Mhoward wrote:That is the main problem with the story, the lack of information.from what I have read the shooter ran back to his house to get his gun, then shot the man off his property. Once the trespasser (not going to say victim this time as the shooter could be the victim) left the property the home owner should have stayed put, on the phone with 911.this all happened at 4:30am, home owners son stated everyone was intoxicated. If it were me I would have not left my property.I don't see how he could have been in fear for his life if he followed the man off his property.
bdickens wrote:What is with the insane need to keep referring to the criminal perpetrators of incidents as "victims?"
tbrown wrote:bdickens wrote:What is with the insane need to keep referring to the criminal perpetrators of incidents as "victims?"
Alinsky could tell you. So could Goebbels.
I think it's obvious that a ne'er–do–well who crashes a party in a private home, gets kicked out, and returns with canine backup is the aggressor, not the victim.
Bfuselier wrote:Another thing to consider is that it is unlikely that the deceased just showed up for the heck of it, got ran off, and then decided it was so much fun he wanted to come back.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], jmra and 8 guests