Should you be able to continue shooting people that owe you?

[britboy4321]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... x-him.html

Obviously if someone says they're going to give you something for money, and then they don't, you should be able to shoot them with your assault rifle. I guess that goes without saying. For example if my friend gave me $8 to buy him coca cola, and I bought and ate a Macdonalds instead, I guess it's only reasonable for me to expect to be shot with his assault rifle. It's how decent law-abiding people roll.

My question is this: Do you think, whilst she lay in the hospital bed, the law-abiding guy should have been able to shoot her more if she still didn't pay back his money? Say, 1 shot to the torso for every night she didn't 'return his property' (and the price of the ammo added to her debt), or do you think this is too much?


To be honest I even thought the original shooting was a bit over the top, but I'm trying to see this from the pro-gunner's point of view .. ?

[Philly]

8 dollars for a coke?

[britboy4321]

[John Galt]

[eynon81]

damn Texas and their pro-defense juries!

[John Galt]

it was really a f**k up on the prosecution's part. if someone is shooting recklessly at something and someone dies as a result, that's manslaughter.

since the tires got shot out and it ricocheted into her, it's clear he's either a 1. horrible shot or 2. telling the truth he was shooting at the car (and one must give him the benefit of the doubt, because if there is a doubt, one must acquit) it means that murder would easily be argued against by a defense attorney. right enyon?

if they charged him with rape instead because he wanted to have sex with her for money they would acquit too. they charged him with the wrong crime. damn those juries, actually doing their job

[gla22]

Guy is a scumbag piece of shit

[Stratego]

The system is broken. Systema however, is not.

[Medius]

[Jean Dubois]