Woman shoots purse snatcher in the back

originally posted by: TheSpanishArcher
a reply to: Boadicea

Stuff? Her keys to her house and the exact location of said house? Would you let someone get away with those items?

Hmmmm... shoot at someone's back in a crowd and risk hurting innocent people -- perhaps even children? Or change my locks?

Yeah, I'll change my locks.... well, technically, hubby will

a reply to: Domo1



Like a few others have said (who have actual knowledge about it), any person who is properly trained would not have done this. This woman needs to be brought up on charges--these are material things. No one who respects life would shoot someone in the back as they fled the scene of a robbery.

These types of people give law-abiding, trained gun carriers a terrible name.

originally posted by: pcgamer11
a reply to: Domo1

I looked up the news story, the shot missed.

www.dailymail.co.uk...< br />
Pcg

That makes it even worse, because her intent was to take the life of someone who took a bit of property off of another (I'm all about property rights, but it's not worth the life of someone if they're not a threat to your life or someone else's), plus she could have injured or killed an innocent bystander. She needs to be charged, assuming that the discharging of her firearm was unlawful.

Wow im kind of stunned to see all the self righteous attitudes being displayed... so many speaking as if they have all the facts, yet obviously didnt read the linked story on page 1.

Would I have drawn a gun and fired no, but then purse snatchers dont typically target guys... the woman had to make the choice and only the police can make the decision on whether or not she did wrong... and they said she did no wrong by not pressing charges.

How about some members of ATS go back to gathering facts before spouting off half cocked pushing their personal political agenda!

a reply to: Tjoran

Maybe some would understand more fully if it were explained like the golden rule, with a little modification...

Do unto others as you would have others do unto you, and interpret those who do unto you in ways you do not approve of as not deserving your honor or leniency.....

Wait....that won't work either, considering how many people in this world are just so completely clueless as to what honor is.

Shooting someone in the back or shooting into the air was not the right thing to do really but as it was an old lady she was right to defend herself against those who would take advantage. A cop is a different issue as they need only to keep them in sight and call backup, use up that revenue coppers, but she probably didn't have that option.

Skip it. I'm sure a banker thinks he does no wrong either as far as the golden rule, and most people ignorantly look up to them like they are heroes or something similar...

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Firefly_
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

You mean as cowardly as a bag snatcher? He got what he deserved, simple as.

No he deserved a trial and prison sentence not summary execution.

Actually, you only get a trial and prison sentence if the government arrests you.

In reality, when you commit a crime against a person you are subject to the laws of nature, luck, chance, and many other variables. There is no predicting how any single person was raised or what beliefs they have when you assault them. The results range from them cowering in fear to them blowing your brains out. I'd say this guy got lucky.