Shoot or no shoot?

Status
Not open for further replies.

araiford

Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Messages
120
Location
Old Dominion
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...ews.html?in_article_id=450540&in_page_id=1773

Rod's anguish as son arrested over violent attack on couple
By TAHIRA YACOOB -

Last updated at 12:45pm on 25th April 2007
The son of rock star Rod Stewart is to be quizzed by police after allegedly launching a violent unprovoked attack on a couple.

Sean Stewart, 26, has been accused of hospitalising a woman during an assault with a weapon after being refused entry to a party.


The model, who is currently appearing in TV reality show Sons of Hollywood, lost his temper when he turned up at the bash in the Hollywood hills near his LA home with two male friends.


Stewart was said to have become upset when they were told they were not welcome and he was taunted by revellers leaving the party, then in full swing.

His trio began throwing bricks, rocks, a mailbox and bin at a car parked nearby, smashing the windscreen and sending glass flying.

Then as shocked bystanders looked on, Stewart allegedly yanked open the door and the three men began punching a man and a woman inside.

The woman suffered "massive lacerations to her legs" - allegedly from shards of glass from the broken windscreen - and was taken to Cedars Sinai Hospital, according to US reports.

Police - who refused to confirm the identity of the three men involved in the 3am attack - said a parking warden called officers after witnessing the incident.

A spokesman from the Los Angeles police department added: "The transport officer had been called to the road because of the number of illegally parked cars and was issuing tickets when the incident happened.

"A couple were leaving the address in a Ford pick-up truck when the three suspects threw objects at the vehicle, including bricks, stones and a mailbox.

"The objects smashed the windscreen and the three men continued to throw objects which landed inside the car. The female occupant received cuts from broken glass.

"At one point the three suspects tried to pull the occupants out of their car and were punching them."

Witnesses told entertainment website tmz.com that Stewart became angry at "mocking comments from people leaving the party, laughing at him for being stuck outside."

Stewart's questioning by police will come as a setback for his 62-year-old father, who thought his son was getting his life in order after his problematic teen years...
 
I think if 3 raving lunatics broke the windows out on my car and were dragging my, now bloodied, wife from the car, they would be getting shot.
I guess the poor folks in the article were unarmed.
 
A couple were leaving the address in a Ford pick-up truck when the three suspects threw objects at the vehicle, including bricks, stones and a mailbox.

A vehicle is a pretty potent weapon by itself. Why not just hammer the accelerator and get away? If the vehicle becomes disabled or blocked in then the guns come out.
 
Provoking or taunting the guys (though it's unclear if the victims were involved in that) won't look good in court, but I'd definitely have considered shooting once they were throwing bricks and stones - they'll break your bones. :D

Sorry.

I think in many places being in a vehicle is an assumption of ability to flee unless the attacker has a gun. However, I think they were reasonably in fear for their lives, especially after the attackers started trying to pull them out of the car. I'd probably have started shooting at that point.
 
Don't shoot.

Go back to the party, get six or eight burly friends, subdue the brats, and hold them until the police arrive.
 
Rephrase the question...

to "kill or no kill?"

Are their actions bad enough that, legally and morally, killing them is an acceptable and necessary response? The answer may well be "yes" but I feel it is important to be clear that shooting is not some righteous, romanticized response without consequences.

And I think the actual response, if killing/shooting is acceptable and necessary, is not to shoot but to do whatever is necessary to stop them. Up to and including shooting but stopping whenever the threat has ended.

I have absolutely no problem with using deadly force if it is necessary but I feel too many people casually think about "shooting" without clearly understanding what it means.
 
Shoot them. If there gone no one can idolize them. Break to chain of stupidity.

"I think the gene pool needs some more chlorine"
 
Then as shocked bystanders looked on
If these darned bystanders had showed an ounce of initiative, there'd be little need. But as bystanders must be bystanders, I think people tossing bricks and other stuff are engaged in a violent assault. They've got numbers and they launched the attack, and your life can very well be in danger.
 
The guy was an a-hole and deserves to compensate everybody for his or her damaged property and wasted time, but it really burns me when people ham up their injuries for the sake of feeding the lawyers.

The woman suffered "massive lacerations to her legs" - allegedly from shards of glass from the broken windscreen - and was taken to Cedars Sinai Hospital, according to US reports.

That tempered safety glass is killer stuff. Yep. I've literally taken a handful of shattered auto glass and ground it around in my fist--with no ill effects. In retrospect that was probably foolish, but safety glass is amazing stuff. I don't think this lady or her spokesman knows what a "massive laceration" is. I can't stand hypochondriacs.
 
Shovelhead said:
Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, reload.
See, now this is why I got my XD instead of a 1911.
Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, reload, and repeat. when youre out of mags, if the threat is still a threat and not more like potato salad, then you're fighting a polar bear wearing class IIIa body armor. :neener:

In all seriousness, I'm going to have to say shoot, in the sense that all legal precursors took place, such as drawing the weapon, issuing the command to cease their attack and drop any weapon, and if they do not, then its gotime.

To those who say that they wouldn't shoot, I ask, when the heck would you shoot!? And why do you carry!? To me, this is the definition of a situation where a handgun comes in handy.
 
As soon as they reached into the vehicle and tried to drag the occupants out, deadly force was justified (at least in this state). If the occupants felt their life was threatened, or great bodily hard intended, defence is justified. Being in Ca., you probably had to wait till you were dead before force could be "justified".:banghead:
 
"The objects smashed the windscreen and the three men continued to throw objects which landed inside the car. The female occupant received cuts from broken glass.

"At one point the three suspects tried to pull the occupants out of their car and were punching them."
Based on this it seems that a reasonable person would conclude there was a design on the part of the assailants to commit great personal injury; seems pretty obvious. Shooting justified. I believe, however, that if a jury concluded that you could have driven away before the door was pulled open you would be in deep ***t.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top