Shoot Me, Sue You

 

1. The problem here is that Schnur obviously failed to control his weapon properly.  “Three or four” rounds from that close should have been enough to remove this blight permantely.

   Posted by Sarge       01/09/2006  at  06:51 AM  



2. I agree with Sarge, and I will observe that this case has just enough potential for mawkishness and maudlin sentimentality to get some traction with the typical moonbat judge or jury.

   

   Posted by Tannenberg       01/09/2006  at  08:20 AM  



3. Three shots were all that were required.  Double tap to the chest and one to the head.

   Problem Solved.

   Posted by Tyler       01/09/2006  at  01:18 PM  



4. ’not guilty by reason of insanity’, make no mistake.....if you point a weapon at

   a lawman.....well, the consequences are predictable.

   Posted by piccalo       01/09/2006  at  09:37 PM  



5. As elsewhere, none of you has the slightest understanding of the law and the concept of excessive force.  You don’t want the law as it exists in every jurisdiction in this country to be applied and presented to a jury.  You just want to rant about things you know absolutely nothing about.

   Posted by wamoshiii       01/09/2006  at  10:11 PM  



6. Captain, we have been invaded by the enemy Sir!

   Posted by Tyler       01/09/2006  at  10:51 PM  



7. Skipper repel all boarders. Load up with grapeshot!

   Good grief, if this moron had ran over someone and killed them during the course of her 110mph escape attempt how would you feel then wamoshiii? I could give a crap about excessive force. She is still breathing how does that constitute excess? Should we instead send her to counselling to address her high speed driving problem? How about a one on one session with a psychiatrist to find out what childhood trauma made her point a gun and fire at the police. You carry on with your woolly liberal agenda and you will end up with a country like Britain where the criminal is treated like the victim.

   Posted by LyndonB       01/10/2006  at  10:41 AM  



8. Its a question for a jury, dear boy. Or, would you prefer that we abolish jury trials?

   Posted by wamoshiii       01/10/2006  at  10:44 AM  



9. Actually Wamoshiii the British government is considering abolishing jury trials in the case of fraud trials. However I am happy to retain the jury for the rest. However I fail to see your point. Are you saying that the police acted as judge, jury and (almost) executioner? How else are they supposed to respond to a homicidal lunatic? The days of softly, softly are long gone. You may not like it but the world we live in is a bad place, full of bad people. You might wish it otherwise, but as Burgess Meredith once put it. “You can wish in one hand and crap in the other...see which gets filled up first!”

   Posted by LyndonB       01/10/2006  at  01:56 PM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.