afford to be wrong in such situations, as the consequences of your actions can be serious and permanent.
David Brown, It is highly unlikely that anyone, especially a 69-year-old, could determine or make any distinction of race, at night with headlights shining in their direction. I reject "race" as a factor in this case.
Plain and simple: Sailors exercised POOR judgment under the circumstances and not only would I not do the same, I cannot condone his actions. This case is not a good example of justifiable self-defense. If he was concerned for his safety, he would have been better off maintaining the advantage of a defensive position WITHIN the home, while attempting to get the police on their way. Do those things and you have the best chance of coming out on top, tactically and legally. The cost: An innocent life lost and an elderly man who will be lost to his family and will lose all he had, as he will now have to pay for his poor judgment and actions.
Good case Rob. However, when one challenge by a liberal is nullified, they just move on to another angle and continue. They will never stop. There is no "getting what they want" because they never stop wanting more. Liberals simply resent the 2nd Amendment and the rest of the Constitution as well. They will never accept its validity.
Good point chasmcjr. Now if only there were someone who had the guts to do what's right and practice that.
Ever notice that most all mass shootings occur in places where the good guys are not allowed by the law to act as a defense? Such places are called “gun-free, victim zones”. The bad guys will never follow such rules or laws. Their very nature is to ignore them.
It’s a dishonest tactic to state that anyone wants to arm ALL school personnel. Most school personnel do not have the required fortitude and are not capable of handling defensive weapons responsibly and effectively. SOME are however. SOME would be willing to be trained and authorized, if allowed to do so. An armed defender is one who is willing to place themselves in danger to protect others. Allowing those who are capable and willing to become part of a defensive shield against a deranged attacker gives everyone a better chance of survival. That’s always worth more than having no chance at all and following the popular “lie down like a lamb and be a good little victim” mentality. REFUSE TO BE A VICTIM. FIGHT BACK.
Last login: Wednesday, February 6, 2013