# 2 children shot for throwing snowballs...



## Witch's Broom (Dec 23, 2017)

https://www.wisn.com/article/police...owballs-at-passing-vehicle-milwaukee/30416922

Now, as a Canadian, I'm attempting to ascertain if the shooter was a "good guy with a gun", or a "bad guy with a gun".


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Maude said:


> https://www.wisn.com/article/police...owballs-at-passing-vehicle-milwaukee/30416922
> 
> Now, as a Canadian, I'm attempting to ascertain if the shooter was a "good guy with a gun", or a "bad guy with a gun".


I think you can guess pretty good there.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Maude said:


> Now, as a Canadian, I'm attempting to ascertain if the shooter was a "good guy with a gun", or a "bad guy with a gun".


He was an idiot with a gun.
We don't know if it was a legally owned firearm.
We don't know if he knew the people he shot.


----------



## crehberg (Mar 16, 2008)

Maude said:


> https://www.wisn.com/article/police...owballs-at-passing-vehicle-milwaukee/30416922
> 
> Now, as a Canadian, I'm attempting to ascertain if the shooter was a "good guy with a gun", or a "bad guy with a gun".


That would be neither....if it pans out to be true, I'd say the shooter is a criminal with a lack of brain power.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

bad kids with snow balls. self defense ?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Maude said:


> https://www.wisn.com/article/police...owballs-at-passing-vehicle-milwaukee/30416922
> 
> Now, as a Canadian, I'm attempting to ascertain if the shooter was a "good guy with a gun", or a "bad guy with a gun".


I'd rather let the courts decide his fate but I'm pretty confident that Canadians don't have to look at the US for examples of bad choices with firearms. 

Even with gun control, it looks like both our provinces seem to have a couple shootings each. How would be classify them?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

With any luck these kids won't be caught throwing rocks and bricks off bridges into oncoming traffick next summer. Glad they weren't seriously injured to learn a valuable life lesson.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Maude said:


> https://www.wisn.com/article/police...owballs-at-passing-vehicle-milwaukee/30416922
> 
> Now, as a Canadian, I'm attempting to ascertain if the shooter was a "good guy with a gun", or a "bad guy with a gun".


It was unsupervised children showing both antisocial & narcissistic behaviors.
Children have narcissistic behaviors which are somewhat required to survive, like demanding food, cleaning, etc for survival when pre-verbal, attention when when feeling scared or uncertain, and that continues over into throwing a fit when they WANT to be entertained or WANT instant gratification, like candy or toys.

Carry over is where they cross the line between NEEDS & 'WANTS'.
Giving into fits/tantrums TEACHES them how to get exactly what they want, exactly when they want.

Left unattended, up to their own devices, this went ANTISOCIAL when they decided to throw 'Snowballs' (insert ice chunks, rocks, concrete, bottles and a anything else you have heard of thrown off overpasses, into highways, etc) 

Antagonizing others for entertain themselves, bullying, etc isn't uncommon, and in this case potentially damaging property etc or causing an accident is great training for the narcissist.
Narcissists and sociopaths are trained...

As for the shooter, this full blown sociopath is so self centered he *Believes* he's justified in shooting at children, that death is appropriate punishment for throwing 'Snowballs' at *HIM*, the center of the universe...

In *HIS* mind, he is police, judge, jury and excicuiton is the punishment.

Not one thought about those being children, how inappropriate his actions were, and no though at all about spraying homes beyond the kids with bullets.

The sociopath will not accept responsibility of any kind, it's the kids fault, it's the parents fault, his parents fault, it's rap music's fault... 
Anyone and everyone but his own fault, the guy spraying kids and the block with bullets...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeepHammer said:


> Narcissists and sociopaths are trained...





JeepHammer said:


> In *HIS* mind, he is police, judge, jury and excicuiton is the punishment.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I was about 16 when a group of highschoolers invited me to go to the beach one hot summer.
I was walking beans for a farmer and had to work so I, at the time, regretfully declined.
What happened later was that one of the guys found a box of firecrackers in the backseat of the car and started tossing them out the window at pedestrians and oncoming cars. Well, one of those cars spun around and came after them.
At a stoplight the driver behind them came up, opened the driver's side door, pulled out my friend and pummeled him.
A passerby got his license number and the police went to his home and arrested him on a half dozen charges.
No one saw what those kids were doing that precipitated the attack.
The local DA would have thrown the book at the guy but for some reason, no one riding along that day could remember what exactly happened or identify the driver that beat this kid to a pulp.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

JeepHammer said:


> It was unsupervised children showing both antisocial & narcissistic behaviors.
> Children have narcissistic behaviors which are somewhat required to survive, like demanding food, cleaning, etc for survival when pre-verbal, attention when when feeling scared or uncertain, and that continues over into throwing a fit when they WANT to be entertained or WANT instant gratification, like candy or toys.
> 
> Carry over is where they cross the line between NEEDS & 'WANTS'.
> ...



OR
He was simply defending himself.
We have only heard one side of the story. 
It seems reasonable that here we have a man on the edge who reacted quickly to what he perceived as a deadly threat. 
After all we know that thrown objects can kill. So that’s reasonable. 
Perhaps in the NEXT second he realized that the snowballs were soft and Nondeadly. 
Or worse yet that there were deadly rocks and ice in them but the attackers were children and he couldn’t prove the threat in court ?
In any case he quickly broke off the shooting and left the scene. 
OR perhaps he was a nutcase that was tired of the neighborhood brats damaging his car?
OR he was a real nutcase who went looking for snowball throwing kids to engage in battle. 

In short we don’t know much about this except what the kids say.......and they never lie do they.


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

Man here in Michigan killed by a group of boys throwing rocks off an interstate over pass.
If some one would have turned around an did some thing call the law, shoot the punks, run them down with a car or truck. Maybe the man killed would be alive today enjoying life and family, provideing for his family. Instead of the mother trying to get by with a low paying job, paying child care and collecting a bit of public money AKA aid to dependant children.

Don't just ignore those types of heathens, do some thing run them down with your car or truck or simply shoot the bastards.

To much slapping of hands in childrens court today. We the people just ignore that so it continues.

 Al


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Maude said:


> https://www.wisn.com/article/police...owballs-at-passing-vehicle-milwaukee/30416922
> 
> Now, as a Canadian, I'm attempting to ascertain if the shooter was a "good guy with a gun", or a "bad guy with a gun".


Really?
You can't tell?


----------



## Witch's Broom (Dec 23, 2017)

It's interesting pondering where and how the distinction is drawn when it comes to comparing a "good guy with a gun" vs a "bad guy with a gun", and then examining triggers (not as in guns), but rather, societal triggers, where someone does something foolish, resulting in a "good guy with a gun" reaching for his firearm to solve the problem.

I don't buy into the whole "good guy with a gun" thing at any point, but instead, I simply view it as a "guy with a gun", and outside of those involved in security or police services, a guy with a gun in my eyes is a danger to society, and sooner or later those dangers to society begin to believe that they have the God-given right to administer the law as they see fit, hence this latest incident. This is the end result, this is the conclusion, a classic textbook case reflecting how gun-happy "guys with guns" are, which clearly defines to me the overall lack of self-control that carrying guns has administered and championed.

Another interesting side to all this is, had the individual who shot the children never encountered an incident such as the snowball case, the said individual may have gone through his or her entire life without crossing that fine line, and suddenly you have a "good guy with a gun", as I so often read and hear about.

My guess is, if law-enforcement succeeds in locating and arresting the individual in question, said individual will be settled comfortably in the Klink for a few months, and upon his or her release, they'll be back out on the streets with a sidearm strapped to their side, and I mentioned previously, just another "guy with a gun".


----------



## dyrne (Feb 22, 2015)

I doubt there is any "good guy". This is urban violence that normally gets swept under the rug. The "snowball" angle is the only thing that makes it newsworthy to the rest of the nation. There are 2-3 such killings every day on average in Chicago. In Milwaukee where this occured, one every 2.6 days..


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Maude said:


> It's interesting pondering where and how the distinction is drawn when it comes to comparing a "good guy with a gun" vs a "bad guy with a gun", and then examining triggers (not as in guns), but rather, societal triggers, where someone does something foolish, resulting in a "good guy with a gun" reaching for his firearm to solve the problem.
> 
> I don't buy into the whole "good guy with a gun" thing at any point, but instead, I simply view it as a "guy with a gun", and outside of those involved in security or police services, a guy with a gun in my eyes is a danger to society, and sooner or later those dangers to society begin to believe that they have the God-given right to administer the law as they see fit, hence this latest incident. This is the end result, this is the conclusion, a classic textbook case reflecting how gun-happy "guys with guns" are, which clearly defines to me the overall lack of self-control that carrying guns has administered and championed.
> 
> ...


The difference may be the guy that did the shooting was never a good guy at all. Him/her may be a gang member and looking to gain a reputation. 

Did he get the gun legally? 

You are assuming it is a case of road rage but it could be something else entirely. We won't know until we get the facts.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Maude said:


> *I don't buy* into the whole "good guy with a gun" thing at any point, but instead, I simply view it as a "guy with a gun", and outside of those involved in security or police services, *a guy with a gun in my eyes is a danger to society*, and sooner or later those dangers to society begin to believe that they have the God-given right to administer the law as they see fit, hence this latest incident.


You don't have to "buy it".
It's reality whether you happen to agree or not.

Drunk drivers kill more people than "assault weapons" do.



Maude said:


> Another interesting side to all this is, had the individual who shot the children never encountered an incident such as the snowball case, the said individual may have gone through his or her entire life without crossing that fine line, and *suddenly you have a "good guy with a gun"*, as I so often read and hear about.


You're misusing the term.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Maude said:


> ...and outside of those involved in security or police services, a guy with a gun in my eyes is a danger to society...


Have you read any reports recently of police shootings and lawsuits stemming from them?
Are you aware of the training requirements for police officers to qualify with their service weapon?

Quite a few of my neighbors and I, and I am not a gun "nut", train with our firearms much, much more than many of the local/county/state leo. 
Putting my life, and the lives of my loved ones solely in the hands of an officer who may or may not have fired their weapon in the past 6 months is a dubious idea, at best.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

This is not a case of a good guy with a gun vs a bad guy with a gun. Every group you can name has a small percentage of nuts. This is a case of one of those nuts with a gun. 

You advocate for nobody owning a gun. This is unrealistic. There is no way to remove all guns from society. 

Everyone has a god given right to self defense. A gun evens the playing field for the elderly and weak. I am glad I can own guns and I do. I am willing to put up with the small percentage of undiagnosed nuts if it means I can defend myself. If you don't want to own guns then don't but don't try to tell me I can't.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You don't have to "buy it".
> It's reality whether you happen to agree or not.
> 
> Drunk drivers kill more people than "assault weapons" do.
> ...


It doesn't appear that the driver administered the law "as he saw fit" but rather just reacted.

Almost every gun owner that I know takes quite the opposite stance to conflict; they remove themselves from it.
A responsible and knowledgeable gun owner knows the consequences of a trigger pull. Being confronted with a situation isn't a green light to draw and empty a magazine.
Carrying a gun causes a heightened awareness to your environment. My firearm would not leave my belt under any condition as an absolute dead last resort.
I believe that is the misunderstanding above anti gun folks. They may not have that type of self control, or they just don't grasp it.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Doesn’t anybody else find it strange That the only Thing we really know about the situation is that the driver was attacked and yet most seem to be condemning him?


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Maude said:


> It's interesting pondering where and how the distinction is drawn when it comes to comparing a "good guy with a gun" vs a "bad guy with a gun", and then examining triggers (not as in guns), but rather, societal triggers, where someone does something foolish, resulting in a "good guy with a gun" reaching for his firearm to solve the problem.
> 
> I don't buy into the whole "good guy with a gun" thing at any point, but instead, I simply view it as a "guy with a gun", and outside of those involved in security or police services, a guy with a gun in my eyes is a danger to society, and sooner or later those dangers to society begin to believe that they have the God-given right to administer the law as they see fit, hence this latest incident. This is the end result, this is the conclusion, a classic textbook case reflecting how gun-happy "guys with guns" are, which clearly defines to me the overall lack of self-control that carrying guns has administered and championed.
> 
> ...


If he is caught and convicted, he will never be able to own a gun again. Life lessons are often harsh. Those kids learned one, and when he is caught he will learn one.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

But what if he is caught and awarded a medal for his service ?


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

GTX63 said:


> Are you aware of the training requirements for police officers to qualify with their service weapon?


I am aware of the firearm training required of police officers. And I can tell you that it is minimal at best. At the academy they practice until they can put 45 out of fifty shots somewhere on a man sized target. After that they will probably qualify once a year, putting another 45 out of 50 rounds on a man sized target. Most departments do not issue any ammunition for practice. If you choose to practice you buy your own. 

The exception would be SWAT team members. I have shot next to SWAT team members at the range, and they are a little better than average. But not much.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> But what if he is caught and awarded a medal for his service ?


Why can't you be serious about something as tragic as this?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> Doesn’t anybody else find it strange That the only Thing we really know about the situation is that the driver was attacked and yet most seem to be condemning him?


I didn't condemn him. None of my posts even noted him.
My folks used to tell if I wanted to stay up late not to interrupt.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Maude said:


> It's interesting pondering where and how the distinction is drawn when it comes to comparing a "good guy with a gun" vs a "bad guy with a gun", and then examining triggers (not as in guns), but rather, societal triggers, where someone does something foolish, resulting in a "good guy with a gun" reaching for his firearm to solve the problem.
> 
> I don't buy into the whole "good guy with a gun" thing at any point, but instead, I simply view it as a "guy with a gun", and outside of those involved in security or police services, a guy with a gun in my eyes is a danger to society, and sooner or later those dangers to society begin to believe that they have the God-given right to administer the law as they see fit, hence this latest incident. This is the end result, this is the conclusion, a classic textbook case reflecting how gun-happy "guys with guns" are, which clearly defines to me the overall lack of self-control that carrying guns has administered and championed.
> 
> ...


You seem to have a very strong opinion about guns. And that is good. People should stand up for what they believe in. Fortunately for the free citizens of the United States, you don't have anything to say about their right to carry a gun. One nut with a gun or a thousand nuts with a gun, it doesn't matter. You can't punish an entire population for the crimes of a few.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

muleskinner2 said:


> I am aware of the firearm training required of police officers. And I can tell you that it is minimal at best. At the academy they practice until they can put 45 out of fifty shots somewhere on a man sized target. After that they will probably qualify once a year, putting another 45 out of 50 rounds on a man sized target. Most departments do not issue any ammunition for practice. If you choose to practice you buy your own.
> 
> The exception would be SWAT team members. I have shot next to SWAT team members at the range, and they are a little better than average. But not much.


And I figured you might chime in since you know first hand.
I have several acquaintances who are LEO. Years ago when I started taking a real interest in gun laws and rights, I used to try and engage them in current topics. Most were pro 2nd amendment and conceal carry, but there were quite a few who had very little knowledge of firearms, other than the one they holstered. Some didn't follow new laws are current events, which surprised me.

The story I have repeated several times of our experience with two country sheriffs who couldn't hit a deer from 10' that was laying in a cornfield with a busted leg was a nightmare.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

GTX63 said:


> they just don't grasp it.


I think that's the correct answer.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

GTX63 said:


> And I figured you might chime in since you know first hand.
> I have several acquaintances who are LEO. Years ago when I started taking a real interest in gun laws and rights, I used to try and engage them in current topics. Most were pro 2nd amendment and conceal carry, but there were quite a few who had very little knowledge of firearms, other than the one they holstered. Some didn't follow new laws are current events, which surprised me.
> 
> The story I have repeated several times of our experience with two country sheriffs who couldn't hit a deer from 10' that was laying in a cornfield with a busted leg was a nightmare.


This is often more common than not. I was once called to the scene of an accident, to dispatch a horse. I was nearly one hundred miles away, so it took a while to get there. A horse had been hit by a dump truck. The horse was trying to get up on four broken legs. Trying to stand on stubs of bone. Two deputy sheriffs and one highway patrol officer were standing by when I arrived. The Trooper said that he was not allowed by policy to put down injured animals. And the two deputies, who I had known for years were just cowards. They later told me they didn't want the hassle of a report, if they shot the horse.

The police are unable to protect you 24/7, and are often more trouble than they are worth.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

muleskinner2 said:


> This is often more common than not. I was once called to the scene of an accident, to dispatch a horse. I was nearly one hundred miles away, so it took a while to get there. A horse had been hit by a dump truck. The horse was trying to get up on four broken legs. Trying to stand on stubs of bone. Two deputy sheriffs and one highway patrol officer were standing by when I arrived. The Trooper said that he was not allowed by policy to put down injured animals. And the two deputies, who I had known for years were just cowards. They later told me they didn't want the hassle of a report, if they shot the horse.
> 
> The police are unable to protect you 24/7, and are often more trouble than they are worth.


Omg. That’s unbelievable. That poor horse. I’d love to know what you said to those cowards.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> Why can't you be serious about something as tragic as this?


I have been. 
I am deeply concerned that this band has been convicted in the court of public opinion when it may be entirely be the children’s fault. 
at worst it might seem as if he is guilty of Drawing the wrong conclusions During a attack. 
Unless information comes out that he purposely hunted these children down or knew ahead of time that he was going to be attacked by snowball I can’t see anything he should be convicted of. 
If he had been a cop would you have convicted him of anything?
These children apparently acted as children and should be punished as such .
But the worst awesome he said about the shooter is the under duress he made a slight mistake judgement. 

How many of you in the exact same situation could’ve judged the difference between snowballs ice balls and rocks?
How many of you would’ve known it was from the children and not fully grown hoodlums?
i’m sorry about what happened. I would’ve preferred that. But this situation was entirely the result of the children’s actions themselves. 
Children because they are children sometimes have 
little idea of the possible ramifications of actions but it does not protect them from the inherent consequences


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Lisa in WA said:


> Omg. That’s unbelievable. That poor horse. I’d love to know what you said to those cowards.


I hope he shot them after he shot the horse.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

not long ago I came up on a fawn that had been hit by a car. it had two broken legs. I contacted the DNR and the county mounties. I was told that I could not shoot it.
they would send someone. six hours later I came back home by the same road. the fawn was still alive. nobody showed up.. heartless bass turds.. I found a good solid tree branch and dispatched that fawn..
another time my wife hit a deer. called the county cops. one showed up within an hour. when he got there he poked the deer with a stick. the deer had broken legs and was bleeding out of it's nose and mouth.
I said what are you doing ? He said, giving the deer a chance to get away..


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> I have been.
> I am deeply concerned that this band has been convicted in the court of public opinion when it may be entirely be the children’s fault.
> at worst it might seem as if he is guilty of Drawing the wrong conclusions During a attack.
> Unless information comes out that he purposely hunted these children down or knew ahead of time that he was going to be attacked by snowball I can’t see anything he should be convicted of.
> ...


Let me sum this up. Tell me if I get it wrong.

It is justifiable to shoot teenagers if they throw a snowball at you. Maybe you should even get a medal for shooting them.

Is that about right?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

muleskinner2 said:


> This is often more common than not. I was once called to the scene of an accident, to dispatch a horse. I was nearly one hundred miles away, so it took a while to get there. A horse had been hit by a dump truck. The horse was trying to get up on four broken legs. Trying to stand on stubs of bone. Two deputy sheriffs and one highway patrol officer were standing by when I arrived. The Trooper said that he was not allowed by policy to put down injured animals. And the two deputies, who I had known for years were just cowards. They later told me they didn't want the hassle of a report, if they shot the horse.
> 
> The police are unable to protect you 24/7, and are often more trouble than they are worth.


 Wow just wow I can empathize with your frustration of having to work and such conditions


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Lisa in WA said:


> Omg. That’s unbelievable. That poor horse. I’d love to know what you said to those cowards.


I can't tell you what I said, because the girl scouts who run this forum would kick me off.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

the guy was in a car, the kids were on foot.
all he had to do was drive away. check for damage and call the cops, if there was damage..
even if the kids were throwing bricks, he was not in much danger inside the car..
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that kids throw snow balls when the snow is right..
If the guy felt that he was not wrong, why did he leave the scene ??


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> Let me sum this up. Tell me if I get it wrong.
> 
> It is justifiable to shoot teenagers if they throw a snowball at you. Maybe you should even get a medal for shooting them.
> 
> Is that about right?


 Not even close


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Not even close


OK, short and sweet, offer a correction.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

[email protected] said:


> the guy was in a car, the kids were on foot.
> all he had to do was drive away. check for damage and call the cops, if there was damage..
> even if the kids were throwing bricks, he was not in much danger inside the car..
> It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that kids throw snow balls when the snow is right..
> If the guy felt that he was not wrong, why did he leave the scene ??


 Is that what happened? Where did you get all this extra information?

Have you ever been under attack by guns or rocks?
It’s is not the least bit practical when you are
Basically you’re advocating retarding defense until after you have assessed the damage. 
I don’t believe that’s a position we should require of civilians. 
I have always advocated withholding deadly defence until you are certain you are under attack but never until you have a chance to assess the damages.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> OK, short and sweet, offer a correction.


It is justifiable to defend yourself when attacked


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

The longer you have to assess the risk and the more you know about the attackers the more appropriate your response can be
.
The other side of that is the less time you have to assess the risk or deadly it appears to be the less appropriate the response is likely to be.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

[email protected] said:


> not long ago I came up on a fawn that had been hit by a car. it had two broken legs. I contacted the DNR and the county mounties. I was told that I could not shoot it.
> they would send someone. six hours later I came back home by the same road. the fawn was still alive. nobody showed up.. heartless bass turds.. I found a good solid tree branch and dispatched that fawn..
> another time my wife hit a deer. called the county cops. one showed up within an hour. when he got there he poked the deer with a stick. the deer had broken legs and was bleeding out of it's nose and mouth.
> I said what are you doing ? He said, giving the deer a chance to get away..


2 am coming home with my youngest son from Thanksgiving at grandmas years ago. Hit a deer and broke his hip. He made it to the corn field on the other side of the road and flailed along the ground. Trying to make this a teaching moment I called the county sheriff dispatch. The lady on the line said she would send a deputy. Ten minutes later two young pups pull up behind us.
They get out, I point out the deer. One goes over with his gun and flash light and tries to shoot the deer from 20'.
He missed.
He shoots again and missed.
I'm standing next to the other officer and tried to be diplomatic.
"Is that a 9 millimeter?" I asked.
"No, it's a 40 caliber replied the deputy. He is just missing."
"Maybe he ought to move closer" I said, though I was thinking maybe he should have put his gun to the deer's head to begin with.
"Hey Dwayne!" says the cop, "Move closer!"
The deputy now moves to about 10', takes off his glasses and wipes the lenses.
He fires again and shoot the deer thru the jaw. I am standing next to my son, who sees all of this, and about to explode.
The next shot he fires kills the deer.

Maude, if you are still reading this thread, is that what you consider the type of trained security and law enforcement that you think are the only ones who should be armed?
Is that who you want to respond to your 911, or when you are being attacked?

FYI, all my 14 year old son learned that evening was that his dad should have taken his 1911 and put that deer out of his misery 30 seconds after he was injured and saved interrupting the sheriff's department and 4 bullets.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> It is justifiable to defend yourself when attacked


A gun is justifiable against teenagers with snow balls. OK. 

You didn't correct what I said.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> It is justifiable to defend yourself when attacked


So when my nephew runs into me and head butts me I should shoot him?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> So when my nephew runs into me and head butts me I should shoot him?


Twice to the head, according to AS.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Your call


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> Twice to the head, according to AS.


Clearly a lie.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He was an idiot with a gun.
> We don't know if it was a legally owned firearm.


If the gun was legally owned, whether he's an idiot isn't a factor. It's perfectly legal for idiots to buy guns in America.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

The life of the man driving the car was not endangered, nor was he threatened with great bodily harm. He was defending nothing by shooting into the crowd of kids. End of story.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> A gun is justifiable against teenagers with snow balls. OK.
> 
> You didn't correct what I said.


 Yes I did correct what you said .

and yes in some situations a gun would be a proper response to teenagers for snowballs in some situations I’m sure it is inadequate. 

I’m not sure what you’re trying to do here.
Do you want to work explanation 
of what to do in every situation?


Life is far more complicated than that. 
And that brings us back to the beginning post where a tiny bit of information from one side was given with the object of getting peoples ire up at a man that may be innocent of wrong doing.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cabin Fever said:


> The life of the man driving the car was not endangered, nor was he threatened with great bodily harm. He was defending nothing by shooting into the crowd of kids. End of story.


 How do you know this? where did you get your information?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> and yes in some situations a gun would be a proper response to teenagers for snowballs in some situations I’m sure it is inadequate.


Even in a state like Texas, if snowballs did exist in Texas, they wouldn't give a shooter a pass because there was some sort of justification.
You are in Illinois, where you need a permission slip to own a gun. Your comment should be enough for old honest abe's boys to come knockin for your evaluation appointment.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I take it from that you don’t believe a snowball can be a deadly weapon?
What about a baseball? Would you say it is about the same weight size and hardness as a snowball ?
Around 900 people have died from a thrown baseball. 
It seems like the kids may have chosen a fairly deadly weapon


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Maude said:


> It's interesting pondering where and how the distinction is drawn when it comes to comparing a "good guy with a gun" vs a "bad guy with a gun", and then examining triggers (not as in guns), but rather, societal triggers, where someone does something foolish, resulting in a "good guy with a gun" reaching for his firearm to solve the problem.
> 
> I don't buy into the whole "good guy with a gun" thing at any point, but instead, I simply view it as a "guy with a gun", and outside of those involved in security or police services, a guy with a gun in my eyes is a danger to society, and sooner or later those dangers to society begin to believe that they have the God-given right to administer the law as they see fit, hence this latest incident. This is the end result, this is the conclusion, a classic textbook case reflecting how gun-happy "guys with guns" are, which clearly defines to me the overall lack of self-control that carrying guns has administered and championed.
> 
> ...


I'd be interested in knowing how you reconcile your belief that only law enforcement should own firearms and the the homesteading lifestyle. 

I have never harmed another human with my firearms but they do fill my freezer and have been used to humanely dispatch livestock and protect them from predators. Without the right to legally own firearms, who do you feel will handle these tasks or are you simply of the opinion that I should learn to like over priced beef, chicken and pork from the grocery store? 

If this man is jailed for his actions, he would be deemed a criminal and I believe that legally, he's not allowed to own a firearm in either country. I'd like to know how you propose we keep firearms out of the hands of criminals? The gun control measures we have in place now don't seem to be working and I suspect that greater measures will not prevent gangs and other criminals from having the firearms they can't legally own. 

One of the best theoretical solutions I've heard on preventing people from illegally owning guns was to channel the money for greater gun control into policing and let them do the job we need done. 

If someone truly feels they want to harm another, they'll find a way. I'm open to discussion on how a young man came to be beheaded on a Greyhound bus or how 5 university students were stabbed to death at a house party in Calgary. 

I'd be interested in why you feel that responsible firearms owners should be held accountable for the actions of a few irresponsible owners? Mine are legally purchased and legally stored and I have to wonder why you feel I should lose mine because of the illegal actions of someone else?


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

I believe that this thread, like so many others, has gone down the path to a non ending conclusion caused by someone who just tosses out bits of nonsense replies, and we stupidly take the bait.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Maude said:


> It's interesting pondering where and how the distinction is drawn when it comes to comparing a "good guy with a gun" vs a "bad guy with a gun", and then examining triggers (not as in guns), but rather, societal triggers, where someone does something foolish, resulting in a "good guy with a gun" reaching for his firearm to solve the problem.
> 
> I don't buy into the whole "good guy with a gun" thing at any point, but instead, I simply view it as a "guy with a gun", and outside of those involved in security or police services, a guy with a gun in my eyes is a danger to society, and sooner or later those dangers to society begin to believe that they have the God-given right to administer the law as they see fit, hence this latest incident. This is the end result, this is the conclusion, a classic textbook case reflecting how gun-happy "guys with guns" are, which clearly defines to me the overall lack of self-control that carrying guns has administered and championed.
> 
> ...


As a Canadian, your view on guns most likely differs from ours.
You think our view is wrong and we think yours is wrong, and we aren't likely to change anybody's mind.
I'll keep my gun, you go unarmed, and we'll both be happy 
(I promise not to shoot anybody for throwing snowballs or looking at me funny)


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

GTX63 said:


> Putting my life, and the lives of my loved ones solely in the hands of an officer who may or may not have fired their weapon in the past 6 months is a dubious idea, at best.


And may or may not be there when you need him.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> I have been.
> I am deeply concerned that this band has been convicted in the court of public opinion when it may be entirely be the children’s fault.
> at worst it might seem as if he is guilty of Drawing the wrong conclusions During a attack.
> Unless information comes out that he purposely hunted these children down or knew ahead of time that he was going to be attacked by snowball I can’t see anything he should be convicted of.
> ...


He was driving by and should have kept driving if he thought he was in danger.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> not long ago I came up on a fawn that had been hit by a car. it had two broken legs. I contacted the DNR and the county mounties. I was told that I could not shoot it.
> they would send someone. six hours later I came back home by the same road. the fawn was still alive. nobody showed up.. heartless bass turds.. I found a good solid tree branch and dispatched that fawn..
> another time my wife hit a deer. called the county cops. one showed up within an hour. when he got there he poked the deer with a stick. the deer had broken legs and was bleeding out of it's nose and mouth.
> I said what are you doing ? He said, giving the deer a chance to get away..


FedEx hit a deer right by our place once and broke both hind legs.
I shot it in the head and drug it off the road.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

GTX63 said:


> It doesn't appear that the driver administered the law "as he saw fit" but rather *just reacted*.


*"Just Reacted"* would have been slamming on the throttle or brake, yanking the steering wheel, ducking or leaning away from incoming 'Snowball'.

Drawing a firearm, taking aim, firing several shots, hitting two different targets is not a "Reaction",
It's thought through retaliation for the 'Snowball', it's ACTION IN RESPONSE.

You make it sould like he was holding a firearm while driving and the flinch reaction made him fire several rounds at children.

It was most certainly an anger impulse, but that's bad impulse control, not a reaction.
Poor impulse control is a learned response, and it's an action taken under full knowledge and control.

No one is born with the instinct to fire a handgun at children for throwing snowballs.
It's not a 'Flinch', a response to seeing something coming at your face and bracing for it or trying to avoid it.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> He was driving by and should have kept driving if he thought he was in danger.


How do you know this ?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> If the gun was legally owned, whether he's an idiot isn't a factor. It's perfectly legal for idiots to buy guns in America.


Unfortunately, it's legal for idiots to do all kinds of things in America, but if it wasn't, some politician would label us idiots or deplorable and strip us of all our rights.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> How do you know this ?


From the police statement from the article


> Preliminary investigation indicates both victims were with a group of juveniles *throwing snowballs at cars passing by*. One of the snowballs struck a white Toyota, no further description, and the driver of the auto fired shots into the group of kids striking the two victims.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

JeepHammer said:


> *"*No one is born with the instinct to fire a handgun at children for throwing snowballs.
> It's not a 'Flinch', a response to seeing something coming at your face and bracing for it or trying to avoid it.


You are assuming a lot of knowledge not in the story. 
Didn’t you once explain you were trained to react similar to this in asimilar situation? 

How do you know he recognized them as children? How do you know he took aim?
How do you know he knew he was under fire from snowballs?


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

I wonder, did this guy pick out two of the kids who were throwing snowballs ? or did he just fire into the crowd ?
possibly hitting innocent bystanders ??
did he roll his window down to shoot ? or did he step out of the car, and thus putting himself in more danger than he was when he was inside his car ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> From the police statement from the article


I’m not sure if that is from the police report but that is obviously simply the statement ,obviously the lying statement ,of the children.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

The statement is obviously miss leading the children may not have meant it as a lie and it may have just been a misunderstanding but obviously if he passed them by he would’ve had a difficult time shooting them without returning or shooting through his own windows


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

[email protected] said:


> I wonder, did this guy pick out two of the kids who were throwing snowballs ? or did he just fire into the crowd ?
> possibly hitting innocent bystanders ??
> did he roll his window down to shoot ? or did he step out of the car, and thus putting himself in more danger than he was when he was inside his car ?


 Very good questions !


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> You are assuming a lot of knowledge not in the story.
> Didn’t you once explain you were trained to react similar to this in asimilar situation?
> 
> How do you know he recognized them as children? How do you know he took aim?
> How do you know he knew he was under fire from snowballs?


And missing the point you make yourself...

I was trained, drilled, in the use of deadly force, rules of engagement BEFORE I was allowed to carry a loaded firearm around.

Even in a combat zone every REASONABLE measure has to be taken to NOT fire upon civilians/non-combatants.
Keep in mind military members can, and have gone to prison for murder in a hot war zone.
We don't mow down anything and everything that irritates us.
We aren't pack animals that turn murderous because someone threw a snowball, or looked at our girlfriend, or wore the wrong color, or did something stupid in traffic...
The untrained drop to the level of their training, which is base ego with no thought about anyone or anything but their ego/self image...
No mission or objective...

Military members are trained to IDENTIFY POTENTIAL targets as a threat,
Not only that, but classify the threat, and use the appropriate amount of force necessary to render that threat harmless.
Military members don't shoot rock throwing protesters, they shoot the guy with the 'Gun' IN the crowd of rock throwing protesters, that's why they have sharp shooters, designated marksmen and snipers.

Slinging lead randomly is an undisciplined frenzy that civilians practice, see video on 'New Years Gunfire' and any report of drive by shootings.
The military is big on training, command & control, self discipline & discipline in the ranks.
A disciplined unit is MUCH more effective.

While civilians in this country REFUSE to allow laws that require education in human on human interaction,
Most states REQUIRE Hunter Safety class so you have at least an idea about ethical killing of game, safety measures, etc.

Game animals get more consideration than humans...

Don't include me in *Your* idea of how things worked, or are supposed to work, fantasy or maybe reality mistaken and gone badly.
I'm responsible for every round I fire, I'm responsible for keeping MY firearms out of the hands of the untrained, unskilled & unqualified.

Like the thread on gun safe, and the thread on unsecured firearms in vehicles, unsecured firearms around children or untrained in homes, I'm not going to play the 'What If?' game.

This was clearly a group of children unsupervised, that got into trouble.
This was clearly someone so self absorbed they though it was a death penalty offence, as judged by him alone.
We have an epidemic of self absorbed people (narcissisis), and a good deal that have progressed into (sociopaths) I don't want to know or come into contact with, I live 17 miles from a town of 20,000 and I still encounter them on a regular basis.
Everything from people tearing up my land 'Off Roading' to road ragers, and I simply refuse to participate in the decline of the population.
I call the police, I disengage in road rage, I attempt to do the socially correct thing and advise others to do so.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

You are still assuming and without facts.
The case here has nothing to do with whether the driver was trained or has a clue about rules of engagement, but God bless your expert training. 
One could also presume since it was near the public housing development that it was a gang banger with a fixed crooked index finger.
Once you start guessing again and start putting your thumbs in your suspenders then the point of the thread just dilutes.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

JeepHammer said:


> And missing the point you make yourself...
> 
> I was trained, drilled, in the use of deadly force, rules of engagement BEFORE I was allowed to carry a loaded firearm around.
> 
> ...


 Wow 
Great information about the training of your time so I guess we can safely assume that the shooter was not trained to your standards. 

Would you agree that we can safely assume he is not a veteran?


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Wow
> Great information about the training of your time so I guess we can safely assume that the shooter was not trained to your standards.
> 
> Would you agree that we can safely assume he is not a veteran?


I refuse to play the 'What If?' game,
And I refuse to let you turn this around on me.

Sticking to what was presented,
Narcissistic & Sociopathic behaviors are learned, so who knows if the shooter was former military. I hope not, military folks tend to show more sense, but there have been some that went way around the bend...

I don't know the range he was shooting at, and I don't know how many shots fired, but he did make 3 hits on smaller targets, so who knows about training level?

Since you made it personal, about MY skill level, I shoot around 30,000 rounds a year to keep my skills.
I signed over the company this morning, I'm retired so it may go up, or down, who knows...

*IF* the shooter were trained to ANY reasonable skill level, we would NOT be referring to him as 'The Shooter'...
ANY reasonably trained firearms owner that wasn't sociopathic wouldn't shoot children throwing snowballs, or whatever.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

GTX63 said:


> You are still assuming and without facts.
> The case here has nothing to do with whether the driver was trained or has a clue about rules of engagement, but God bless your expert training.
> One could also presume since it was near the public housing development that it was a gang banger with a fixed crooked index finger.
> Once you start guessing again and start putting your thumbs in your suspenders then the point of the thread just dilutes.


That sounds suspiciously like a derogatory statement against 'Brown' people and advocating the shooting of said 'Brown' people.

The key word is 'People'...
Not 'Gang Banger' or 'Public Housing', buzz words for an agenda editorial.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

JeepHammer said:


> I refuse to play the 'What If?' game,
> And I refuse to let you turn this around on me.
> 
> Sticking to what was presented,
> ...


 I wasn’t trying to turn anything around on you I found your comments useful. I think we learn best in this forum from the experience of others
I do not understand your reluctance to defend yourself from children or snowballs


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Just so you know, and I think you do, when someone is on the weak side of a position, hypotheticals become their crutch with the "what ifs" filling in for facts or knowledge. When that fails, try to label someone in order to deflect.
Haven't you learned any of that on youtube?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> Why can't you be serious about something as tragic as this?


When I was a kid my neighbor used to get into trouble for doing the most ridiculous stuff.
My mother was retelling his latest stunt to my dad as he sat at the kitchen table after work.
She said "That Jones boy can't be that dumb. It has to be an act."
My dad just looked up from the newspaper and said "I don't think he's smart enough to play dumb."


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

Combat training What a joke that is 4 weeks of basic in the army in several different skills none profinct enough to really keep you from getting your legs blown off or your head getting another hole in it from hesatating.

Maybe if you went to infantry school for 8 week you were taught a tiny bit more but not all that much.
You hesatate your dead. shoot first ask questions later even little kids. They rolled gernades inside bars. they carried RPG rounds because they were not supposed to be suspect.

 Al


----------



## dyrne (Feb 22, 2015)

We'll likely never know what actually happened. It's also important to keep in mind that some children mature early...and in very unpleasant ways. I'm sure Tessa Majors, the 18yr old college girl recently stabbed to death in morningside park by a pack of children of this same age had quite cherubic notions floating around in her head about the nature of who she was interacting with before they turned on her. 

My point is simply that all we have is a headline written by someone who's job depends on generating clicks.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Officers searched for home surveillance video of the shooting Monday at the *Housing Authority Office.
*
Nobody caught that - Housing Authority Office? Section 8 housing or something similar....That puts a different perspective on the kids themselves and the shooter...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> If the gun was legally owned, whether he's an idiot isn't a factor. It's perfectly legal for idiots to buy guns in America.


Lots of idiots own guns.
Some are more idiotic than others.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Most are obviously not idiots.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeepHammer said:


> It's not a 'Flinch', a response to seeing something coming at your face and bracing for it or trying to avoid it.


No one said it was.
You're confusing "reaction" with "reflex".



JeepHammer said:


> That sounds suspiciously like a derogatory statement against 'Brown' people and advocating the shooting of said 'Brown' people.





JeepHammer said:


> Since *you made it personal*, about MY skill level


Nearly all your posts are about your "skill level", and how it's superior to everyone else. 



JeepHammer said:


> *Narcissistic* & Sociopathic behaviors are learned, so who knows if the shooter was former military. I hope not, *military folks tend to show more sense*


Not all of them.
They are really just people too.
They aren't special.



JeepHammer said:


> We have an epidemic of self absorbed people


Yes we do.
They talk about themselves incessantly.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Wolf mom said:


> Nobody caught that


It was mentioned earlier


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Wolf mom said:


> Officers searched for home surveillance video of the shooting Monday at the *Housing Authority Office.
> *
> Nobody caught that - Housing Authority Office? Section 8 housing or something similar....That puts a different perspective on the kids themselves and the shooter...


More than one caught that, including me.

Kids throwing snowballs at cars does not warrant the death penalty.

Kids throwing snowballs at YOUR car doesn't not give you the 'Right' to open fire on kids, acting as judge, jury and executioner.

Kids throwing snowballs ANYWHERE, not matter where they live, what their economic class, color, race, religion, excuses anyone on either side from previous two statments of law and fact.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

When we were kids in the city we would throw snowballs at the NFT busses. 

Sometimes we would throw them at cars too, but not to often. If it was someone who knew us we'd get in trouble.

I went to a Catholic school so if you were in your school uniform the next day the Nuns would single out all of the boys and make our lives hell.

It's not anti social, It's snow, and a moving object, and you're a kid.

If a 12 year old kid hits my truck with a snowball they get the "damn kid" scowl.

This whole thing fall into the "inner city lack of respect for life" scenerio.

It probably also falls under the Black on Black crime thing.

I seriously doubt the punk with the gun owned it legally.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeepHammer said:


> Kids throwing snowballs at cars does not warrant the death penalty.


No one died.



JeepHammer said:


> Kids throwing snowballs at YOUR car doesn't not give you the 'Right' to open fire on kids, acting as judge, jury and executioner.


No one said it did, and you already said this before anyway.



JeepHammer said:


> Kids throwing snowballs ANYWHERE, not matter where they live, what their economic class, color, race, religion, excuses anyone on either side from previous two statments of law and fact.


That's not even coherent.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yes it’s all well and good to look back and say they were harmless kids throwing harmless snowballs
But in the moment that man being attacked may not not know they were harmless kids throwing harmless snowballs. 
And ther in lies the problem. 
Cops have certainly killed for less.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Yes it’s all well and good to look back and say they were harmless kids throwing harmless snowballs
> But in the moment that man being attacked may not not know they were harmless kids throwing harmless snowballs.
> And ther in lies the problem.
> *Cops have certainly killed for less.*


You mean when some kid has a realistic looking toy gun?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Maybe it wasn't about the snowballs?
Maybe something else was going on?
Maybe the kids weren't the intended targets?
We can speculate all day, but until some facts come out, we just don't know.


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

No not the one where the kid had a toy or BB gun that looked like a hi powdered fire arm.
No we are talking about the one in his back yard the cops killed because they thought he had a gun but was a pruneing saw. 

The one where the cops pumped 18 rounds in the back of a man they thought had a gun

And there are more if you care to research it.


 Al


----------



## GrannyCarol (Mar 23, 2005)

Maude said:


> ...
> 
> I don't buy into the whole "good guy with a gun" thing at any point, but instead, I simply view it as a "guy with a gun", and outside of those involved in security or police services, a guy with a gun in my eyes is a danger to society, and sooner or later those dangers to society begin to believe that they have the God-given right to administer the law as they see fit, hence this latest incident. This is the end result, this is the conclusion, a classic textbook case reflecting how gun-happy "guys with guns" are, which clearly defines to me the overall lack of self-control that carrying guns has administered and championed.
> ...


Well, first off, we don't know anything about the guy and why he shot, so it's all speculation.

Secondly, my husband often carries a gun and he's not some trigger happy jerk. He's done it on and off his whole life (in his mid 60's) - you never hear about a "good guy with a gun" and don't even realize they are around (in the US) unless they are actually needed. There's a lot of man hours of men carrying guns of which nothing happens. When something does, it's big news, but you just don't hear "Man legally carrying gun in grocery store does nothing with it". Of course you get the wrong idea about how people who carry are touchy and likely to shoot!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeepHammer said:


> More than one caught that, including me.
> 
> *Kids throwing snowballs at cars does not warrant the death penalty.*
> 
> ...


And no kids were killed.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

only because they were lucky this time.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

[email protected] said:


> only because they were lucky this time.


 Do you mean they were lucky that they were not killed, or they were lucky they didn’t do anything that warranted the death penalty?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GrannyCarol said:


> Well, first off, we don't know anything about the guy and why he shot, so it's all speculation.
> 
> Secondly, my husband often carries a gun and he's not some trigger happy jerk. He's done it on and off his whole life (in his mid 60's) - *you never hear about a "good guy with a gun"* and don't even realize they are around (in the US) unless they are actually needed. There's a lot of man hours of men carrying guns of which nothing happens. When something does, it's big news, but you just don't hear "Man legally carrying gun in grocery store does nothing with it". Of course you get the wrong idea about how people who carry are touchy and likely to shoot!


The NRA publishes something every month.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/the-armed-citizen/


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

One could ask if your son's truck ran out of gas, and a passerby stopped by to give him a lift to the gas station and back, if they were just a guy with a car, or a nice guy with a car?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> One could ask if your son's truck ran out of gas, and a passerby stopped by to give him a lift to the gas station and back, if they were just a guy with a car, or a nice guy with a car?


I bet if the guy purposely ran him down some may even call him a bad guy with a car.

I have no problem differentiating a bad guy from a good guy.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> only because they were lucky this time.


Or the shooter was a very good shot and deliberately just pierced their ears for them.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And no kids were killed.


Not for lack of trying by the shooter...


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Do you suppose the narrative would be different if when they attacked the driver they had blinded him ,he had gone out of control and hit a bus that killed everyone in it who are all special needs children from poor democratic parents?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

JeepHammer said:


> Not for lack of trying by the shooter...


Or the kids


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Jeep hammer I understand you have come under fire in combat. How long did it take you to identify your attackers?
How long after coming under fire did it take you to vet the attackers and respond ?


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Do you suppose the narrative would be different if when they attacked the driver they had blinded him ,he had gone out of control and hit a bus that killed everyone in it who are all special needs children from poor democratic parents?


Not intending to offend, but can you explain the "What If?" You guys keep bringing up when the story is all there is to go on, so it's the facts as we know them?


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Jeep hammer I understand you have come under fire in combat. How long did it take you to identify your attackers?
> How long after coming under fire did it take you to vet the attackers and respond ?


Who exactly was in combat in this case?
Snowballs can't be compared to bullets or rockets,
Absloutley no excuse for shooting at kids in this case.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeepHammer said:


> Why do you insist on calling me names?
> 
> Who exactly was in combat in this case?
> Snowballs can't be compared to bullets or rockets,
> Absloutley no excuse for shooting at kids in this case.


As you stated above... We don't know much... Maybe these kids had guns as well as snowballs? Way too many details left out to really know what happened... Or why.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> As you stated above... We don't know much... Maybe these kids had guns as well as snowballs? Way too many details left out to really know what happened... Or why.


Where *Exactly* did anyone suggest the children had firearms?

Or is that an *Assumption* due to prejudice because you again *Assume* anyone living in assisted housing is 'Brown' and/or a 'Gang Banger', no matter how old or where they live?

If it were white children in suburbia would you make the same speculation & assumption?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeepHammer said:


> Where *Exactly* did anyone suggest the children had firearms?
> 
> Or is that an *Assumption* due to prejudice because you again *Assume* anyone living in assisted housing is 'Brown' and/or a 'Gang Banger', no matter how old or where they live?
> 
> If it were white children in suburbia would you make the same speculation & assumption?


I neither assumed nor stated these kids had firearms, or what their color might be. I simply stated there are too many unknowns at this point to be making "absolute" assertions of anything.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

SMH...You really don't have anything to add to this story other than hanging labels do ya?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeepHammer said:


> Not for lack of trying by the shooter...


What makes you think he was trying to kill anyone?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Can't get facts straight, can't read the article and makes racists assumptions.
Check.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

JeepHammer said:


> Not intending to offend, but can you explain the "What If?" You guys keep bringing up when the story is all there is to go on, so it's the facts as we know them?


The “what If “ is a construct used to point out the ramifications of the actions. The results of the children’s actions are not the only possible results that could have been
Shoot a gun at random and the bullet comes down in the ocean it’s not a big deal but if that same random shot comes down in the presidents head lots of bad things are going to happen to you. 
Same action much different results.
To evaluate the risk and responsibility of the initial action you must have some idea of the possible ranges of results


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> What makes you think he was trying to kill anyone?


The one undisputed part of the story is he put 3 bullets in two kids, and missed with several more rounds...

Generally you don't shoot at anything you aren't trying to hit,
And when that's something living, the objective by default is to kill that living thing.

Under the law it's aggravated attempted murder, battery with a deadly weapon, etc.
Again, by default, he was trying to kill more than one person.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

JeepHammer said:


> Why do you insist on calling me names?
> 
> Who exactly was in combat in this case?
> Snowballs can't be compared to bullets or rockets,
> Absloutley no excuse for shooting at kids in this case.


 Oops 
Sorry didn’t mean that mistake I fixed it
Just got a curiosity why can’t I compare snowballs to bullets or rockets? All of them can be deadly weapons. 

How can you say there’s no excuse for shooting the kids in this case when they themselves say they attacked people with deadly weapons?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeepHammer said:


> The one undisputed part of the story is he put 3 bullets in two kids, and missed with several more rounds...
> 
> Generally you don't shoot at anything you aren't trying to hit,
> And when that's something living, the objective by default is to kill that living thing.
> ...


He couldn't possibly have just wanted to put some fear in their britches?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

JeepHammer said:


> The one undisputed part of the story is he put 3 bullets in two kids, and missed with several more rounds...
> 
> Generally you don't shoot at anything you aren't trying to hit,
> And when that's something living, the objective by default is to kill that living thing.
> ...


 Do you know at this point in the story I’m beginning to wonder if that first statement is undisputed.
How long ago did this happen? Honestly how long do you think it would take the local cops to investigate every white Toyota Corolla in town?
I am beginning to wonder if there are any reliable facts in the story


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> He couldn't possibly have just wanted to put some fear in their britches?


Or even just get them to stop


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Those of you that don’t believe that a snowball can be dangerous I’d like to ask you to do some research for the rest of us. 
Could you make some nice ice cubes the size of a baseball with a string frozen into it?
Then could you hang those baseballs underneath an overpass or something where you could put your face out the window of your car and drive into them at 10:20 30 40 50 and 60 mph?
Then please report back to us at what speed you decided that they could be deadly weapons.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Those of you that don’t believe that a snowball can be dangerous I’d like to ask you to do some research for the rest of us.
> Could you make some nice ice cubes the size of a baseball with a string frozen into it?
> Then could you hang those baseballs underneath an overpass or something where you could put your face out the window of your car and drive into them at 10:20 30 40 50 and 60 mph?
> Then please report back to us at what speed you decided that they could be deadly weapons.


I fear trucks drivers much more than ice cubes on a rope.

Some flying, boating, higher education critical truck driver scare me to no end that they wander among us.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

.


JeepHammer said:


> Again, by default, he was trying to kill more than one person.


That's an assumption on your part.
You can't possibly know what he was "trying" to do.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> I fear trucks drivers much more than ice cubes on a rope.
> 
> Some flying, boating, higher education critical truck driver scare me to no end that they wander among us.


Does that mean you will be doing the testing for us?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> He couldn't possibly have just wanted to put some fear in their britches?


If he was, do you really think he should be allowed to own guns?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Sure the teenagers be allowed to own snowballs?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> If he was, do you really think he should be allowed to own guns?


We don't know that he's "allowed" to own them now.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

coolrunnin said:


> If he was, do you really think he should be allowed to own guns?


If he is not stable enough to own a gun, he shouldn't be running around free.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

We don’t even know there is a “he”!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> If he is not stable enough to own a gun, he shouldn't be running around free.


That covers a lot of folks.
The problem though is that until they are convicted or committed, they have all the same rights as everyone else.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> I fear trucks drivers much more than ice cubes on a rope.
> 
> Some flying, boating, higher education critical truck driver scare me to no end that they wander among us.


Add taking cell phone pics while they are behind the wheel; and folks worry about guns.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

coolrunnin said:


> If he was, do you really think he should be allowed to own guns?


Yeah, the thing about that word "allowed" is that it our right is kind of like a pre existing condition. The government just tends to impose itself upon the general public in spite of that constitution thingy.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

GTX63 said:


> Add taking cell phone pics while they are behind the wheel; and folks worry about guns.


I don’t think you have any realistic ideas of what to fear. So why not go ahead and do the snowball experiment for us we are all waiting to hear your findings


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> So *why not go ahead* and do the snowball experiment for us we are all waiting to hear your findings


It's your idea.
You should do it and post the video.


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

I worry about any one with a cell phone to their ear, and even thousgh it is unlawful in Michigan to text and be behinded a steering wheel I see it all the time.

I still think the guy should get a medal, those snot nose punks will think tweice before they throw another snow ball at a car/truck. Helped them to fill their shorts for them I believe.

 Al


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

GTX63 said:


> Yeah, the thing about that word "allowed" is that it our right is kind of like a pre existing condition. The government just tends to impose itself upon the general public in spite of that constitution thingy.


Should you have a right when you've proven yourself incapable of respecting others rights?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

alleyyooper said:


> I worry about any one with a cell phone to their ear, and even thousgh it is unlawful in Michigan to text and be behinded a steering wheel I see it all the time.
> 
> I still think the guy should get a medal, those snot nose punks will think tweice before they throw another snow ball at a car/truck. Helped them to fill their shorts for them I believe.
> 
> Al


If he’d killed the kids would you think he should have gotten a medal?
Should folks start shooting the “snotnosed punks” whom you see on cell phones while they’re driving?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's your idea.
> You should do it and post the video.


Because I have enough common sense to know ahead of time that snowballs are dangerous weapons
The suggested experience was for educational purposes for those that don’t


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

coolrunnin said:


> Should you have a right when you've proven yourself incapable of respecting others rights?


Are we talking about the apparent right olof children to endanger other peoples lives?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Because I have enough common sense to know ahead of time that snowballs are dangerous weapons
> The suggested experience was for educational purposes for those that don’t


I didn't ask.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Of course not since once again you have clearly misunderstood a clearly expressed idea
Or maybe you didn’t misunderstand and you’re just trying to stir trouble and be insulting?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

coolrunnin said:


> If he was, do you really think he should be allowed to own guns?


Yep. At least until he does something to deny him that right. Due process and like that.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

GTX63 said:


> One could ask if your son's truck ran out of gas, and a passerby stopped by to give him a lift to the gas station and back, if they were just a guy with a car, or a nice guy with a car?


There are not many nice guys with cars anymore. We should do away with cars. 

They are evil.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> As you stated above... We don't know much... Maybe these kids had guns as well as snowballs? Way too many details left out to really know what happened... Or why.


If they had snowballs and guns, they fired the wrong thing first.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Are we talking about the apparent right olof children to endanger other peoples lives?


I believe you're trying to justify the shooting as self defence and I doubt if it will fly in court. It doesn't sound like the snowballs resulted in any form of accident. If there was some paint damage, scratches, it still doesn't justify shooting someone and it doesn't sound like anybody checked for damages before they shot the kids. 

If paint scratches are considered a dangerous situation that warrants shooting, there would be dead/injured people in Walmart parking lots across the county. 

I'm not overly familiar with US firearms laws but I'd be very surprised if it's legal to shoot into a group of people to either scare them straight. I actually searched how many people have died by snowballs and can come up with one, in 1933 so I suspect a defence attorney won't have much luck claiming self defence. 

I would also suggest that your mortal danger theory would be a lot more credible if the shooter had filed a police report. 

I did find an article about a truck driver who drove between some college students snowball fight and he shot and killed one of them. It doesn't seem that a jury of his peers found snowballs to be sufficient danger to warrant lethal force.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

coolrunnin said:


> Should you have a right when you've proven yourself incapable of respecting others rights?


Well, for the sake of discussion, up to the point this fellow started popping rounds off thru his side window, had he proven himself, as far as we know, incapable of possessing that right?
Playing this out a bit farther, if he was proven incapable of respecting the rights of others in a manner that causes harm, why was he a free citizen?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

wr said:


> I believe you're trying to justify the shooting as self defence and I doubt if it will fly in court. It doesn't sound like the snowballs resulted in any form of accident. If there was some paint damage, scratches, it still doesn't justify shooting someone and it doesn't sound like anybody checked for damages before they shot the kids.
> 
> If paint scratches are considered a dangerous situation that warrants shooting, there would be dead/injured people in Walmart parking lots across the county.
> 
> ...


 Do you think it would be right if we treated the police the same way?
That from now on when the police are attacked or believe they may be In danger they will have to wait for the actual attack then after coming under fire evaluate the results ,of course write up a report and take pictures so there’s proof and then after that return fire of an equivalent nature?

Good grief people think I hate the cops and I do think they should be far more responsible than the average citizen and even I wouldn’t require that !

Remember you’re reviewing the whole snowball attack from the viewpoint of 2020 hindsight
A man attacked dealt with it from the in perfect knowledge of the instant. 

I would suspect if there actually was a man in a white Toyota He didn’t turn himself in because of exactly the kind of prejudice we have seen in this thread


----------



## oregon woodsmok (Dec 19, 2010)

So where were the parents of all these kids? A whole mob of neighborhood kids and not one parent looked over at them and said "hey knock it off. Stop throwing snowballs at cars"?

Nobody knew where all of those kids were or what they were doing?

Apparently a bad neighborhood and still multiple kids allowed to run around with not even a single parent in the entire neighborhood knew where any of them were or what they were doing?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Do you think it would be right if we treated the police the same way?


We already do that.



AmericanStand said:


> Good grief people think I hate the cops


There's a good reason they think that.



AmericanStand said:


> A man attacked dealt with it from the in perfect knowledge of the instant.


What he did was illegal no matter how you try to spin things.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Life seems so weird as the days go by.
Chuckin snowballs at cars used to be the thing.
If you're shooting at my babes for chuckin a few snowballs we would have a problem.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

oregon woodsmok said:


> So where were the parents of all these kids? A whole mob of neighborhood kids and not one parent looked over at them and said "hey knock it off. Stop throwing snowballs at cars"?
> 
> Nobody knew where all of those kids were or what they were doing?
> 
> Apparently a bad neighborhood and still multiple kids allowed to run around with not even a single parent in the entire neighborhood knew where any of them were or what they were doing?


This is new. Usually it’s people griping that kids have helicopter parents and shelter them too much or kids don’t play outside anymore.
My mom certainly didn’t know what my friends and I were up to every minute.
Oh......once I picked the minister’s wife’s prize tulips and gave them to my mom. I’m lucky no one shot me I guess. 
Being the 5 year old hooligan I was. 
I was however, marched to the ministers house to apologize.

My kids did the same kind of things and had to shamefacedly apologize.

Kids have thrown snowballs since forever.
Shooting at a kid throwing snowballs is entirely illegal.

I’m pretty impressed that anyone here can defend it.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

alleyyooper said:


> *Snow balls are a danger to any one in a car/truck.
> An on slot of icy snow balls splats on a window be it side glass or wind sheild. the startled driver jerks the wheel in a startled gut reacton and slams head on into a van with a team of volley ball players on their way home from a game.
> 
> the driver of the van died along with 3 of the kids 4 more were injured badly, the driver of the pick up truck was also died.*
> ...



Nice.
A forum moderator encouraging assault with a deadly weapon?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> We already do that.
> 
> 
> There's a good reason they think that.
> ...


 Wrong right wrong. 
We let cops kill kids cause they are afraid. 
No attack needed. 
So what makes you think a man in fear for his life isn’t going to be a good defense?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lisa in WA said:


> Shooting at a kid throwing snowballs is entirely illegal.
> 
> I’m pretty impressed that anyone here can defend it.


Do you have any proof of that?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

SRSLADE said:


> Life seems so weird as the days go by.
> Chuckin snowballs at cars used to be the thing.
> If you're shooting at my babes for chuckin a few snowballs we would have a problem.


 You’re correct if your kids are trying to kill me we have a problem. 

I don’t think you really have an idea of what it’s like.
Have you ever been out on the road and taken a snowball in the face ,a pumpkin to the windshield or perhaps a concrete block that went all the way through a truck?
Kids do things that put others in danger Without thinking it through But it’s still just as dangerous.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> Do you have any proof of that?


Assault with a deadly weapon is illegal. Fleeing the scene is illegal. You can play your piddling and unimpressive, wanna-be lawyer word games all you want, but we both know if they find the guy who shot the kids...he’s going to jail.
I have a question for you.
Is it legal for a truck driver to take pictures with your phone from a moving vehicle?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

oregon woodsmok said:


> So where were the parents of all these kids?


Where were the parents of the shooter?


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Where you ever a child and do you have children?
Have you ever shot at children being children?


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

So few facts,....soo many assumptions. This is what makes psy ops easy for the media to execute.

You can not escape human nature.....you can veer away at times, but it is the center they will always return to.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> Do you have any proof of that?


Are you serious?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lisa in WA said:


> Assault with a deadly weapon is illegal. Fleeing the scene is illegal. You can play your piddling and unimpressive, wanna-be lawyer word games all you want, but we both know if they find the guy who shot the kids...he’s going to jail.
> I have a question for you.
> Is it legal for a truck driver to take pictures with your phone from a moving vehicle?


You’re right assault with a deadly weapon is illegal but they do not seem to be wanting to charge the children with that ? I wonder why ,could it be because a lot of people seem to have this idea that they are just kids throwing just snowballs?
You know your position is untenable so you wanna make it about me?
What makes you think I’ve ever taken a picture from a moving Vehicle with my phone?
Is it some other conclusion you’re jumping to with no proof?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

SRSLADE said:


> Are you serious?


 Yes I am I can’t believe that there is a special class of protected people or protected weapons


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> You’re right assault with a deadly weapon is illegal but they do not seem to be wanting to charge the children with that ? I wonder why ,could it be because a lot of people seem to have this idea that they are just kids throwing just snowballs?
> You know your position is untenable so you wanna make it about me?
> What makes you think I’ve ever taken a picture from a moving Vehicle with my phone?
> Is it some other conclusion you’re jumping to with no proof?


Throwing a snowball at a car is not assault with a deadly weapon.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> Yes I am I can’t believe that there is a special class of protected people or protected weapons


Have you ever had ice fly off your truck when on the highway?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lisa in WA said:


> Throwing a snowball at a car is not assault with a deadly weapon.


 Why not ?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Go talk to a lawyer.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> Why not ?


Because 99% of the time, a snowball is equivalent to a Nerf ball.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> Why not ?


I hope you have no guns as you seem out of touch.


----------



## IlliniosGal (Jun 3, 2019)

oregon woodsmok said:


> So where were the parents of all these kids? A whole mob of neighborhood kids and not one parent looked over at them and said "hey knock it off. Stop throwing snowballs at cars"?
> 
> Nobody knew where all of those kids were or what they were doing?
> 
> Apparently a bad neighborhood and still multiple kids allowed to run around with not even a single parent in the entire neighborhood knew where any of them were or what they were doing?


Did it ever cross your mind that their parents were working? Most kids these days don't have a parent standing on top of them night and day.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

alleyyooper said:


> Yes I advacate shooting children who throw snow balls at cars and trucks.
> Didn't read the whole thing did you.
> 
> I just hope if some puke kids snow ball you while driveing you keep your wits about you and dont veer into uncoming traffic or even go the other way into a tree.
> ...


18 Is not a kid.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

So let me see if I have this straight. Some of you think it is okay if a snowball hits your car, you can stop the car, get out, and start firing into a bunch of kids? Your life is no longer threatened (I would argue it never was). You are no longer a reluctant participant. You are taking the law into your own hands. You are now the aggressor.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Wrong right wrong.
> *We let cops kill kids* cause they are afraid.


That's false information.



AmericanStand said:


> What makes you think I’ve ever taken a picture from a moving Vehicle with my phone?


We've seen the pictures.
It makes no difference whether or not you used a "phone".


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

alleyyooper said:


> Yes I advacate shooting children who throw snow balls at cars and trucks.
> Didn't read the whole thing did you.
> 
> I just hope if some puke kids snow ball you while driveing you keep your wits about you and dont veer into uncoming traffic or even go the other way into a tree.
> ...



Nice. 
Doubling down on inciting a felony.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's false information.
> 
> 
> We've seen the pictures.
> It makes no difference whether or not you used a "phone".


I think you are wrong on both counts. 
I’m pretty sure that cops have killed people simply because of their fear without coming under any actual attack and not being punished for it. 
I’m also pretty sure it does make a difference whether it’s legal or not whether I use a phone or not


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> I
> I’m pretty sure that cops have killed people


That's not the same as "letting" them shoot or kill anyone, which is your original claim.

They are not "allowed" to break the laws regarding the use of deadly force.
No one is "allowed" to break the laws concerning distracted driving either.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Throwing things at passing cars should be treated like yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> You’re right assault with a deadly weapon is illegal but they do not seem to be wanting to charge the children with that ? I wonder why ,could it be because a lot of people seem to have this idea that they are just kids throwing just snowballs?
> You know your position is untenable so you wanna make it about me?
> What makes you think I’ve ever taken a picture from a moving Vehicle with my phone?
> Is it some other conclusion you’re jumping to with no proof?


Can you find any legal precident that indicates a snowball was considered a deadly weapon? I looked pretty hard and couldn't even find an actual incident of someone being seriously injured by a snowball. As previously stated, I did find an article about a truck driver who drove in between some college students having a snowball fight. He stopped an shot one of the students to death and that particular judge did not seem to agree that taking a gun to a snowball fight was fair at all.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> What makes you think I’ve ever taken a picture from a moving Vehicle with my phone?
> Is it some other conclusion you’re jumping to with no proof?


I think the term is called "motion blur".


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

GTX63 said:


> I think the term is called "motion blur".


Lol you make way to many assumptions about things you don’t know , mom would’ve washed your mouth out for not making up stories.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol you make way to many assumptions about things you don’t know , mom would’ve washed your mouth out for not making up stories.



I’m still waiting for your examples of legal precedents where snowballs are considered a lethal weapon and maybe you could address the question of ice falling off commercial trailers.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

"According to the Wausau Municipal Code, the *snowball* is classified as a *weapon* and it is illegal to throw it at any other person or building. hunting provisions within 9.08. ... *Snowballs* can hurt people.Dec 4, 2019"

https://rare.us/rare-humor/town-outlaws-throwing-snowballs/

Lethal if it causes someone's death. Still legally a weapon.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

"The ordinance states that, “No person shall *throw* or shoot any object, arrow, stone, *snowball* or other missile or projectile, by hand or by any other means, at any other person or at, in or into any building, street, sidewalk, alley, highway, park, playground or other public place within the city.”Dec 25, 2019








Time Magazine › wisconsin-snowba..."

https://time.com/5755402/wisconsin-snowball-fight/


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

SRSLADE said:


> I hope you have no guns as you seem out of touch.


I don't think he can


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

wr said:


> I’m still waiting for your examples of legal precedents where snowballs are considered a lethal weapon and maybe you could address the question of ice falling off commercial trailers.


 Well you’re probably going to be Disappointed in looking up legal precedents is not my thing but if you want to argue that getting hit in the face with 1 pound rock in 100 mile an hour isn’t a problem you go for it
I just figured that would be obvious
As for ice coming off trailers wouldn’t that be more in your realm of expertise?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Until we find some people the willing to take a shot at my experimental stove bottle to the face I think we’re going to have to assume that most reasonable people think they’re pretty deadly


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Until we find some people the willing to take a shot at my experimental stove ball to the face I think we’re going to have to assume that most reasonable people think they’re pretty deadly


Cabin Fever said:


> So let me see if I have this straight. Some of you think it is okay if a snowball hits your car, you can stop the car, get out, and start firing into a bunch of kids? Your life is no longer threatened (I would argue it never was). You are no longer a reluctant participant. You are taking the law into your own hands. You are now the aggressor.


 You realize the scenario you present is not related to the OP that this thread is about?
There is no evidence that a couple of harmless snowballs hit the man’s car
In fact I would say the opposite for someone to start firing into a group with that type of accuracy I think he would’ve had to of taken a fairly dangerous lethal snowball to his person possibly enough to knock him senseless so that he had To stopat that point of course he would still be under fire and need to defend himself


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> Until we find some people the willing to take a shot at my experimental stove ball to the face I think we’re going to have to assume that most reasonable people think they’re pretty deadly
> 
> You realize the scenario you present is not related to the OP that this thread is about?
> There is no evidence that a couple of harmless snowballs hit the man’s car
> In fact I would say the opposite for someone to start firing into a group with that type of accuracy I think he would’ve had to of taken a fairly dangerous lethal snowball to his person possibly enough to knock him senseless so that he had To stopat that point of course he would still be under fire and need to defend himself


DO you even read? The OP' article said? They, threw the snowballs at a passing a passing vehicle. They did not surround a man and start to throw snowballs at him
*Police: 2 kids shot after throwing snowballs at passing vehicle*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Lethal if it causes someone's death. Still legally *a weapon*.


Now show the part of the statute which declares them "lethal" weapons and which permits the use of deadly force to defend against them.



wr said:


> I’m still waiting for your examples of legal *precedents where snowballs are considered a lethal weapon* and maybe you could address the question of ice falling off commercial trailers.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> You realize the scenario you present is *not related* to the OP that this thread is about?


Neither is most of what you've posted.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Now show the part of the statute which declares them "lethal" weapons and which permits the use of deadly force to defend against them.


If I had said it did you might have a leg to stand on but you don't.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> If I had said it did you might have a leg to stand on but you don't.


That's what was asked for.
That's what is required to allow the use of deadly force.
All you've managed to prove is it's illegal to throw most *anything* at someone in one small town.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's what was asked for.
> That's what is required to allow the use of deadly force.
> All you've managed to prove is it's illegal to throw most *anything* at someone in one small town.


I provided legal precedent that a snowball can be a weapon. Just as a fist can be a weapon. It becomes lethal when it takes a life. I don't have to dance your or anyone else's tune. I provided the legal path.All I wanted to provide.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> I provided legal precedent that a snowball can be a weapon. Just as a fist can be a weapon. It becomes lethal when it takes a life. I don't have to dance your or anyone else's tune. I provided the legal path.All I wanted to provide.


Legal precedent is only established by a court decision. Not by a law that is so silly, it’s about to be taken off the books.
Maybe there is a court decision that establishes precedent. But you didn’t provide anything that shows that.
One does wonder what your point is though. Do you believe a person who had a snowball thrown at his CAR has justification to discharge a firearm into a group of minors?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cabin Fever said:


> DO you even read? The OP' article said? They, threw the snowballs at a passing a passing vehicle. They did not surround a man and start to throw snowballs at him
> *Police: 2 kids shot after throwing snowballs at passing vehicle*


Not only do I read I comprehend!
“After”
Let me point out something else that are very few facts in here that have been confirmed this is all just pretty much the story some children told the cops after some people got shot.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> "The ordinance states that, “No person shall *throw* or shoot *any object*, arrow, stone, snowball or other missile or projectile, by hand or by any other means, at any other person or at, in or into any building, street, sidewalk, alley, highway, park, playground or other public place within the city.”*Dec 25, 2019*


That's the date of the story, not the ordinance:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/24/us/snowball-wausau-old-law.html

*



A television station reported — incorrectly — that the ordinance was passed only recently.

Click to expand...

*


> “In case that’s not clear to individuals in our community,” Chief Barnes said, reaching down in the city’s video to grab a handful of snow, “*a fun snowball fight is a fun snowball fight.* And that’s not something we enforce this ordinance with.”
> 
> He then turned and threw a snowball at Mayor Mielke, pelting him in the back of the neck.
> 
> No charges were expected.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> Legal precedent is only established by a court decision. Not by a law that is so silly, it’s about to be taken off the books.
> Maybe there is a court decision that establishes precedent. But you didn’t provide anything that does.


https://apnews.com/73937c17d2b4ba91a7c570ad51e891fe

HACKENSACK, N.J. (AP) _ A man whose photo became a symbol of out-of-control football fans has lost an appeal of his sentence for throwing a snowball during a football game.



Superior Court Judge Gerald C. Escala on Wednesday ruled that 26-year-old Jeffrey Lange’s fine and conviction were appropriate under the circumstances, since Lange had admitted throwing the snowball.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Neither is most of what you've posted.


Lol And neither is most of yours what is your point?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> https://apnews.com/73937c17d2b4ba91a7c570ad51e891fe
> 
> HACKENSACK, N.J. (AP) _ A man whose photo became a symbol of out-of-control football fans has lost an appeal of his sentence for throwing a snowball during a football game.
> 
> ...


what precedent does this establish? 
Are you not wanting to answer my other question?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/crime-scene/virginia/va-students-charged-with-felon.html

Harrisonburg police say throwing snowballs at occupied vehicles isn't a harmless prank.

Two James Madison University students learned that lesson the hard way. Each faces a felony charge for throwing snowballs at a city snowplow and an unmarked police car.

Harrisonburg Police Department spokeswoman Mary-Hope Vass says both 21-year-old students were charged Saturday with throwing missiles at occupied vehicles.

Vass says any object thrown at a vehicle can result in the felony charge.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> http://voices.washingtonpost.com/crime-scene/virginia/va-students-charged-with-felon.html
> 
> Harrisonburg police say throwing snowballs at occupied vehicles isn't a harmless prank.
> 
> ...


This is a story about someone being charged. No legal precedent is being set here.


It also needs to be about a snowball thrown at a car, not a person.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> https://apnews.com/73937c17d2b4ba91a7c570ad51e891fe
> 
> HACKENSACK, N.J. (AP) _ A man whose photo became a symbol of out-of-control football fans has lost an appeal of his sentence for throwing a snowball during a football game.
> 
> ...


I can find laws prohibiting snowballs but AS has repeatedly justified the shooting by classifying a snowball as a deadly weapon. 

I can’t find anything that establishes a snowball as such.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> Not only do I read I comprehend!
> “After”
> Let me point out something else that are very few facts in here that have been confirmed this is all just pretty much the story some children told the cops after some people got shot.


Whatever. I am responding to the OP, not some cockamamie that you've dreamed up to fit your position. If the shooting happened "after" the supposed deadly attack, they again, the driver was the aggressor and not defending his life. 

Photo below is an attack with deadly weapons according to American Strand....


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wr said:


> I can find laws prohibiting snowballs but AS has repeatedly justified the shooting by classifying a snowball as a deadly weapon.
> 
> I can’t find anything that establishes a snowball as such.


I never discussed that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Vass says *any object* thrown at a vehicle can result in the felony charge.


None of this has anything to to with snowballs being "*lethal* weapons".
(But you know that already) 



painterswife said:


> I never discussed that.


That's the whole point.
It's what everyone else was referring to before you started trying to "prove" something everyone knows and never mentioned.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> None of this has anything to to with snowballs being "*lethal* weapons".
> (But you know that already)


Speak for yourself. Don't attribute things to me that I have not discussed or stated. Anything can be a lethal weapon if it kills someone.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Well you’re probably going to be Disappointed in looking up legal precedents is not my thing but if you want to argue that getting hit in the face with 1 pound rock in 100 mile an hour isn’t a problem you go for it
> I just figured that would be obvious
> As for ice coming off trailers wouldn’t that be more in your realm of expertise?


You were asked if you ever lost ice off your trailer and since I have no idea of your driving or maintenance schedule, I’m not at all qualified to answer that question. I am qualified to discuss the professional driver who hurled a large rock through my windshield or the whiteouts that occur when professional drivers neglect to clean their trailers and can give you an idea of how overweight a load may be if a flatbed isn’t cleaned off.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cabin Fever said:


> Whatever. I am responding to the OP, not some cockamamie that you've dreamed up to fit your position. If the shooting happened "after" the supposed deadly attack, they again, the driver was the aggressor and not defending his life.
> 
> Photo below is an attack with deadly weapons according to American Strand....


 I have proposed an experiment for those that do not believe snow Ball can be a lethal weapon
None of which seem to want to try it out report the results to us .
Thatmakes me think that they don’t Have much confidence in their position. 
Please know that everything in the article except the shooting is based on the testimony of one group of children. 
Almost everything in this thread is based upon speculation
Except for the fact that snowballs can be a lethal weapon. 
That I am willing to scientifically proven.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

wr said:


> You were asked if you ever lost ice off your trailer and since I have no idea of your driving or maintenance schedule, I’m not at all qualified to answer that question. I am qualified to discuss the professional driver who hurled a large rock through my windshield or the whiteouts that occur when professional drivers neglect to clean their trailers and can give you an idea of how overweight a load may be if a flatbed isn’t cleaned off.


 What happened when the rock was hurled through your windshield?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Speak for yourself. Don't attribute things to me that I have not discussed or stated. *Anything can beca lethal weapon if it kills some one*.


Again you merely repeat something no one disputed.
And again, it has nothing to do with the actual context.
Patterns never change do they?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Again you merely repeat something no one disputed.
> And again, it has nothing to do with the actual context.
> Patterns never change do they?


Again your post says nothing about the topic at hand. Patterns never change as your post proves.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-20592422

Police are trying to trace a youth seen throwing a snowball at a passing vehicle which caused it to crash into another car in Dumfries.

The incident happened at about 15:40 on Monday on the town's Lochside Road.

The snowball hit the windscreen of a silver Ford Mondeo and resulted in the vehicle colliding with a passing silver Honda Civic.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Students throwing snowballs caused a two-bus accident and dozens of injuries.

Just after 3 p.m. Tuesday, police say a school bus driver near Sioux City High School stopped the bus when snowballs hit it. A city bus behind the school bus was unable to stop and hit the rear end of the school bus.

Most of the injuries were bumps and bruises, but one student was taken to the hospital as a precaution.

https://whotv.com/2013/02/27/bus-accident-thrown-snowballs-cause-crash/


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Again your post says nothing about the topic at hand.


The "topic at hand" is finding a legal precedent that states snowballs are "*lethal* weapons".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> The snowball hit the windscreen of a silver Ford Mondeo and resulted in the vehicle colliding with a passing silver Honda Civic.


LOL


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The "topic at hand" is finding a legal precedent that states snowballs are "*lethal* weapons".


Maybe your topic. I am discussing the point that throwing snowballs can be a weapon. You just seem to be discussing what you don't like about my posts.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> Maybe your topic. I am discussing the point that throwing snowballs can be a weapon. You just seem to be discussing what you don't like about my posts.


Well, that’s what you were trying to do earlier. Establish that there is a legal precedent.
Except you don’t really seem to know what one is.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> I have proposed an experiment for those that do not believe snow Ball can be a lethal weapon
> None of which seem to want to try it out report the results to us .
> Thatmakes me think that they don’t Have much confidence in their position.
> Please know that everything in the article except the shooting is based on the testimony of one group of children.
> ...


Okay, let's say for the sake of argument that snowballs are lethal weapons. A group of kids shoot their lethal snowball weapons at your vehicle. You are not hurt or maimed. Do you stop your vehicle, get out, and start shooting at them with a handgun??? I hope not.

Likewise, if I was driving down the street and a gang started shooting their handguns at me while I drove down the street and, even though it was hit, my vehicle was still functioning properly, the last thing that I would do is stop my vehicle, get out, and start shooting back.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Snowballs can be deadly weapons. That does not mean that they were deadly weapons in this instance. It does not mean that shooting was an appropriate response do the situation. I don't believe I could ever get to the point where I believed that shooting was an appropriate response to snowball being thrown at me. However we don't have all the information. We don't know what the shooter experienced. We just don't have enough information to judge the situation correctly.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> I provided legal precedent that a snowball can be a weapon. Just as a fist can be a weapon. It becomes lethal when it takes a life. I don't have to dance your or anyone else's tune. I provided the legal path.All I wanted to provide.


No you didn’t. These words have actual legal meanings...not just what you think they should mean. 
“Deadly weapon” and“legal precedent” are legal terms and don’t mean what you clearly think they do. 
You don’t have to dance to anyone’s tune and you can keep foolishly insisting that you’re right but you clearly are not.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> Snowballs can be deadly weapons. That does not mean that they were deadly weapons in this instance. It does not mean that shooting was an appropriate response do the situation. I don't believe I could ever get to the point where I believed that shooting was an appropriate response to snowball being thrown at me. However we don't have all the information. We don't know what the shooter experienced. We just don't have enough information to judge the situation correctly.


They are not legally “deadly weapons”.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cabin Fever said:


> Okay, let's say for the sake of argument that snowballs are lethal weapons. A group of kids shoot their lethal snowball weapons at your vehicle. You are not hurt or maimed. Do you stop your vehicle, get out, and start shooting at them with a handgun??? I hope not.
> 
> Likewise, if I was driving down the street and a gang started shooting their handguns at me while I drove down the street and, even though it was hit, my vehicle was still functioning properly, the last thing that I would do is stop my vehicle, get out, and start shooting back.


 All of that seems reasonable. Ie what a prudent man would do.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lisa in WA said:


> They are not legally, deadly weapons.


You keep saying that yet you offer no proof.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> You keep saying that yet you offer no proof.


Proving a negative? Show me proof that a snowball is a “deadly weapon”.


https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/deadly-weapon/

Please show how a plain snowball fits this definition. It may be illegal to throw snowballs at someone but that doesn’t mean it’s a “deadly weapon”. If one put something in a snowball to adapt it or made it in such a way that it would cause bodily injury than that is a different situation. But a plain snowball is not a deadly weapon.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Since we can’t seem to find anyone here that’s willing to take a snowball to the face I think that offers enough proof that they are considered a deadly weapon by most people.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> Since we can’t seem to find anyone here that’s willing to take a snowball to the face I think that offers enough proof that they are considered a deadly weapon by most people.


Oh well, you win.

The award for the most inane post of the day.

it doesn’t matter what “most people” think. It’s a legal term with a meaning that you clearly just don’t understand.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> Since we can’t seem to find anyone here that’s willing to take a snowball to the face I think that offers enough proof that they are considered a deadly weapon by most people.


I've taken many snowballs to the face. No a snowball is not a lethal weapon. Have you ever lived in snow country? You post like a southern who is afraid of a 1/2 inch snowfall.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I am discussing the point that throwing snowballs can be a weapon. You just seem to be discussing what you don't like about my posts.





> painterswife said: ↑
> I provided legal precedent that a snowball can be a weapon.


You've said the same thing several times, and it's just as irrelevant now as it was the first time. 



painterswife said:


> I don't have to dance your or anyone else's tune. I provided the legal path.*All I wanted to provide*.


Still *not* what was asked for though.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Cabin Fever said:


> I've taken many snowballs to the face. No a snowball is not a lethal weapon. Have you ever lived in snow country? You post like a southern who is afraid of a 1/2 inch snowfall.


I think anyone who has grown up in snow country has taken snowballs to the face. Or gotten “whitewashed”. 
Kids and snow...


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

painterswife said:


> https://apnews.com/73937c17d2b4ba91a7c570ad51e891fe
> 
> HACKENSACK, N.J. (AP) _ A man whose photo became a symbol of out-of-control football fans has lost an appeal of his sentence for throwing a snowball during a football game.
> 
> ...


I watched that game. I remember they were putting rocks in some of the snowballs. Many people were hurt. Some seriously. At least the ones that had rock snowballs thrown at them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Since we can’t seem to find anyone here that’s willing to take a snowball to the face *I think that offers enough proof* that they are considered a deadly weapon by most people.


It proves nothing at all about snowballs.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Since we can’t seem to find anyone here that’s willing to take a snowball to the face I think that offers enough proof that they are considered a deadly weapon by most people.


Most people don't want a snowball in the face because they're cold, not because they're going to put us in the hospital. 

We still have snowball fights in Alberta and the idea is not to stand with your arms limply at your sides and wait for a snowball in the face but it does happen and I've yet to hear of anyone dying. Thankfully, it's still considered good clean fun and nobody I know of, has ever felt the need to take a gun to a snowball fight.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

mreynolds said:


> I watched that game. I remember they were putting rocks in some of the snowballs. Many people were hurt. Some seriously. At least the ones that had rock snowballs thrown at them.


Rocks and other hard objects hidden is snow is unacceptable and someone should be punished.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

If this is you please seek treatment.






  





Chionophobia

*Chionophobia* is the extreme dislike or fear of snow. The word originates from Greek chion meaning snow and phobos meaning fear, aversion or *dread*. People with *Chionophobia* often understand that their fear is unfounded and weird. However, they are unable to control it.
*Fear of Snow Phobia - Chionophobia - FearOf.Net*

https://www.fearof.net › fear-of-snow-phobia-chionophobia


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Cabin Fever said:


> I've taken many snowballs to the face. No a snowball is not a lethal weapon. Have you ever lived in snow country? You post like a southern who is afraid of a 1/2 inch snowfall.


He does not live in a free state so I expect his answers to be somewhat the result of indoncrination and poor water.

The southerner afraid of snow was a shot and for it you can expect an insulated box of #13 mason jars full of 2 pound mosquitoes at your door via Fed Ex anytime.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That covers a lot of folks.
> The problem though is that until they are convicted or committed, they have all the same rights as everyone else.


That was my point. Don't go after my rights because of the actions of other people.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

wr said:


> Rocks and other hard objects hidden is snow is unacceptable and someone should be punished.


Exactly !
A snowball fight between friends usually involves people of goodwill with light fluffy snow balls. 
But as you acknowledge in this post anything else is unacceptable. 
Unfortunately some people have the ability and desire to turn something good fun and innocent in the something dark and evil. 
Let’s be aware of that


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Self aware would be even better.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lisa in WA said:


> Oh well, you win.
> 
> The award for the most inane post of the day.
> 
> it doesn’t matter what “most people” think. It’s a legal term with a meaning that you clearly just don’t understand.



Think “Prudent Man”


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

I just re read the article.
Nowhere is it mentioned that the kids were from "the project" housing.
Nowhere does it say that the kids lied to the police about the incident.
Nowhere does it give the nationality or color of the kids' skin.
Nowhere does it say that the kids were putting rocks inside of the snow balls.
Nowhere does it say that the 12 and 13 year old kids were actually throwing snowballs.
It did say that the snowball throwing was an "annoyance" , nothing about it being lethal.

AS your suggested experiment is so far from the facts of this article that it borders on rediculous .
You constantly ask people for proof. however you interject your opinions freely. Often with the prefix of "IF".
just how hard does a snowball have to be thrown to make it lethal in itself ?
I highly doubt that a 13 year old child could get the velocity needed.
If I am in a car, a group of kids could throw snowballs at me until their arms got too tired to raise them.
I am confident that I would not get killed..


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

[email protected] said:


> I just re read the article.
> Nowhere is it mentioned that the kids were from "the project" housing.
> Nowhere does it say that the kids lied to the police about the incident.
> Nowhere does it give the nationality or color of the kids' skin.
> ...


 Are you willing to try it as an experiment in real life?
Remember some of those kids can probably get them snowballs up into the 80 mph range
And of course we can add the velocity of your car to that.

What facts in this article?
Remember this article is almost entirely made up of the stories of children.
The ability to separate facts from Possibilities is important when evaluating the story
The only thing I’m willing to trust about the story is that some kids got shot.
There doesn’t seem to be any proof there even was a snowball fight, the man in the white Toyota part of it gets harder to believe as time goes past.
I think the scarcity of faxing the story is the reason this thread has devolved into a discussion of whether snowballs can be lethal or not
I think the scarcity of facts and the story is the reason this thread has devolved into a discussion of whether snowballs can be lethal or not.
I just can’t believe that anybody wants to argue the point a rock can’t be lethal. And that one would never be justified for reacting as if it was.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

there, you did it again, went from a snowball to a rock..
try to stay with the program.
we are talking about 13 year olds and snowballs.
I doubt that any of them can throw at 80 mph for any length of time to cause my car to disintegrate and leave me vulnerable..
I know you like to take the opposite side of every discussion. so I just adjust to that.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

[email protected] said:


> there, you did it again, went from a snowball to a rock..
> try to stay with the program.
> we are talking about 13 year olds and snowballs.
> I doubt that any of them can throw at 80 mph for any length of time to cause my car to disintegrate and leave me vulnerable..
> I know you like to take the opposite side of every discussion. so I just adjust to that.


 Lol a Snowball IS a rock. 
As for staying with the program did somebody say your car would disintegrate ?
I think a snowball is more likely to be dangerous to you than your car. 
Stay with the program no one is saying that those kids need to pitch a major league baseball game.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

And, to add to @[email protected] list in Post #237, no where did the article mention that there ever was a snowball to the driver's face.

A heavyweight boxer's punch to my face might be considered a lethal weapon. A heavyweight boxer's punch to my car, not a legal weapon.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Unfortunately some people have the ability and desire to turn something good fun and innocent in the something dark and evil.
> Let’s be aware of that


That has nothing to do with "lethal snowballs" either.
Let’s be aware of that.



AmericanStand said:


> Stay with the program no one is saying that those kids need to pitch a major league baseball game.


You're the only one who mentioned a "100 mph" snowball.
I think you're just rambling now:



AmericanStand said:


> Lol a Snowball IS a rock.


There's no point in continuing if you won't stick to reality.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cabin Fever said:


> And, to add to @[email protected] list in Post #237, no where did the article mention that there ever was a snowball to the driver's face.
> 
> A heavyweight boxer's punch to my face might be considered a lethal weapon. A heavyweight boxer's punch to my car, not a legal weapon.


That’s quite perceptive but if you look carefully at the article it does not say where the snowballs landed
So you don’t know that they didn’t land in his face. 
You don’t even know that he had a face or a car


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That has nothing to do with "lethal snowballs" either.
> Let’s be aware of that.
> 
> 
> ...


What reality? There’s no reality at all anywhere in this thread 
The article in the OP has one Fact ,some kids were shot ,that’s the only fact there.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Read the article carefully
The first thing to be aware of is the police are reporting what the children told them
As for the thing about the snowball hitting the white Toyota again it does not say where
Did it hit it in the grill it hit the gym or did it hit the white Toyota’s drivers face?


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

I think it is safe to say that this thread has made us all a little bit dumber for having read it. Please, please put it out of its misery....


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol a Snowball IS a rock.
> As for staying with the program did somebody say your car would disintegrate ?
> I think a snowball is more likely to be dangerous to you than your car.
> Stay with the program no one is saying that those kids need to pitch a major league baseball game.


A snowball is not a rock.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

the article doesn't say if the snowballs even hit the car.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Best I can figger is this.
A God fearin man was a driven down the road happily snapin pictures with his brownie not so instamatic. All of a sudden two snot nosed near do wells started pelltin said saintly man in the face with stones wrapped in ice balls. Those balls was a travlin 100 miles a hour maybe more.
That there man suffered a great and manly shock.
Slamming on his brakes all the ice on the roof of the truck slid off hitting a van full of nuns. Those there nuns never knew what hit um. All dead on the side the road.
Meenswhile back at the truck the mans hand went for the trusted sidearm. A single shot 22 grandpa got for sellin seeds in the summer of 29.
Well let me tell ya that man got out the truck an layd down some heavy fire. Striking 2 young children playing snowballs. 
The man now feels vindicated after suffrin such a manly shock.
Dam near do wells.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

wr said:


> A snowball is not a rock.


It’s not ?
When did they change the rules ?
Last I heard it was a rock made of the mineral H2O with possible other mineral inclusions


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> the article doesn't say if the snowballs even hit the car.


It not only says it, but it's been posted in the thread.
I'm out too, since some aren't reading and others are not sticking to reality at all.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> What reality? There’s no reality at all anywhere in this thread
> The article in the OP has one Fact ,some kids were shot ,that’s the only fact there.


If the only fact is that two kids got shot, how can you defend the shooter by insisting that snowballs are a lethal weapon and why your insistence on defending someone that shot two kids?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

The kids said ONE snowball hit a passing Toyota. 
How much reality is in that ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

wr said:


> If the only fact is that two kids got shot, how can you defend the shooter by insisting that snowballs are a lethal weapon and why your insistence on defending someone that shot two kids?


 Great question !
Simple because we have no idea what else actually happened or didn’t. 
I insist on innocence till proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. 
I would hate for my life to hang on the Accuracies of the accounts of 12 year olds .


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

wr said:


> If the only fact is that two kids got shot, how can you defend the shooter by insisting that snowballs are a lethal weapon and why your insistence on defending someone that shot two kids?


I see the lethalness of snowballs as a second issue


----------



## stachoviak[email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> bad kids with snow balls. self defense ?


not serious in case you couldn't tell.


----------

