Gun Debaters, Read this and tell me what you think.

[popeye]

The priest deserved to be shot....for going outside unarmed.  If he had the good sense to carry a gun, he could have killed the kid the instant he felt threatened, then dragged the body into his house.

End of problem.

[AKDejaVu]

I don't think this falls into the "gun debate" toad.

This is a situation where the jury (public) is flooded with "Priests have gotten away with rape for so long.... they deserve whatever they get" mentality.  I have to admit... it would have been a tough decision for me to make.

AKDejaVu

[H. Godwineson]

The priest was innocent until proven guilty.  It would be hard to convince me that the attacker did not plan violence.  If he just wanted an apology, why did he carry the pistol with him?  Undoubtedly, since he is accused of multiple firearms violations, he did not have a carry permit for what was probably an unregistered weapon.  Every citizen is entitled to his day in court, there to be tried by a jury of his peers who will render fair and impartial judgement.

Then you take him out and shoot him.  

Regards, Shuckins

[Gunthr]

This is an outrage! The shooter should have been sentenced to mandatory re-training at the gun range.

[lazs2]

I don't think this has anything to do with guns.   My first thought was... great.. A high profile case where a gun was used to essentially commit murder.... course... then I thought... great... this one will go under "gun was used to kill someone you knew".... an aquantinence as they say...  Like it was a friend or something and your gun chased the poor innocent 'aquaintenance' down and shot him for no reason...

As to the crime of killing and.... the jury.... well... best that the child molester is dead.. they don't ever get cured.  put him out of his misery and not inflict him any longer on the rest of us... Other than that... the jury did a good thing... wrong according to the law but.... just.   Letting the shooter go isn't going to endager anyone else... this guys murdering days are over IMO.   I don't feel threatened by him.
lazs

[ra]

The victim survived, the charge was attempted murder.

[aknimitz]

I like the decision. If the powers that be are not going to deal with the priests and send a message, then I would as a jury member.

Besides, not that this is anywhere near as bad as jailtime, but he did get a substantial amount of house arrest, what 18-36 mos wasnt it?

Nim

[Dago]

This is an outrage! The shooter should have been sentenced to mandatory re-training at the gun range

Agreed!


Next, they should Cardinal Law in prison for life for his role in allowing those sexual predators of the Catholic church to be allowed continued access to children.  Let him do time with some with big mean dudes given him some of their loving, see what he thinks of forced homosexual rape.  

Should a person be able to shoot a clergy member who abused him?  No, but I would be in favor of allowing the guy to beat this living crap outta the Priest, followed by mandatory castration of the Priest.

If anyone had done this to one of my sons, I cannot promise you I wouldn't have killed him myself.

dago

[StSanta]

Guys, don't confuse the two crimes. They are to be tried independently.

So that would mean that the question is: do you think it's right that someone shoots another person out of revenge?

The Vikings had sort of that view. Read the Icelandic sagaes to figure out how well that worked...

[lazs2]

oops... I broke the first rule... I didn't read it.
lazs

[Toad]

Well, thanks.

Missed Beetle and Nashwan in here though.

This was my first thought:

What sort of message did our society/legal system just send? That it's fine to shoot someone if they have wronged you in a way that is currently a "sympathetic" hot topic?

For those of you that say this isn't a "gun problem" I totally disagree.

We DO have more murders per capita than most other industrialized nations. This verdict gives a type of authorization for more of the same.

The priest should "get his" from the legal system if the charges can be proved.

The guy that shot him should definitely "get his" because the charges are proven..... they just let him go though.

I think it sux, sorry.

[lazs2]

Ok.. new take.

I don't think he should get off scott free..  I also think that the real problem is that there is a lack of confidence in the justice system.  

If the shooter, or any of us, could have been assured that a child mollester would be sentenced to a reasonable time in prison... life without possibility of parole... then this would not happen ... I also think that a mandatory sentence for crimes of violence commited with firearms would be of benifiet too.
lazs

[Nashwan]

I didn't post because I don't think it's a gun issue.

I think the shooter should have been convicted, and sentenced accordingly. He was probably abused by the priest, but I'd rather trust the legal system than vigilanties and lynch mobs to make that decision. Even if he was abused, it doesn't make him not guilty of the crime, although it might offer some mitigation.

[AKDejaVu]

Sorry Toad... the gun was not the issue.  He could simply have beat the man too.

The decision of the court is the issue, and had little to do with the instrument used to commit the crime.

As for the decision and the whole situation... it somewhat reminds me of "A time to kill".  I still think that it is easier to sit back and say what should have happened to the defendant when you don't have to think "what would I have done if it was my child".

AKDejaVu

[Toad]

Like I said, it sends the message that using a gun against a person is "ok" and not punishable.

Why do we have a higher gun homicide rate than other industrialized countries?

There's one reason, I think.