Discussion in 'General Weapons Discussion' started by KenpoTex, Oct 16, 2004.
Yes it was, that is a very good observation, I for one thank you...
First, I am not your padawan. Never have been. Never will be. If I were, I would find another master as your pomposity and condescension are quite offensive.
I had read all of the linked articles. The only one remotely supporting your contention is the police press release. The others say things like "the homeowner opened fire during a burglary" and "the homeowner shot one in the face and the others quickly fled." I suspect the "and" in the police press release is where the "disconnect" occured, as all the other reports differ from the press release, but are consistent with each other. Further, you took the "he shot to stop them" out of the context of the paragraph. I don't think, taken in context, that your interpretation is any more likely than the interpretation of virtually every other participant in this discussion.
Frankly, the prior is far more likely. You have been operating under the assumption that four escaped convicts would simply run when confronted by a homeowner returning home. I don't believe they would run at the mere sight of the homeowner. If they thought he had a wallet, with a little cash in it, they'd try to get that too. Hey, they outnumber him 4 to 1. They ran after he started firing. That's why the guy was hit in the face. Your interpretation of the events stretches credulity.123
Separate names with a comma.