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.
Adding this to my list of reasons why people aren't going to get a warning from me in situations like this. If the same thing happened to me, I would have shot the punk in the head. Dead people can't bring up frivolous charges and lawsuits after assaulting your children in your own home. Actually, I'm lieing. If I had a daughter and someone was abusing her, I'd probably leave the gun alone and twist his head off.
You never point a gun at someone if you are not prepared to use it. He should have shot him end of story. "Mandatory Minimum Sentences"
Too bad he shot into the wall next to the punk. Should have just shot him. Then, his word, and that of his family, against a corpse. Punk gets a funeral, dad gets a medal, everyone happy. Personally, I would have shot the little, um, jerk.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Vitchilo
I feel late to the party here, I wish I had seen this thread yesterday.
I absolutely hate minimum sentencing! Everyone knows it is wrong, it is only a political ploy for election time, it has no business in a courtroom.
However, I do think the father was in the wrong to shoot an innocent wall. Not 20 years wrong, but he needs more firearm training. You never fire a gun unless you intend on hurting or killing someone. If he had shot the boy dead, while defending his home, he would be a hero. Instead, he shot a wall, potentially escalated the problem for his own daughter, let the boy leave to stew on it, and wound up in jail himself. All around bad decision. If he didn't fear for his life, he shouldn't have shot anything, if he truly feared for his life, or the life of his daughter, he should have shot the boy dead. Dead men tell no lies.