Man Shot at for Crashing into Fence, He Still Offers to Fix the Fence

[zlygork]

if the home owner wanted to kill him why the fuck would he have not just shot him immediatly. the fucking leaps you people make on this shit is astounding, the home owner wanted to punish him of course, by making him pay for the damage. He didnt want him driving off like he did. its not hard to not be able to see a plate, car lights on it dont work, street lights are shit, plates not visible or not there. And i dont know about you but after ever crash iv ever been in the first thing i or the driver do is turn off the engine. This dude obviously had some time to turn it off as the homeowner had to most likely grab his gun, get up, put some shoes on and come outside. He didnt fucking teleport into his yard. Both parties are at fault, the ones that shot and the driver. But at no point did the homeowner try and kill the driver. And the article clearly states the homeowner tried to shoot the drivers tires out as he was driving away, obviously not the split second some of you are trying to make it to be.

- - - Updated - - -



so if a criminal tried to run from a cop pointing a gun at them thats deescalation?

This world has enough deranged people to know that someone pointing a gun at someone that is not being a threat might possibly intend to do something such as locking you in a room, torturing you, or any other thing that is neither shooting you dead nor letting you go.

- - - Updated - - -

so if a criminal tried to run from a cop pointing a gun at them thats deescalation?

If the criminal was not holding a weapon or otherwise an immediate threat to anyone and the cop shot, he should lose his job. Cops are supposed to be trained enough to know how to stop someone from fleeing without bullets.

[Trifle]

so if a criminal tried to run from a cop pointing a gun at them thats deescalation?

Yes? Those pesky dictionary definitions...

That doesn't mean that the cop is going to let them get away, obviously. But that shouldn't involve shooting them in the back unless there was a clear and present danger to other parties.

And homeowners can't exactly argue they were defending their property from someone who was running away, so I'm not sure how that's even relevant.

[Garnier Fructis]

he pointed a gun and told him to turn the engine off. I dont know about you but when someone points a gun at me and tells me to do somthing i dont do the exact opposite of what they tell me to do. Becuase doing that would be fucking retarded.

If someone points a gun at me when they're on foot and I'm in a car, you bet your god damn ass I'm gonna floor it and drive off.

Doing what they say does not guarantee that they won't just shoot you anyway.

[Ripster42]

No it doesn't.

.

Just re-read it, you're right, my bad.

[Egomaniac]

But at no point did the homeowner try and kill the driver.

No...but his son did:

The teen then started shooting wildly at Smith and his pickup as it sped off, striking the rear window and several other places on the vehicle, records show. Mike Sanderson told deputies that his son fired approximately eight shots.

At least one of the bullets grazed Smith's head, the driver told officials.

Had the shot been an inch closer...the kid would be looking at a murder charge right now.

[Themius]

Looking at a story like this I can confidently say anyone trying to defend this stupidity has some serious mental deficiencies.

[Easo]

And again, we have idiots trying to defend them.

He was told to turn his car off to eliminate the chance of him fucking up that dudes shit and just driving off.

yes and? He came out with a gun, said to turn the engine off and the idiot drove off. The fucking homeowner didnt want a hit and run, this shit happens all the time. I know plenty of friends whos fences, garages ect have been fucked up by people late at night or drunk and they drove off and the homeowner is stuck with the entire bill. Go live in the ghetto and then you might understand why the homeowner responded this way.

YOU do not have any rights to do that. YOU are not a police. Has it even occured to you that you are supposed to help people involved in accidents, at least ask them if they are ok, not wave guns and shoot them???

Infracted - Flaming

[Queen of Hamsters]

or maby they didnt want someone to crash into thier shit and drive away? They told him to cut the engine, but the fucking retard sped off. I dont think id shoot at someone for crashing into my fence but i understand why they did it. Maby people should stop being such empty headed retards when introduced into any situation where they have to think with thier fucking head. Becuase driving off was not what he should have done.

Is this world just devoid of common sense on everyones part. Holy fuck. 95% of the situations i see posted here wouldnt even be a story if one retard didnt decide to escalate a situation by doing somthing fucking stupid.

Someone's triggered as FUCK...

How about, we first start asking for the type of "common sense" where people don't run out with guns as a response to someone crashing into their fence, mmkay? The driver was 100% NOT the "retard" in that situation. Your brand of "common sense" comes across as pretty damned senseless...

[theostrichsays]

I feel like the good guy with a gun in this situation, would have killed both the father and retarded son.

But at no point did the homeowner try and kill the driver. And the article clearly states the homeowner tried to shoot the drivers tires out as he was driving away, obviously not the split second some of you are trying to make it to be.

So, I imagine this is more of a situation that they (police likely) asked the guy where he shot at since the driver likely just saw a gun aimed at him, and fled and heard shots. After the fact. Probably after he spoke to a lawyer I would guess.

After he likely got coached to not say he tried to kill somebody, when he still had some degree of deniability.

[Raelbo]

if the home owner wanted to kill him why the fuck would he have not just shot him immediatly.

Any number of reasons: Maybe he wanted to get closer to take a clean shot. Maybe he was still deliberating what to do. Or maybe, like you say, he had no intention of killing. But it's the wrong question to be asking. At most, the fact that he didn't shoot immediately only proves that it wasn't certain that he would have attacked/harmed/killed the motorist. A far more pertinent question to be asking is "might he have shot"? And based on the scenario there is certainly evidence to suggest that was a real possibility.

the fucking leaps you people make on this shit is astounding, the home owner wanted to punish him of course, by making him pay for the damage. He didnt want him driving off like he did.

Sure, but how was the driver supposed to know that was the limit of his intent? By shouting and pointing his gun, the homeowner gave the driver reason to believe that his life may be in danger.

And i dont know about you but after ever crash iv ever been in the first thing i or the driver do is turn off the engine. This dude obviously had some time to turn it off as the homeowner had to most likely grab his gun, get up, put some shoes on and come outside. He didnt fucking teleport into his yard.

The fact that the engine was still running doesn't prove you seem to imply it does. In fact it suggests the exact opposite. Applying your own style of logic (ie if the home owner had intended to kill, why didn't he shoot first?) the fact that the driver still had his engine on and was still in the yard by the time the home owner got out there, demonstrates that had his intention been to flee the scene (to avoid paying for damages), he could easily have done so.

Which makes the demand, at gunpoint, to kill the engine seem a bit crazy.

Both parties are at fault, the ones that shot and the driver.

LOL no. To quote yourself, that's a "fucking leap" (to put it mildly). The home owner is 100% at fault for escalating the situation. The driver is responsible for causing damage to the property, sure, and he remains liable for repairing it. And while I can understand the reasons behind the homeowner acting the way he did, it was still a stupid, irresponsible and reckless way to behave. People could have been seriously injured or even killed and as it turns out, it wasn't even necessary, the driver was quite willing to take responsibility for the damage he had caused.

But at no point did the homeowner try and kill the driver. And the article clearly states the homeowner tried to shoot the drivers tires out as he was driving away, obviously not the split second some of you are trying to make it to be.

Fair enough. But that doesn't make what he did do ok. It may not have been attempted murder, but it's still assault with a deadly weapon and reckless endangerment.

so if a criminal tried to run from a cop pointing a gun at them thats deescalation?

Nope. That's called a false equivalence fallacy. The homeowner wasn't a cop, the driver wasn't a criminal. There is a massive difference in context and, yes, that matters a great deal.