It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by scraze
Surely, there is an interesting point to make here .. We all seem to agree that those people should not own guns. However, those kind of people (with the lust for blood) are the very first to own guns.
Originally posted by alphabetaone
I disagree with how the laws are structured honestly, as much as anyone, I guess what I'm trying to say is that it can be an incredibly grey area on what is considered imminent danger and what isn't. Sometimes there's far too little clarification.
Originally posted by Sonya610
Well in all fairness, if there were several tresspassers in clear view, why would the guy shoot the 7 year old? I mean realistically even if he WANTED to shoot trespassers why aim for the smallest in the group if it was a clear shot?
Doesn't make sense. The father would have been the obvious target if visibility was good. Maybe it was a badly aimed warning shot.
Originally posted by Logarock
Ok. By the way did you mean "first to use guns"?
Originally posted by alphabetaoneHowever, my background is one of assess before action.
Originally posted by titorite
Man I hate playing devils advocate but here I am. Their are some states that allow deadly force to protect private property.
Yes in Texas you can shoot someone for trespassing.
Originally posted by dizziedame
I have No Trespassing signs but no meth lab or illegal substances growing.
Originally posted by ShadeWolf
He had an obvious NO Trespassing sign on his property. The child decided to ignore it anyways, and was shot. As far as I'm concerned, he was well within his rights to defend his property against trespassers. Anybody, child or not, dumb enough to ignore such an obvious warning deserves what he gets.