[bkrich83]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bumi

There wasn't any collateral damage. Yes, in this instance, he'd stopped. Today's body bag session with Talib's sister had concluded. I'm fully and completely aware of that. Wasn't the first time he thought it'd be cool to beat her up, likely wouldn't have been the last. So, some shots were fired at him. I say, good.

No there wasn't any collateral damage. But the risk of it due to this behavior is extreme. I've seen first hand up close and personal the fallout from non involved parties being hit by gunfire. Your sense of defending the meek becomes moot when you are risking the lives of innocents around given the fact the victim was not in imminent danger of death when the shots were fired.

Quote: Originally Posted by Bumi

In which situation would retribution become appropriate?

I thought he was protecting those who couldn't protect themselves. But now it's retribution? Which is it? I am sorry but the risk of hitting an innocent bystander or causing damage to property far outweigh someone sense of retribution or revenge. This is not 19th century old west.

Quote: Originally Posted by Bumi

And it's people with attitudes kin to your own that lead to the deaths of 1400 American women per year. You know, the ones that the authorities did such a tremendous job helping.

Yes because opening fire in the middle of a residential neighborhood is the answer to this problem. Well thought out. Again, way to give the anti gun lobby more ammo..

You can use hyperbole and stats all you want. Given the circumstances there is no way to excuse or justify his actions. There simply isn't.. Someday maybe you will get it. But I get the feeling you are one of those who for reasons I won't discuss, won't get it.